you do not seem to have differentiated ethically at least,Agassiz's concern for the THOUGHT that links fossils and rocks and fanaticism whether religious or in today's pedagogy that refuses even historically to think back to a non-ancient view from a possiblity however small. Charles and I are likely diametrically opposed but you must first determine if it was fanaticsm only and I KNOW that there is a theoretical possiblity that all creationism is not in the future only this mockery. Please not the phrase , "quite as much"
Louis had replyed to Sedwick on "odd" fish with, "I dread quite as much the exaggeration of religious fanaticism, borrowing framents from science, imperfectly or not at all understood, and then making use of them to prescribe to scientific ment what they are allowed see or to find in Nature. Between these two extremes it is difficult to follow a safe road. The reason is, perhaps, that the domain of facts has not yet received a sufficiently general recognition, while traditional beliefs still have too much influence upon the study of the sciences."
I was prescribed drugs involuntarily rather than determine what is fanatic and what was not! You may reject or deny a "tansfinite" domain but I do not. The history of creationism is punctuated by the 60s "revival" and faliure to realize this (Scott for one did not despite being "against" creationist influence) fails to read this old view contemporaneously and concurrently.
™ Version 4.2
