From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 13:30:42 EST
For IT reasons that I fail to understand, the format of my recent post was
transformed into one which no longer distinguished between what I was
quoting and what I wrote. Here's another try:
In response to my earlier commendation of Ruse's approach, Rich Aussette
> Except that it is a marked contrast to the reality of the sciences as
> presented in David sloan Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral who claims
> functionlaism in the social sciences and evolutionary biology were hijacked
> in the '60s by social scientists to deny group selection in order to
> disenfranchise any claim that religious belief and practice were efficacious
> for those practicing them.
One could just as well argue that the denial of group selection serves an
example of good science being hijacked by one religious worldview (perhaps
an atheistic one) to give the appearance of discrediting the efficacy of
other religious worldviews (theistic ones). As such, it would be a rather
self-defeating strategy, would it not?
> Ruse has the reality backward. It is NOT science that is being kidnapped by
> religion but religion being deliberately and *incorrectly* undermined by
> science. Wilson calls religion adaptive.
As I noted above, it looks to me like a case of one religious worldview
battling another religious worldview by attempting to kidnap and exploit
science as its ally. In the process, good objective science becomes the
Is that not what also happens in the evolutionism versus creationism debate?
[where "evolutionism" here signifies evolutionary science kidnapped by
maximal naturalism, and "creationism" here signifies a highly selective and
unconventional science kidnapped by supernatural interventionism, whether of
the "creation science" or ID variety.]
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 14:35:29 EST