RE: Teaching Evolution - Childs Perspective

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 10:32:07 EDT

I make a distinction between different kinds of knowledge and their
respective subject matter. One may place the study of the physical
universe in a disciple quite distinct from the kind of knowledge known
as theology/religion. However, humans are a mixture of the physical and
the nonphysical. Their nature cannot be separated in the same fashion
that we separate different kinds of knowledge in order to make their
study more methodical and thus simpler. Humans are rather complex and
only by integrating all kinds of knowledge can we get a true picture of
what man is.





From: [] On
Behalf Of Mccarrick, Alan D CIV NSWCCD Philadelphia, 9212
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: Teaching Evolution - Childs Perspective


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.
Received on Fri Sep 16 10:33:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 10:33:54 EDT