Posted: Jun 03, 2010 8:27 pm
by JFDerry
Hello again,

well not quite the response I was expecting, but I will attempt to provide some responses, in the order that the posts appear above. Disclaimer: you can see from the signature in my original post that I am part of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Edinburgh. You can therefore deduce which side of the science-religion debate I am on.

ymitchell: not sure the point of your quote other than to trot out the usual over-simplified account of Darwin's time spent in Edinburgh. There is much more, and I would add, the book is "... in Scotland" which traces an all-the-more complete account of his influences towards his works, and later his influence on evolutionary science. It seems as if this book is made for you and you will be much the wiser for reading it.

j.mills: you only consider it a mix of names because you have never had them presented alongside one another. There is no suggestion that creationism is given theory status or any qualification. That is in your reading of the blurb. I have simply presented varying viewpoints in tandem and then carefully drawn conclusion from doing so. The contributions range from short paragraphs to many page interview transcripts, each elucidating on a topic about Darwinism.

Animavore: yes Ken Ham. You'd be surprised, especially when his views are compared to William Dembski. Have you ever spoken to Ken Ham? Ever asked him what he thinks about Darwin and evolution? I have taken the trouble to do so on your behalf. You can find the answers in the book.

Horwood Beer-Master: Chomsky's and Dennett's contributions to the book are unrelated and therefore appear at different points. Regarding Chomsky's ideas, I would strongly urge you, as I do everybody, to research the facts before commenting. The book provides a basis in Chomsky's and Skinner's models and how they relate to Darwinism.

I hope this is helpful.

atb, j.