Well, maybe one shouldn't make statements out of ones reach of
knowledge? :> Most certainly there were and are biologists, who don't
believe in Darwins theorie.
When i was at the Friedrich-Karl-Universitaet in Erlangen there was a
professor in zoologie who firmly believed in the creation.
This doesn't change the fact though, that for practical purposes, he has
to use Darwins theorie - since the 'creation' doesn't help in
scientifically explaining anything - what after all is our profession.
You may certainly say that God predestined all this way, that it looks
as if evolution did it - as he did that a stone falls from the top to
the bottom at a predictable speed - but that, for practical purposes,
doesn't free you of the obligation (if you want to work anywhere in
science and not in some misty metaphysik) to state theories of events as
they appear to be.
And the way they appear to be, noone has come up with a better one than
Darwin, even though some have tried (right at the beginning Lamarck for
example).
But since i fail to see what either my post nor that i reply to has to
do with the list subject, i appologize to all readers and wish you a
good day. :>
T.C.
>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:04:46 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Environmental ethics
>From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>
>---Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >---Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> Please treat these questions as rhetorical.
>> >
>> >No, I wont, you make blanket accusations against economists (of
which
>> >I am one) and you expect me to not respond. You have alot of gall.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hey Steve, doesn't this kind of prove Chris's point? You *are* an
>economist?
>> As in "I *am* a Christian (Muslim, Protestant, etc.)"?
>>
>> I'm trained as both a biologist and a social scientist, have advance
>> degrees in both, but I don't get upset if people say nasty things
>about
>> biologists or social scientists. That's because I'm *not* self
>defined as
>> such. Are you really that invested in your professional affiliation?
>If so,
>> I suggest that Chris may be correct and you treat your discipline as
a
>> religion. In other words, you seem to have basic value orientation
>toward
>> being an *economist.*
>> Bissell
>
>Hmmm, I suppose you are right. I could just brush off Chris as a
>crank who is disappointed over some bad policy decisions and who wants
>to lay the blame at the doorstep of every economist. Just as you
>would brush me off if I were to say biologists are essentially
>(anti-)religious zealots who refuse to even consider intelligent
>design theory and sacrafice everything at the alter of Charles Darwin
>and Evolutionary Theory. Hey now that I think about it...thats not a
>bad idea...after all no biologist has seriously questioned the
>"Biggie" (evolution) as Chris puts it. Welcome to the religious
>nutball club Steven. I'll send you the membership and dues
>information in a few days.
>
>Steve
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|