|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 15, 2010 8:45:39 GMT -4
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould had different views on evolution, but were good friends. Different views on evolution? I'm pretty sure that Gould agreed with Dawkins that evolution is still a perfectly good scientific theory. Did you perhaps mean that they had different views on religion? I had the pleasure of sitting next to Gould on an airplane flight from San Diego to Minneapolis a few years before he died. As we flew over the Grand Canyon he had his nose pressed to the window. I couldn't help but say, in a rather exaggerated tone of voice, "You know, all that was created in just 40 days by the Great Flood!" We had a good laugh followed by a very interesting conversation. I was very sorry to later read that he had died; I hadn't even realized he was sick. |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 15, 2010 10:17:50 GMT -4
No, I'm pretty sure their differences on evolution would be far more likely to engender ire between them, since their respective positions on religion were far more compatible.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 15, 2010 12:03:13 GMT -4
No, I'm pretty sure their differences on evolution would be far more likely to engender ire between them, since their respective positions on religion were far more compatible. I've always considered SJG's non-overlapping magisteria approach to religion to be quite different from Dawkins' God Delusion ideas. I don't see Dawkins' reductionist approach ever allowing religion any of Gould's latitude for "teaching authority". |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 15, 2010 13:57:07 GMT -4
Here's the thing; Dawkins' basic position is that science has no evidence for gods, and Gould's was that science can't teach us anything about gods.
Fundamentally, those positions are not nearly as opposed as "I say this bit of biology works this way" vs. "I say it works this other way which discounts your idea as a major impetus."
Think about it like this; you're an engineer working on a moon-shot and your buddy, another engineer comes up to you with a set of assumptions you don't recognise as valid based on your data; is that going to cause more tension between you than the fact that you are a major baseball fanatic and he just doesn't get organised sports?
|
|
|
|
Post by slang on Nov 15, 2010 15:13:06 GMT -4
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould had different views on evolution, but were good friends. Different views on evolution? I'm pretty sure that Gould agreed with Dawkins that evolution is still a perfectly good scientific theory. Not so much about whether it is perfectly good scientific theory, but more about how certain details would work. I think this isn't really the place to go into those details, but here's a wiki page that touches on it. Creationists love it, because if scientists quibble, then their whole theory must be bunk. Makes sense, no? *goes wash mouth with soap* I had the pleasure of sitting next to Gould on an airplane flight from San Diego to Minneapolis a few years before he died. You're a lucky person. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 15, 2010 18:51:08 GMT -4
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould had different views on evolution, but were good friends. Different views on evolution? I'm pretty sure that Gould agreed with Dawkins that evolution is still a perfectly good scientific theory. Did you perhaps mean that they had different views on religion? I had the pleasure of sitting next to Gould on an airplane flight from San Diego to Minneapolis a few years before he died. As we flew over the Grand Canyon he had his nose pressed to the window. I couldn't help but say, in a rather exaggerated tone of voice, "You know, all that was created in just 40 days by the Great Flood!" We had a good laugh followed by a very interesting conversation. I was very sorry to later read that he had died; I hadn't even realized he was sick.
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (the so-called 'Darwin Wars'),[40][41] one faction was often named after Dawkins and its rival after the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of pertinent ideas.[42][43] In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.[44] A typical example of Dawkins' position was his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin and Richard C. Lewontin.[45] Two other thinkers on the subject often considered to be allied to Dawkins are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology.[46] Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins |
|
