Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

>>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 01/27/07 3:47 AM >>>writes:
So what you consider to be outrageous is that the petition was
organized by an atheist or by someone who is a faculty advisor to a
campus atheist organization?

Ted: No. The fact that Avalos is an atheist helps us to see the imbalance
in the situation. It strongly suggests to me (and I'm not the only one
drawing this conclusion) that Avalos saw Gonzalez' book as a threat to his
own influence on campus; or else, that he saw an opening to embarrass
Gonzalez, a public Christian on that campus. This speaks to motive, not to
the act itself.

The act itself--organizing a petition to marginalize a fellow academic,
simply for expressing a religious interpretation of science in a book for
the general public, something which other academics (as I pointed out) do
without censure from their colleagues -- was outrageous, whether organized
by an atheist or anyone else. The act itself was outrageous. I keep
repeating this.

Pim continues:
When atheists start a movement which insists that science can show the
absence of a designer, it is time to object similarly to such an abuse
of science. <snip>

Ted: Ok, but where are the faculty at Cornell, Oxford, or Harvard who
organize petitions against Sagan, Dawkins, or Pinker? You are missing my
point, Pim. The petition itself, designed to marginalize and perhaps
silence a colleague b/c his opinions offend the petitioner (see above for
motive), is the problem. If you can show me the petitions at Cornell,
Oxford, or Harvard, then I'll change my view that Gonzalez fell victim to a
witch hunt.

Pim:
So what about Avalos's academic freedom to expose bad science?

Ted:
Well, there are other ways to do that, short of intimidating a colleague
who doesn't have tenure yet.

Whether or not you or I agree with Gonzalez' religious interpretation of
planetary science is not the issue, Pim. Whether or not it's bad
science--which is a matter of opinion--is not the issue, Pim. The issue is
the actions that Avalos took.

If you don't agree with my view, that's fine. But you won't persuade me to
alter my view, unless you can show me that Avalos acted reasonably and
responsibly to express his disagreement with Gonzalez' book. IMO, the
interpretation I have given is much more reasonable--namely, that Avalos
wanted to squash a religious voice on his campus that probably realized is a
very fine young scientist, hence all the more potentially threatening to his
own campus ministry of atheism.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 27 13:16:11 2007