> In that regard, I would add that, IMO, Thomas Kuhn's thinking may also be
> pertinent here. That is, that scientists, as a group, are as inherently
> biased as any other segment of society (yes, including tax accountants),
> and will generally cling to the accepted paradigm to the bitter end.
> (Actually, I have stated in the past that I believe that
> _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_ should be required reading for
> all specialists, even though probably 80% of it is balderdash. The other
> 20% is dead on.)
I completely agree, every science major ought to read this as part of his
or her education; it's a much-needed correction to positivism or naive
falsificationism.
Once Kuhn is digested, I recommend Imre Lakatos and Michael Polanyi for
more balanced (and IMO, more true-to-life) pictures of the interplay
between data and "social factors" in paradigm choice --- and of course,
Del Ratzsch for a distinctly Christian viewpoint.
---------------
> Just to satisfy my own curiosity: do you have the same appreciation for the
> scientific intuition of the contributors to _The_Creation_Hypothesis_
> (Ross, Meyer, Bradley, Thaxton, Dembski, et al), that you have for Mike
> Behe?
I don't know enough about them. I wouldn't trust myself to form a strong
opinion until I had a chance to interact with them and/or read more of
their writing. I should also know more about their (non-origins-related)
professional work.
What little I've read of Ross, I can tell you that he impresses me with
his knowledge of astrophysics, but some of his anti-evolution arguments
were scientifically passe'. (Perhaps he's corrected that in his later
work?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder if your feelings |
on this matter are clear...." | Loren Haarsma
--the Emperor (_Return_of_the_Jedi_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu