Life logic. (Letters).How did a review as full of illogic il·log·ic n. A lack of logic. Noun 1. illogic - invalid or incorrect reasoning illogicality, illogicalness, inconsequence and irrelevance ir·rel·e·vance n. 1. The quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered. 2. Something unrelated to a matter being considered. Noun 1. as Gregg Easterbrook's ("We're All Darwinians Now," September 2001) slip past your editorial vigilance VIGILANCE. Proper attention in proper time. 2. The law requires a man who has a claim to enforce it in proper time, while the adverse party has it in his power to defend himself; and if by his neglect to do so, he cannot afterwards establish such claim, the ? Easterbrook argued that religion and evolution are coming to a modus vivendi as scientists realize that some questions haven't yet been explained in Darwinian terms. Easterbrook assumes that the longer some phenomenon remains unexplained unexplained Adjective strange or unclear because the reason for it is not known Adj. 1. unexplained - not explained; "accomplished by some unexplained process" by science, the higher the probability that it will never be explained. This is simply fallacious. The continued absence of a phenomenon establishes nothing about the probability of its eventual existence. Logical errors aside, however, the question Easterbrook spends so much time pondering pon·der v. pon·dered, pon·der·ing, pon·ders v.tr. To weigh in the mind with thoroughness and care. v.intr. To reflect or consider with thoroughness and care. doesn't need an entire article to answer, much less an entire book by a professor of philosophy. It can be answered in a few sentences. Of course a Darwinian can be a Christian, since there is nothing in the Christian faith that demands a belief in the "intelligent design" of life forms. Easterbrook says it himself: "[W]hy shouldn't God employ compounds with natural properties?" Why indeed? Why shouldn't God go further, and limit Her effort of creation to the instant of the Big Bang big bang Model of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion–15 billion years ago. , thereafter leaving the universe free to follow its natural, not supernatural, course? In this case, there is no conflict between Darwin and Christianity, unless all Christians are required to accept every word of the Bible as the literal truth. I doubt that Easterbrook would go that far. DAVID J. ZIMNY Oakland, Calif. Gregg Easterbrook Gregg Edmund Easterbrook is an American writer who is a senior editor of The New Republic. His articles have appeared in Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Wired replies: Mr. Zimny employs the common cheap-shot technique of attributing to me something I did not say, then objecting to his own invention. My review never says that "the longer some phenomenon remains unexplained by science, the higher the probability that it will never be explained" or expresses any similar sentiment. Rather, I said that "until such time" as a wholly natural origin of life may be found, "higher influences cannot be dismissed." I hope Mr. Zimny's letter is not an example of the evolution of discourse! |
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion