Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 17:44:10 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: methodological naturalism - origin of the term?"

    This is probably gossip from my alma mater. Take it with a pinch of salt

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Donald Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
    To: "Brian Harper" <harper.10@osu.edu>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:32 PM
    Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution

    >
    >
    > Brian Harper wrote:
    >
    > > At 12:35 PM 8/27/2003 -0600, Terry M. Gray wrote:
    > > >Brian Harper wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>
    > > >>This issue does seem to be problematic. Is methodological naturalism
    > > >>really the way of doing science or is it just a way to circumvent ID?
    > > >>If it is (and I agree that it is), then why is it one sided? Why
    doesn't
    > > >>MN also constrain the atheist scientist?
    > > >>
    > > >>This lack of symmetry will continue to provide fuel to the
    > > >>flames of rhetoric until its corrected.
    > > >
    > > >I'm having some difficulty in this thread understanding why we don't
    think
    > > >that Dawkins violates MN. (I'm going to leave Gould out--I'm somewhat
    > > >surprised at how hard we're coming down on him--he's a totally
    different
    > > >beast than Dawkins in my opinion.) When Dawkins promotes atheism (or
    > > >anti-theism) in the name of science, he is NOT doing MN. He's not
    > > >constrained by it because he's not just about promoting a science
    agenda,
    > > >but also a religio-philosophical agenda. (There's this "life is
    religion"
    > > >part of me that says that he is being more honest and wholistically
    human
    > > >about his religious view than we Christians and others who encourage
    the
    > > >elimination of religion-talk from our science-talk.)
    > >
    > > Yes, I agree he isn't doing MN. My question about symmetry
    > > is why he would not be similarly constrained as a theist.
    > > For example, I believe he should be treated by the scientific
    > > community with the same disdain shown towards ID.
    >
    > I agree that Dawkins should be treated with disdain. In fact I have been
    told
    > by a biologist who has done postgraduate work at Oxford that Dawkins is
    treated
    > with disdain by members of the Oxford biological community.
    > Don Nield
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 18:17:23 EDT