Re: The Washington Post "Dissing Darwian"

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 05:51:50 EDT

To continue the discussion on Wedges, both YEC and ID have invented Wedges
to divide Christian against Christian and to unite all other Christian and
non-Christian against them.

The problem is that also Christians form alliances to oppose either YEC or

All this results in the popular view on both sides of the pond that religion
is contrary to science and "real" Christians oppose "Darwinism".
As Ted says it all stems from using the conflict thesis of Ted's favourite
writer AD White, and ID and YEC invert the goodies and baddies.

I agree with Ted's criticism of Gould on NOMA. I see science and
Christianity as overlapping and also that theology has to be expressed in
the science of the day whether in Genesis One, R Boyle, A Gray or any of us.
That does not mean that theology is under science as ID and YEC often make

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>; <>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: The Washington Post "Dissing Darwian"

>>>> Rich Blinne <> 6/3/2005 12:07:41 PM >>>writes:
> I think you can get some Darwinists to admit this point. If the goal with
> respect to the public schools was true neutrality with respect to all
> metaphysical conclusions you might get a consensus. Change your wedge and
> split the Gouldians from the Saganites. Right now the current strategy
> gets
> the two camps to ally with each other against a common anti-Darwinist
> enemy.
> Most of the current educational proposals, however, have a much more
> Gouldian flavor and the Gouldians are asking for religious allies. Even if
> we cannot stomach such an alliance at the very least we should encourage
> that from the outside.
> Ted replies:
> The "wedge" strategy is not of my making, and I don't endorse it. I
> accept
> the general validity of MN, and I agree that public schools should aim for
> true neutrality, though I do not believe that we can really achieve that
> without allowing parents to pick their own educational philosophies,
> including various religious ones.
> As for Gould, which Gould are we referring to? His NOMA partly
> contradicts
> some of his more famous utterances about religion; and the NOMA concept
> itself is insulting to many religious people, since Gould's NOMA is just
> AD
> White's warfare thesis: religion has ethical value, but no ability to make
> statements about actual reality. Thus religion must be shorn of theology
> in
> order to be acceptable to modern minds. That's White all over again, and
> Gould knew it.
> Ted
Received on Sat Jun 4 05:59:00 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 05:59:08 EDT