Science & evolution

[Rod Jones]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:52:37 Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu> wrote:

>Gee Rod,
>Welcome to the world. ... (the remainder is below) ...

Thanks for the welcome Richard, but it's a bit late; I've been here half a
century already.

Let's try 'global' civility. Redefined by the global environment that I now
find myself in. Compared to those who machete the hands off people who cast
a vote in the wrong direction, or those who drag people of a different skin
colour around behind pick-up trucks until they're dead, my posting to
Taxacom could be considered fairly mild. Maybe replacing the four letter
word that I used with 'doodoo' might have been more civilised.

The 'attack' on Robert Mesibov's post was anything but personal. My
comments were directed at the content of the post (or at least the section
that I referred to) and, more broadly, to those who find it difficult to
recognise religious nine-letter words. The following two sentences clearly
constitute a version of an oxymoron, not to mention several other flaws
with respect to substantive systematics content.

'Man was specially created at the precise moment he
first recognised the existence of God. A great deal of evolution took place
before this wonderful moment.'

Re. the agenda of (mostly) religious fundamentalists to introduce their
particular religious views into school curricula; no small political
problem indeed. An example of the awareness on this issue in Australia can
be found here at the School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, where
part of the assessment for Honours year students was to debate for or
against the introduction of creationism into the curriculum.

A quote from Richard's post to finish:
''I [as a subscriber to Taxacom] don't need to know your position on
religion in order to critically evaluate the quality of your science."

Cheers
Rod


> ... First, I don't have any idea what you mean by
>"post-modern" civility.  You may wish to redefine civility, but that
>doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept your new definition.  I, for
>one, regard resorting to personal attacks and the use of four letter words
>as uncivil and inappropriate - I'm willing to be that the majority of
>Taxacom subscribers will agree.

>Second, this matter is one that continues to appear simply because it does
>have ramifications for thos of us who work in systematic and evolutionary
>biology.  If you have followed these postings for longer than the past
>several months, then you know that in the US this is not a small political
>problem.  The status of evolution as science is constantly under attack by
>(mostly) religious fundamentalists whose agenda is clearly one of
>introducing their particular religious views into school curricula.  If
>members of this list wish to explain how they are able to reconcile their
>own religious beliefs with the acceptance of evolution as science, perhaps
>others of us will become more enlightened about the true nature of the
>problem.

>If you don't accept anyone's attempt to recognize that these matters are,
>in one sense, irreconcilable, that's OK.  But to denigrate someone's
>personal beliefs the way you did does nothing but create animosity.  I
>don't need to know your position on religion in order to critically
>evaluate the quality of your science.

Rodney H. Jones
School of Botany
University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
Ph. 03 8344 0119