Hi Bertvan,
I wrote:
>>I would certainly question the judgement of a public body which consults a
>>religious organization on a matter of science education.
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Richard. If there were atheists on the Kansas school board, would the
>board's action be suspect even though the document they produced said
nothing
>about religion?
I'm not objecting to the fact that there were Christians, even creationists,
on the board, so the analogy is inappropriate.
> If the board had consulted an atheist scientist, would that
>suggest a conflict of interest?
Consulting a scientist who *happens* to be an atheist (or Christian) is not
analogous to consulting a religious (or atheist) organization.
>If they consulted the ACLU, should their
>motives be regarded as suspect by everyone who disagrees with the ACLU?
The ACLU is not a religious body. Nevertheless, I would ask some searching
questions if they consulted it on an issue of science.
By the way, how would you feel if they'd consulted organizations
representing astrologers, dowsers or Altantis believers?
>Richard:
>>I would question the credibility of a person to speak authoritatively on
>>this subject if that person accepts the flawed arguments for ID that I've
>>seen (i.e. those of Behe and Dembski), particularly if that person has a
>>strong religious motivation (as Behe and Dembski do).
>
>Bertvan:
>Dembski and Behe offer their ideas for public consideration. They have
>degrees in their respective fields. I don't know what you mean by "speak
>authoritatively". You regard the arguments for ID flawed. Obviously
others
>don't. Behe and Dembski are honest about their religion, but their
religion
>is not essential to the ideas they articulate. They appear valid to many
of
>us who are not even religious. Dawkins' or Gould's religion should have
>nothing to do with whether "random mutation and natural selection" are the
>explanation for macro evolution. During our communist paranoia some
>respectable scientists were persecuted because of some alleged association
>with communists. Don't you see the danger of judging a scientist's work on
>the basis of his religious, philosophical or political beliefs?
I don't reject their work because of their religious beliefs, I reject it
because it's wrong. However it's clear to me that the reason such deeply
flawed theories
are proposed by highly educated people who should no better, and receive so
much support, is because of their religious significance. And I don't think
there's anything wrong with pointing that out.
> It is true that scientific theories carry philosophical implications, but
in
>the end, scientific theories stand or fall on their merit.
Unfortunately, that's often not the case. When theories are accepted for
religious or political reasons, they may survive despite their lack of
merit.
> If biologists
>insist that materialism is the only acceptable philosophy, will everyone
who
>rejects materialism eventually reject biology as a science?
No, I haven't stopped beating my wife.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 16:49:59 EST