GDR writes:
The fact still remains that Dawkins is considered as a writer of science, and when he goes off into areas that are meant to promote a materialistic view of the world in books that also does contain scientific facts, the lines get very blurred.
I agree to a point, namely that the concept of a meme, like that of a superego, is essentially literary shorthand and is not a part of science but rather lies in the realm of philosophy. I do not find this concept as well defined or empirically evidenced as others, such as the term natural selection or genetic inheritance.
In my view it is in the same category as trying to support a 6000 year old world by mixing in some legitimate science with untestable subjective theory.
Well my view diverges here. As someone with a bit of familiarity with the physical sciences, particularly the geosciences, I see no mixing of legitimate science in the YEC stance. Rather what I see is the complete rejection of every single piece of evidence, down to the level of virtually every single rock regardless of size, of
all the geosciences, including every place where it overlaps with physics, chemistry, and biology, thereby rejecting even the central concepts of all those sciences in such cases.
Since I consider you a reasonable person, I propose a deal. If you don't demand that your religion be taught in a public school (except as a part of comparative religion), I won't demand science be taught in your tax-exempt church (except for any honest proposal that the contribution such a denomination may have made to the enlightenment led to science and democracy).
But of course you likely do agree in principle, and therefore we are not adversaries but rather on a different road to the same destination.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2
