From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 21:25:34 EDT
This is an interesting question and one that I would
have thought, along with Sarah that they were few and
far between. However, I think what one has is a
problem of perception. I have only taught at secular
universities -- in such environments, if you are a
believer, it is not necessarily widely known. And, in
fact, due to the concerns that the secular university
has, I think it is more likely than not that believers
of any stripe are rather quiet about their beliefs no
matter what topic they teach.
In every faculty I have been a part of, there has
always been a significant minority that is overtly
antireligious. Those antireligious faculty members
rarely feel any compunction against tearing down naive
belief and skewering strawmen figures of christian
theology. Some of them consider it a crusade and
their raison d'etre. And, in fact, a friend of mine
had such a biology professor at a Catholic
university(!) in the same town where I went to
graduate school.
My point? Those with the biggest axes to grind
generally shout the loudest... it is academia's
version of interest group politics. Additionally,
those who get the press are the vocal atheists and
antireligionists. They perhaps are also more likely
to be science popularizers for the same reason (please
name a person in life sciences who has been a
popularizer of biology to a more successful degree
than Dawkins, for example).
In such popularizations, it is easy to take gratuitous
swipes at what you dont like as Dennett, Wilson,
Dawkins, Provine, Atkins, Weinberg, et al. do...
please name some theistic science popularizers who
actually include their theism in their works? (Does
Russell Stannard, who is one of the few theistic
popularizer who I can think of that has written books
popularizing science rather than addressing a
particular sicence/religion issue directly, talk about
God in his Uncle Albert series?).
I think, like the discussions of YEC in some christian
denominations, the deck is stacked very heavily in
giving press and a forum in a university to those with
the biggest axes to grind... I am reasonably certain
that if a theist approached their area of interest in
class the way that some atheists do, they would be
censured by the administration simply because the
academy is sensitive to proselytizing and the advocacy
of theistic views, it is not sensitive to atheistic
proselytizing.
--- Sarah Berel-Harrop <sec@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:05:02 -0400
> "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Jay's substitution of "so many" for "so often" does
> not
> >make such a sweeping
> >indictment any less palatable, and Howard's
> challenge for
> >empirical evidence
> >still stands.
>
> Phillip Johnson has kindly fingered two -
>
> Richard Dawkins
> Will Provine
>
> He is most thankful to them for "clarifying the
> issues".
>
> I don't know about Provine, but Dawkins is surely
> one of
> the people that Lewontin means when he talks about
> "vulgarizers of science". This is a very helpful
> and accurate description. Anyone who teaches or
> preaches evolution in the manner Jay suggests is
> indeed
> a vulgarizer of science. That is, he or she has
> misrepresented science to the public in service of
> their promotion of scientism. This cheapens -
> vulgarizes - the work that other scientists do.
>
> But I come back to Howard's question, how many of
> these folks actually and truly exist, I suspect
> that in actual practice and teaching far fewer
> than the ID'ers and others make out.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 21:28:19 EDT