Science in Public Schools

I would not have had ANY prob with Dawkins' description of this implosion in evo thought if he had not used the phrase "planting" because as he sought to have the reason BE probably that it is because of less hard parts in the predominant creatures of this horizon (by using the word "plant" most people dont have a botanists mind seeking the difference of woody tissue vs others) and thus he subtly leads *before* the conclusion to a conclusion{as to why and how what's missing is missing}.What seems more equitable seems to me to say that the intuition is more like a dream than a connotation restraint on the denotation but as that is harder to comprehend it might that Dakwins had futher grammeteological presights I have not noticed.Agassiz wrote of his teacher Oken,

quote:

---

"Among the most fascinating of our professors was Oken. A master in the art of teaching, he excersided an almost irresistable influence over his students. Constructing the universe out of his own brain, deducing from a priori conceptions all the relations of the three kingdoms into which he divided al living beings, classifying the animals as if by magic, in accordance with an analogy based on the dismembered body of man,it seemed to us who listened that the slow laborious process of accumulating precise detailed knowledge could only be the work of drones, while a generous commanding spirit might build the world out of its own powerful imagination."

---

page152 Louis Agassiz His Life and Correspondence vol 1.The "influence" of Dawkins misleads the biologist in care of the difference of plants and animals. Sure he could not be read to create his reading out of his brain as if by magic but it is thus to me if I am to think of the critters as plants. There is need to think of plants and animals as one but it is not with the issue of hard outsides for this might actually be inside plants, but I digress. Even if that was what Dakwins thought I would still quote the "Dream" of Agassiz vs slight of language in the teaching. Dawkins was discussing "drone" stuff but managed to make the homology into the universe of the most powerful imagination.FYI This might be the quote from which Gould wondered in interview if some naturalist scienists might be armchairs!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2005 19:25 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2005 19:29 AM

Yes it would be incorrect to take the quote out of context. And yes it was merely refering to the large number of different kinds of invertebrates.I was only trying to give Richard the benefit of the doubt by using the word "planting", for you see, in a debate with Will Provine in the mid90s Phil Johnson's whole point was that the Cambrian Phyla looked more like many seperate lines rather than a branching tree, so... it holds no weight for me -that Richard D simply glosses this over ^by reference^ to what creationists like to think. The important thing was that he felt the reason in part that the data looked like that was because there were a lot more soft creatures proportionally in that horizon than say one with lots of bones and that the material was not fossilized therefore in comparison. This is what Agassiz meant by drone"" work(determing what fossils are in what horizons and how many there are etc). At that time Agassiz was talking about the painstaking work of paleoichtyhology and not fossil Cambrian invertebrates however.I was taking issue with Dakwins' attempt to TAKE from creationist thought, the notion of geometry of the data IN THE UNIVERSAL sense that the data IS TAKEN by creationists. If the weight of counterpoint is that it is the scientists any way who are responsble for the labor there is no need to address the larger system of thought operative asthe issue is rather meaningless once one recognizes that if the drones didnt chip bit by bit of the fossils the grand schemers would have no thoughts to organize. So regardless if the issue was only taking a quote out of context this analysis is unecessary. I just wondered if Dr. Dawkins hadnt first taken the use of the word "planting" rather out of creationist wordings foremost. Johnson doesnt make that a point, I dont think, if I recall correctly. If he had simply referred to the cambrian phyla as "more diverse" I probably wouldnt have noticed.Does that help to make what I meant clearer?