Re: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 17:02:12 EDT

Exactly Bob. I am afraid Denyse cant see the difference between evolution ,
Darwinism a la Gray or Darwinism a la Dawkins, with the result that what she
says is confusion appealing to viscera rather than neurons.

Am I a Darwinist? That will depend on how you define Darwinist. A useful
book for all to read is Jim Moore's the Post=Darwinian controversies.

Is Ted as confused over his TE status as I am?!!!!! However I think he
overstates the equivalence of Asa Gray and Behe. I find Gray far less ID
than Ted indicates. (recommend people to read his Darwiniana - a lovely book
and still fresh as the day it was published in 1876.

I am also at one with both popes on this.Probably Polkinhorne and Ted's
friend Peacocke are as well


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <>
To: "Ted Davis" <>; <>; "Keith Miller"
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!

> Historian of science John Greene was once conversing with Theodosius
> Dobzhansky and mentioned him in the same breath with Ernst Mayr: "Don't
> put Mayr and me in the same boat," Dobzhansky replied, "he is an agnostic
> and I am a Russian Orthodox Christian." (I hope my memory is correct on
> the words of the quotation.)
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Davis" <>
> To: <>; <>; "Keith Miller"
> <>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: New Pope on Darwinism - NO!
>>I heard Roman Catholic evolutionist Michael Behe (and yes, you read that
>> description accuately) speak this past weekend at Dover High School, not
>> 15
>> miles from my home. In response to questions from the audience, he very
>> clearly stated that he accepts the common descent of humans and other
>> organisms, and that he accepts that the universe is billions of years
>> old.
>> He pointed out that his questions concern only whether or not Darwinian
>> mechanisms are completely adequate to account for the origin of
>> complexity
>> in living things.
>> I've long felt that his views are very similar to those of Asa Gray, the
>> first American Darwinian. I would call Gray in some ways an advocate of
>> "intelligent design" while also being an evolutionist who endorsed
>> natural
>> selection as operative to produce speciation. My sense is that Behe
>> would
>> agree with Gray about that.
>> Now, it is true that Behe's approach to ID is minimalist; he described
>> his
>> own view as "mere ID," since he accepts a lot of science that other IDs
>> don't, esp the part about common descent. He also clearly rejects the
>> reductionism that is very often seen as linked necessarily to Darwinism.
>> IMO, his type of TE position (er, excuse me, ID position) fits the new
>> pope's statement. And so did Asa Gray's position, and so does mine.
>> Ernst Mayr's position, on the other hand, very clearly did not.
>> Ted
Received on Tue Apr 26 17:14:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 17:14:27 EDT