Forwarded from John Landon

Jose G. Perez jgperez at SPAMnetzero.net
Fri Jan 26 18:41:31 MST 2001


You realize, of course, that at least this reader hasn't got the first
fucking clue what you're talking about.

No, don't bother to explain. You blew your chance. Only one to a customer.

José
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 8:14 PM
Subject: Forwarded from John Landon


> We can agree with Gould's view of religion, but can we agree with his
views
> on evolution?  I think these Darwinists must be really saying, "let us
> alone, let's play ostrich". Why? Gould should have written in the 1970's
> what the people like P. Johnson said in the nineties in Was Darwin Wrong?
I
> can understand the frustration with Creationists. But since their beliefs
> have been declared invalid on the basis of Darwinism, they thought to
check
> the record to see if the theory stands up. The recent Icons of Evolution,
> by Johnathan Wells,from the Johnson gang, documents the pitiful
distortions
> in biology texts. Apparently noone in Academia could write such a book.
> Pitiful.  In some ways the religion debate was doing better in the
> nineteenth century before Darwin handed secularists a misleading theory to
> claim proof of their case.
>
> The Wells book suggests Gould was aware of many flaws in the theory long
> ago. That has to be true. A close look at his books shows he is carefully
> attacking every source of counterevidence, e.g. the Blyth book by Loren
> Eiseley, etc... He is very convincing, but it doesn't add up. Gould and
> Eldredge could have blown the whistle in the seventies, but didn't. We
> didn't have to endure a generation of Dawkins distortions.  That's a bit
> strong for some. But the idea of evolution is not the issue, only the
> rigidity of the claims for its mechanism.
>
> John Landon
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list