The thing that bothered me about Russell’s statement was that it made it sound as if the primary or only purpouse in maintaining the thesis that “religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict” is in order to maintain or defend Darwinism. In fact, in calling this thesis a “lie,” I got the impression that he believes it to be nothing more than crude propaganda on Darwin’s behalf.

I guess I would need more evidence than presented in this short summary of his ideas before I felt comfortable with that. On the other hand, I don’t believe that religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict, nor do I believe that maintaining they are would be useful in advancing understanding and acceptance of evolution.

The thing that bothered me about Russell’s statement was that it made it sound as if the primary or only purpouse in maintaining the thesis that “religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict” is in order to maintain or defend Darwinism. In fact, in calling this thesis a “lie,” I got the impression that he believes it to be nothing more than crude propaganda on Darwin’s behalf.

I guess I would need more evidence than presented in this short summary of his ideas before I felt comfortable with that. On the other hand, I don’t believe that religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict, nor do I believe that maintaining they are would be useful in advancing understanding and acceptance of evolution.

And Mike, which of Aristotle’s books did you get your info from?

And Mike, which of Aristotle’s books did you get your info from?

Personally, I don’t think this is so, nor do I think that promoting the notion of a war between science and religion is a good way to defend Darwin or scientific thought in general. I am probably preaching to the choir, but pointing out that there is no necessary conflict between science or evolution and religion in general is much more effective in promoting science than is ranting and raving about how anti-scientific religion is.

The real hard-core anti-evolutionists are really advocates of a specific theology and it is really only it, not Christianity or religion in general, that is threatened. I think this has to be said over and over again.

Personally, I don’t think this is so, nor do I think that promoting the notion of a war between science and religion is a good way to defend Darwin or scientific thought in general. I am probably preaching to the choir, but pointing out that there is no necessary conflict between science or evolution and religion in general is much more effective in promoting science than is ranting and raving about how anti-scientific religion is.

The real hard-core anti-evolutionists are really advocates of a specific theology and it is really only it, not Christianity or religion in general, that is threatened. I think this has to be said over and over again.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html

One key distinction is between the knowledge of the “educated people” and the “general population.” In school I was taught that educated people since the time of ancient Greece knew that the earth was spherical and that Columbus did not have to convince others of this fact, let alone his patrons.

As one who is experienced in defending the standing of scientific knowledge against the claims of people who believe that various ancient religious texts should be used as science text books in high school, I find that mentioning the “flat earth” theory is very useful rhetorically. This is because it provides an example outside of evolution where a simplistic and naive viewpoint is contradicted by more careful and deliberate observation. Finding a “neutral” example upon which we all agree is important to advancing a point about a more emotionally charged issue. Its historically is not really at issue. It is just an example.

It can be, and has been, used as a smear, but even then it is almost always the case that everyone knows it is an exaggerated accusation used simply for rhetorical effect.

I am told, but have never been motivated enough to look it up, that there are Biblical passages that, when “interpreted literally” , imply that the earth is a flat disk resting on several pillars. I don’t know if this is so, and I don’t state that it is when discussing these issues, but I found it interesting.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russ...

One key distinction is between the knowledge of the “educated people” and the “general population.” In school I was taught that educated people since the time of ancient Greece knew that the earth was spherical and that Columbus did not have to convince others of this fact, let alone his patrons.

As one who is experienced in defending the standing of scientific knowledge against the claims of people who believe that various ancient religious texts should be used as science text books in high school, I find that mentioning the “flat earth” theory is very useful rhetorically. This is because it provides an example outside of evolution where a simplistic and naive viewpoint is contradicted by more careful and deliberate observation. Finding a “neutral” example upon which we all agree is important to advancing a point about a more emotionally charged issue. Its historically is not really at issue. It is just an example.

It can be, and has been, used as a smear, but even then it is almost always the case that everyone knows it is an exaggerated accusation used simply for rhetorical effect.

I am told, but have never been motivated enough to look it up, that there are Biblical passages that, when “interpreted literally” , imply that the earth is a flat disk resting on several pillars. I don’t know if this is so, and I don’t state that it is when discussing these issues, but I found it interesting.

Looney,

In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

In early classical antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth. Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first inkling that the Earth was not flat. If they had to “suggest” it wasn’t flat, then that means others thought it WAS flat.

I’ll resist the urge to use the words dumb or stupid.

Looney,

In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

In early classical antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth. Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first inkling that the Earth was not flat. If they had to “suggest” it wasn’t flat, then that means others thought it WAS flat.

I’ll resist the urge to use the words dumb or stupid.