From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:10:23 EDT
Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying. Here
are two important qualifications and corrections of
that apparent misunderstanding.
--- John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
> Blake wrote, in part: " 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."
>
> Having just spent three years auditing classes at
> Iliff, a "liberal"
> Methodist seminary in Denver, I will point out that
> "good" professors,
> whatever their own positions might be, generally
> encourage their students
> to form and defend their own belief structures, at
> least on faith issues.
I would agree, it is a classical liberal approach to
pedagogy and one that I have always followed. My
point was that in my experience, it is most often
violated by those with atheistic views alloyed with an
intense dislike of organized religion. I have seen it
repeatedly in classrooms and on faculties. This is
not to say that people who do this are in any sort of
majority, I indicated that it is a distinct minority,
but I was suggesting that part of the negative
perception of the academy comes from this small, vocal
minority and to the extent that they do behave in this
manner, the negative perception is understandable and
*somewhat* deserved.
(SNIP)
> >>(please name a person in life sciences who has
> been a popularizer of
> biology to a more successful degree
> than Dawkins, for example).>>
>
> Does Gould qualify?
I don't think Gould is as popular in sales as Dawkins,
although I don't have sell-through numbers to back
that impression up. Of course, his attitude towards
(and understanding of) religion has never been
congenial, either. Perhaps not as unremittingly
hostile as Dawkins, but certainly not nearly as close
to balanced as someone like Ruse.
> >>please name some theistic science popularizers who
> actually include
> their theism in their works? >>
>
> Eddington and Sir James Jeans -- of course they were
> a generation ago.
> Robert Jastrow. Polkinghorne. Ian Barbour. George
> Murphy. Steven
> Goldberg. David Griffin. Howard Van Til. Peacock.
> Davis Young. The list
> is very long.
But the authors you mention have written books
primarily or exclusively in the science and religion
area -- not as simply science popularizers, which with
the exception of Polkinghore's Particle Play I don't
think any you listed have. I specifically *excepted*
books on science and religion from the comparison. My
point was that in popularization of science qua
science -- NOT discussion of science and religion
issues -- that the "apparent" bias is overwhelmingly
in one direction because of the agendas of the science
qua popularizers (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan, et al.).
__________________________________
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 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:12:42 EDT