It’s not bad spelling. It’s a variant, British use “licence” and Americans use “license”. In fact sometimes “licence” as a verb is considered incorrect even by the British.

@ Reuben Scicluna: I don’t think I am who you think I am. As for the rest I agree with you perfectly.

Yes, slaughterhouses are evil. Try visiting one to see where your juicy steak really comes from. While you may think that being sensitive on this issue is “emotional rubbish”, others don’t.

http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234

@Reuben
As for my presentation of Gould’s arguments, there is no context out of which (though you feel otherwise) I have taken him. I have presented a fairly detailed synopsis of his final conclusions, the context of which is his book.

From the general throw-away statement you make about alleged “out of context,” there is nothing specific to Gould’s thesis that you identify as objectionable. Let’s repeat it in lay terms: Any life on this blessed planet is CONTINGENT on the events of history, and evolution has been a process of continuing (and massive) extinctions, and fortuitous non-extinctions for others, so far.

In fact, Gould’s presentation is quite elegant and detailed, and I have provided his concluding statements. Our existence is contingent–there is nothing teological or inevitable about it, except, because of the fragility of life and our survival dependent upon our natural environment, our potential extinction along with the rest of the planet. I don’t think that we want to accelerate extinction on Earth so that we can resemble present-day Mars.

A first heard Gould’s thesis at Harvard University about 1989-1990, where he was teaching biology, geology, and the history of science, when I also was teaching in Boston.

Interestingly, his presentation was part of the Harvard University Lecture series on religion. The context of his scientific presentation was a conference on religion–which is quite ecumenical for someone like Gould who separates the domains of science and religion, the later being a matter of faith; but neither science nor religion is antithetical to “reason.”

Gould properly does not introduce any religious arguments into science; but then, we also would expect religion not to impose itself upon science (much as Creationists and “intelligent-design” theorists are wont to do; or, perhaps, even “hunters” who want to justify their habits).

However, science in its “reason,” as Gould projects it, must have had some thoughtful matters for an audience on “religion.” It did, and it does; but that is another topic.

Because these domains are separate, one can potentially be a scientist and a “religionist” too. Even Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg address attempted to bridge the areas of science and faith, that neither is incompatible with the other because “reason” is essential to “the nature of God.”

Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, as an atheist and non-theist, claims no tolerance for religion. Stephen Jay Gould is a far more reasonable man, and also he is well-respected in the scientific community.

Agree. Got no problem with that. Too many antis mix up the issue of legal and illegal hunting, often with little or no knowledge about migration, seasons, Malta’s particular status and so on.

Vaux – Perhaps you could enlighten us whether ALL killing for food is evil? Are slaughterhouses evil? Chicken farms? Rabbit farms? Cow farms? Fish farms? Fishing? What’s your take on that, I wonder?

What’s next, Vaux? Save the cabbages? Preserve the turnips? A crusade to liberate those captive tomatoes? Plants have feelings too, y’know!

Come on and get real. Man is an omnivore and there’s no escaping that. Hunting is certainly not necessary for survival anymore but a mixed diet of protein and vegetables certainly is. Game is consumed all over the world and what’s the big deal if I cook up a tasty dish of legal game birds?

Evil? No more evil than a McDonald’s burger or Kentucky fried chicken. Definitely healthier food than the vitamin-medicine-enhanced stuff in shops.

Give the emotional rubbish a break will you?

Hunting for sports and fun is EVIL

P.S I suggest blog readers to indulge some time and read works from this monolith of Russian Literature

@ Edward Clemmer

I feel you have taken Gould out of context there. A well-known phenomenon that flies in the face of what you’re saying is biological pest control.

Endemic species have been wiped out by the introduction of alien species intended to “control” the “offending” species. That is a case of hunting to extinction. Only difference is that it wasn’t man doing the hunting. I do not condone hunting as sport BUT nobody can deny that it has to be factored into the evolution equation.

Gould may have been referring to our moral responsibilities as implied stewards of creation. Some of Gould’s theories did not go down well with his peers as he always seem to imply the existence of some sort of underlying “purpose”. He even dared separate the domains of science and religion in what he termed NOMA (non overlapping magisteria). Dawkins took him to task for it in his risible The God Delusion.