| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear all, (snip) >funding?) implications. Also, some of the scientists who have international publications on evolution, are themselves believers in >God. These scientists are sometimes accused to use evolution only as a funding opportunity, but when it comes to their personal life, >they don't believe in what they publish. I believe they are free in doing that, but what matters here is that these scientists will not Are they really? To me it smells of hypocrisy. Maybe you find it surprising, but I think it is true that some practitioners of evolutionary biology don't believe what they publish. From my student days I remember a creationist student majoring in biology. When I asked him what he would do if he had to include evolutionary theory in his written MSc thesis, he said that he would include Darwinism technically as well as he could, if the scientific subject requires it, but that wouldn't mean that he believes it really happened that way. But honestly saying I think you lose credibility as both a Christian and a scientist this way. I find it unacceptable. (snip) > Another evidence against creationist and intelligent design comes from philosophy. The state of knowledge in philosophical >discussions on religious experience, ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments, the argument from miracles, ... is >definitely in favor of evolution. The debate is probably more open when dealing with the Big Bang theory. I am mostly familiar with Daniel Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I don't like his "philosophy disproves the existence of God"-approach, but otherwise the book contains great philosiphical underpinning of Darwinism. By the way, Dennet thought, reading between the lines of Stephen Gould's writings, that Gould actually didn't really believe in Darwinism... Ken
Partial index: