Re: Teaching Evolution - Childs Perspective

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 09:44:32 EDT


Just wondering if you'd gain more respect for your ideas if you
refrained from using bold type face and large fonts quite so often?
It reminds me of the of the vicar whose sermon notes had the marginal
comment AWSL. On being asked what this meant he said "Argument Weak,
Shout Louder". If your arguments are good, then you should not have
to resort to hectoring bold large fonts to reinforce them - the power
should be behind the quality of argument, not the presentation.


On 9/16/05, janice matchett <> wrote:
> "I always found Gould a very entertaining writer. He certainly held
> strongly that science and religion occupied exclusive arenas ... " ~ Al
> McCarrick
> The poor soul may have been "a victim" of the mental confusion that results
> from holding polar opposite ideas, attitudes and beliefs simultaneously
> (cognitive dissonance). To wit:
> 1992: "To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time
> (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by
> its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible
> superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't
> comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward
> statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs.
> McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally
> treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be
> God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic
> explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like
> God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example)." Stephen Jay Gould,
> "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific American, 267(1), July 1992;
> from Liz R. Hughes, ed., Reviews of Creationist Books, Berkely, CA: The
> National Center for Science Education, Inc., 1992, pp. 79-84. Freethought
> Zone
> 1991: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us."
> Gould, Stephen Jay in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History,"
> Penguin: London UK, 1991, p.267.
> 1988: "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin
> anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because
> the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and
> tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has
> managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a higher
> answer -- but none exists." Stephen Jay Gould, Life magazine, December 1988,
> from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
> ~ Janice
> At 07:49 AM 9/16/2005, Mccarrick, Alan D CIV NSWCCD Philadelphia, 9212
> wrote:
> Terry,
> I always found Gould a very entertaining writer. He certainly held
> strongly that science and religion occupied exclusive arenas (NOMA - Non
> Overlapping Magestera - my Latin spelling is suspect - did Gould invert this
> term?). Science occupies the "real" world of facts, and religion... well..
> uh... um... makes us feel better... says things about morals (which science
> should better inform us)... comforts us in sickness and death. I sensed
> that he relegated religion to a purely subjective world. Polkinghorn
> describes this view of religion as "whistling in the dark" and "loving lies"
> told to comfort children. I think that describes Gould's religion.
> Yes, Gould sees a role for religion - a small silly role indeed.
> I wish I new more about Gould's last days, whether he wrote or talked much
> about spiritual things.
> Al McCarrick
> Terry wrote:
> I'm quite surprised that you lump Gould and Dawkins together. I never
> counted Gould as a believer, but I never counted him in any way as an
> advocate of scientism.

There are 3 types of people in the world.
Those who can count and those who can't.
Received on Fri Sep 16 09:45:44 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 09:45:44 EDT