Posted on 07/22/2009 7:26:42 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
In the introduction to Steve Gould's book, “The Richness of Life- The Essential Steven Jay Gould, editor Steven Rose, on pg. 2, paragraph 1, ln. 18, “ “the modern synthesis” of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics, is uncontested.”
Gould in the same book, chapter, “I Have Landed”, pg. 17, paragraph 3, ln. 3, “founding generation of Darwinism”.
And Gould uses the term about dozen times more and not in quoting others or as a pejorative.
Page 222, He uses “neo-Darwinism” but in every case to refer to believers in evolution.
Need more? I gave enough to show you're wrong and if you need more you can inquire of the kindly Gooooogle.
I am man enough to admit that I was incorrect.
You are the first person I have seen here to actually provide supporting evidence
Good Job! I guess I need to have a word with Dr Gould. ;-)
I don’t do seances but if you put your hands on the screen I’ll hold his books real close to my screen. Ready?
LOL...........yup you got me again!
Bravo!
Good night and cheers!
All words are made up. ‘Evolutionism’ just happens to be a word that you don’t like. I know how you feel. There are any number of words that I don’t like. Most of them are associated with an attempt to achieve political domination.
”Science is not philosophy. There is no way to equate a scientific theory with a philosophy.”
I quite agree. To convince a number of your antagonists, however, you will first need to persuade Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Daniel Dennett, William B. Provine, everyone at Berkeley who endorses the Berkeley website evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01), which features what it calls “From soup to cells – the origin of life,” and everyone at all the universities whose science websites list the Berkeley website as a recommended resource, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Marc Hauser, Victor Stenger, and a whole host of other Atheist, Agnostic, or Science sycophants, that Science doesn’t do philosophy. The failure of Science’s protagonists to sing off the same page is one very important reason why you will continue to have so much trouble convincing Conservative Christians that the Theory of Evolution does not incorporate the origins of life, does not lead one to the conclusion that ‘1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent,’ and that Evolution advocates do not seek unrestrained access to public monies for the purpose of controlling and advancing a public indoctrination agenda. It just may be that Conservative Christians are more inclined to believe all those eminent scientists and all those university websites rather than your declarations to the contrary.
”Creationism is neither a scientific theory . . . ”
Creationism is a theory about the origin of existence, including the origin of life. It includes the use of scientific knowledge as a source of confirmation, yes, but in the form of a scientific theory, no.
”. . . nor a philosophy . . . ”
It isn’t?! The Oxford Companion To Philosophy carries quite a number of pages devoted to the subject of religion, with an emphasis on Christianity and Western Civilization, and with topical headings such as: history of the philosophy of religion; problems of the philosophy of religion; skepticism about religion; religion and epistemology; religion and morality; religion, art, and science; religious belief and cosmology; and a host of other topics, including an article on “Atheism and Agnosticism.” The Companion also carries articles on a number of philosophers noted for their Christian orientation. You’ll have a difficult time convincing people that Christianity is not philosophy. One has to wonder why you would even want to. Perhaps it has to do with the clear desire of some to disqualify Christianity from inclusion in any civilized discussion conducted in Western Culture.
”. . . it is a religious belief.”
Creationism is a philosophical tenet of Christianity. It is a religious belief. It is not a religion. Christianity is the religion. Creationism does not inform Christianity, just as the tail does not wag the dog. Christianity informs Creationism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.