Andrew wrote:
> it seems to be widely accepted in the religion and
science community (for instance by the members of the Institute on
Religion in an Age of Science, http://www.iras.org) that Dawkins is
doing more harm to science than good...
I found myself agreeing with Dawkins's open letter to Prince Charles,
especially this point: "Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical
opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention
from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored.
The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that
a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered.
Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are
drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'"
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4020558,00.html
Also, the precautionary principle continues its advance, with the
Conservative Party calling for a moratorium on new waste incinerators. The
policy is being pushed by Archie Norman (whose understands populism from his
days at Asda). The Tories, as ever, add a distinctive new twist. The
moratorium will last "until independent *British* scientific evidence proves
they are safe." At least, someone is standing up for home-grown science...
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4020160,00.html
David
-------------------------------------
David Steven
River Path Associates
http://www.riverpath.com
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1202 849993 (work)
+44 (0)7939 038832 (mobile)
61a West Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1LX, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew C. Millard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 May 2000 05:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: environmental optimism (and Prince Charles)
Ian wrote:
>> While a part of their argument is based on science (with the rest of it
>> being based on non-scientific issues like public morality), it's based
>> on shoddy science, but that doesn't stop them from peddling it and it
>> doesn't stop people from joining them on the basis of their religious
>> positions because they don't understand enough science to be able to
>> evaluate the science part of their argument on the basis of science.
>
> ...or because Richard Dawkins was the media personality wheeled out
> yesterday as science's spokesman on spirituality? Is this partly why
> misguided followers of the militant creationists are no longer able to
> distinguish between biological Darwinism and theological Dawkinsism?
Probably. Actually it seems to be widely accepted in the religion and
science community (for instance by the members of the Institute on
Religion in an Age of Science, http://www.iras.org) that Dawkins is
doing more harm to science than good, by misrepresenting his own anti-
religion views as common to the scientific community. In fact, he
seems to be actively trying to make trouble at the interface of science
and religion, making, for instance, overly critical comments of Ursula
Goodenough's suggestions for ways to promote more friendly relations
between religion and science in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature":
http://www.forbes.com/asap/99/1004/235.htm
Andrew.
--
Andrew C. Millard
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, M/S 0339 [log in to unmask] (NEW!)
La Jolla, CA 92093-0339, USA http://sdchemw1.ucsd.edu/~acm/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|