[asa] Edward_O._Wilson_shares_Dawkins'_basic___views_?

The answer to the question is of course "Yes." A person whose
thinking =
about one matter is unsound may make reasonable statements about =
another. The fact that Einstein was a pantheist and had some rather =
naive views about some political matters doesn't require that one
reject =
his statements about the photoelectric effect or gravitation. & even =
Janice Matchett, whose views on the environment are preposterous, has =
been known to say a few sensible things on other topics.=20

Shalom
George=20
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
   ----- Original Message -----=20
   From: Janice Matchett=20
   To: asa@calvin.edu=20
   Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:52 AM
   Subject: [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares Dawkins' basic views=20

   At 05:13 PM 9/5/2006, George Murphy wrote:

     "..... I think that the appeal he makes is reasonable. ...as
Wilson =
notes, the opposition to sound environmental policy from some on the =
religious [fill in the "r"-word] continues to be a problem - & that's =
especially the case since some people with those views are in
positions =
to influence or make policy in the current administration. ~ Shalom =
George

   @ Can an unsound/muddled "thinker" be thought able to make =
"reasonable" appeals --- except by one who has also denied the law of =
non-contradiction? :)=20

   ~ Janice

   The Devil's Chaplain Confounded - Stephen M. Barr=20

   ".... That is why Sir Francis Crick, Edward O. Wilson, and many
others =
who share Dawkins' basic views call free will an illusion. ..."

   Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol =
Research Institute of the University of Delaware. He is the author of =
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (University of Notre Dame Press).
2004 =
  http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm=20

   January 18, 2006 Stephen Barr writes:

   In his op-ed piece last Sunday in USA Today, Edward O. Wilson
makes a =
sweeping pronouncement: "The two world views-science-based
explanations =
and faith-based religion-cannot be reconciled." I agree: one cannot =
reconcile them, because they do not need to be reconciled. They do not =
need to be reconciled, because they do not conflict. They do not =
conflict, because no assertion made by one contradicts any assertion =
made by the other. I am speaking of my own "faith-based religion", =
Catholicism. If there were any accepted science-based explanation that =
conflicted with what my Church teaches, I think I would have noticed
it =
at some point during my thirty years as a research scientist. Prof. =
Wilson's pronouncement comes out of the blue. There is nothing in the =
rest of his op-ed piece-or indeed in his other writings-that backs it =
up. Is it too much to expect a scientist to stick to facts, while =
extolling the virtues of sticking to facts?

   Stephen Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol =
Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and a member of the =
editorial board of FIRST THINGS. =
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?m=3D2006&w=3D3

   January 17, 2006 Joseph Bottum writes:

   Well, at least Edward O. Wilson is trying. ** In an op-ed Sunday =
morning in USA Today, Harvard's famed entomologist called for a =
ceasefire in the evolution wars: "American civilization was born of
both =
religion and the science-based Enlightenment. Science will go on =
expanding its way, and religion will continue to evolve its way. Our =
culture is strong in civility and common sense. As always, we'll work =
things out."

   The confidence of that last line isn't quite commensurate with the =
alarmism of the rest of the op-ed. Nor is the praised civility fully
on =
display.=20

   Still, Wilson has an impulse that isn't silly. He seems to think
the =
problem comes entirely from the religious side, but that may be
merely a =
side effect of the fact that it is an audience of scientists, or
perhaps =
pro-science journalists, he's trying to convince.

   This claim of Wilson's, however, seems curious: "What then are we
to =
do? Put the differences aside, I say. Meet on common ground where we
can =
find it. An excellent example taking form is the cooperation between =
science and religion, the two most powerful forces in the world, to =
protect Earth's vanishing natural habitats and species=ADin other
words, =
the Creation, however we believe it came into existence."

   The capitalized word "Creation" does rather suggest a Creator, but
set =
that aside for a moment. Where does he find the grounds for this kind
of =
ethical claim about the good of environmentalism? It's quite possibly =
true, but the whole point of his article is that science and religion =
are so utterly divided that they cannot touch. And Wilson's reason
seems =
finally to be a fact/value distinction. Maybe religious types can get
to =
an ethical claim out of that, but the science types surely can't. =
Unless, of course, it's not fact-laden science they hold, but
something =
like "scienticism"=ADa value-laden system that sometimes masquerades
as =
science." http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?m=3D2006&w=3D3

   ** USA Today =
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-15-faith-
edit_x.h=
tm=20
   Posted 1/15/2006 8:01 PM Updated 1/15/2006 8:02 PM=20

   Let's accept the fault line between faith and science=20
   By Edward O. Wilson

   [snip]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 5 22:43:44 2006