Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?

Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:32 pm, Cemtech <c...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1175048575.170561.187...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx says...
"Every biologist was a converted evolutionist."

So Ray admits evolution is SOOOOO good, that every biologist became an
evolutionist.

/addto Ray Quote Mining Project.

Do you not claim to have a graduate degree?

If so, how could a person of your educational credentials not know
that within fifteen years of publication ["Origin of Species"]
Darwin's theory converted biology to his paradigm (Mayr "Growth of
Biological Thought" 1982). Mayr goes on to say that every working
biologist, by 1874, was a converted evolutionist. Prior to 1859,
Creationism and theist suppositions ruled British science. These are
basic historical facts. British natural theology died between 1859 and
1874. Read Dembski "The Demise of British Natural
Theology" ("Intelligent Design" 1999) for an excellent sketch showing
why Creationism died.

Do you even know who Mayr is?

I know one thing about Mayr, and that is that he is a bad historian who
tends to name movements as if they had a Credo they all shared.

By around 1874, most biologists (not quite all) were convinced of the
fact of evolution (which does not make them "evolutionists" - that term
either means they are a specialist in evolution, which very few were
until the turn of the century, or it has connotations of there being
soem sort of ideology associated with it, which was partially true in
Haeckel's Germany, but not much elsewhere), yes. There was no radical
shift, though, in the way science was being done. The *reason* most
working biologists were convinced of evolution (and that has to be
elaborated - which aspects of what we call "evolution"?) was that *it
was the best scientific explanation on the prior canons of science*!

IOW, evolution was accepted because science *hadn't* changed its
standards.

It is simply false that creationism was the ruling view prior to 1859.
Most working biologists were not special creationists - meaning they did
not think species were created by God - from around 1820 or so. Working
from ideas presented by Linnaeus, Buffon, and various other taxonomists,
they though species were produced via "secondary causes" - that is, they
were caused by processes that had been created by God, not primary
causes (ie. by God directly). This was pretty much the standard view
throughout Europe, particularly amongst the French systematists. The
*only* objectors were religious.

Owen was a transmutationist of sorts well before Darwin, as was
Geoffroy, and even Cuvier admitted that new species had to come into
being.

As to "theistic presuppositions" I really have no idea what these might
be. Most scientists were theists, yes. But so far as I can tell,
religious beliefs were not permitted by religious scientists to
interfere with their biological inferences. Piety was the source of
creationism, but even pious biologists like Cuvier, Gray, and Agassiz
did not prevent them from observing and making inferences. Agassiz was
perhaps the last special creationist of note, but even he admitted that
the Darwinian account had a lot of sense and evidence on its side.

This is such bad history that I can only conclude you are reading to
find conclusions you already want to find, not to find out what actually
happened. There's a name for this sort of historiography...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... the principles of evolution are enough for me to explain ... But variations on creationism are a popular view in the U.S. ... Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic ... Coming to Peace with Science ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... the principles of evolution are enough for me to explain ... But variations on creationism are a popular view in the U.S. ... Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic ... conflict between evolution and its religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... the principles of evolution are enough for me to explain ... But variations on creationism are a popular view in the U.S. ... Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic ... conflict between evolution and its religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Unintelligent Design?
    ... the principles of evolution are enough for me to explain ... But variations on creationism are a popular view in the U.S. ... Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic ... conflict between evolution and its religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... Creationism and theist suppositions ruled British science. ... fact of evolution (which does not make them "evolutionists" - that term ... working biologists were convinced of evolution (and that has to be ... Darwin, of course, was a ...
    (talk.origins)