*long sigh*

Where did I call science a religion, putin? Can you not answer any argument without expressing a desperate desire to stick me with some group and answer their arguments instead of mine?

"So people need "good reasons" for believing the earth is round, else it is just 'belief'? What would count as a good reason? "

Being taught it in school would probably suffice, as long as the school explained to them to basic process that led people to think that.

I realize the above will astound you, and you will think you've now found all these inconsistencies in my earlier posts, because I said there (you'll say) that believing something from school was not enough, etc., etc. That's only because you haven't read anything I've said though.

I'm done, unless you manage in your next post to so mischaracterize what I'm even arguing for that I can't let it slide. Take care.

"That's only because you haven't read anything I've said though."

Or you change your argument to suit your needs.

The proposition that natural selection can explain all of human behaviour is akin to a religious belief. Held, in the most part, by atheists with an anti-theist agenda.
I arrive at this stance not by saying that science itself is akin to religion, but by an application of the scientific method.

The dangerous concept of looking at science purely as an ''accumulative'' process is that it mitigates against new ideas which challange established ones. The history of science is littered with examples. Science is in fact a creative process rather than an accumulative one. What is true ''today'' will likely be false ''tomorrow''. In fact one might describe it as a process of continual creation.

So have we reached the wonderful position that a man of the left can attack Lewontin because he rigerously critiques EO Wilson's and, by extension, Dawkins' sociobiology? Such is the mad knot that some will tie themselves in to preserve their militant anti-theism.

"The proposition that natural selection can explain all of human behaviour is akin to a religious belief. "

It's a straw man you invented in your brain. And anyway in order to refute such a hypothetical proposition you'd actually have to accept that human behavior can be explained, which you do not since you summarily dismiss all social science.

"I arrive at this stance not by saying that science itself is akin to religion, but by an application of the scientific method."

Right, the same 'application of the scientific method' that is used by your pseudo-scientific charlatan friends at the Discovery Institute that you think is "real science" . In short, no scientific method at all, just knee jerk accusations and conspiracy-theory rubbbish.

"The dangerous concept of looking at science purely as an ''accumulative'' process is that it mitigates against new ideas which challange established ones."

New ideas build on old information, we don't reinvent the wheel every time. Theories are usually only partially discarded or qualified, and theories are never wholly new. Without the insights of Newtonian mechanics we would not have known about quantum mechanics.

I don't attack him simply because he critiques Wilson, Dawkins, and Darwin, I attack him because his attacks make no sense. See if I defended Lewontin you'd dismiss me as a partisan hack who leaps to the defense of any and every Marxist, but now it suits you to make a different argument that I'm blinded by "militant anti-theism". Would you really be praising Lewontin if he wasn't a useful idiot in your effort to attack everything Darwinian?

When it comes to Putin's view of science I am always reminded of the advice given to the physicist Max Planck by his teacher Von Jolly - "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes."

On Lewontin, and for that matter Gould, I disagree. These men are examples of respected scientists prepared to go whether the evidence takes them. Putin's rubbishing of them comes from his own dogma

"Putin's rubbishing of them comes from his own dogma"

That's rich, coming from you. The dogmatic scientist rubbisher par excellence.

Anyway, for more on how Lewontin talks out of his backside half the time, here's this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/may/28/why-darwin-2/

"The proposition that natural selection can explain all of human behaviour is akin to a religious belief. "

I don't think anyone actually claims *all human behavior* is explained by natural selection, but rather natural selection is a significant factor in human behavior. There are aspects of our behavior which are not explainable in cultural terms. But rather there are patterns and limitations in human behavior which make the most sense when considered in terms of natural or sexual selection.

Fullhamish what do you think of the field of evolutionary psychology? Does it have some merit? Or you one of those thinks that our behavior stems from our environment solely?