Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins

Hi Bernie,

I suppose *from Dawkins' perspective* it makes sense.

But the analogy of the Easter Bunny Believing Scientist (EBBS) should be thought through to its conclusion.

Let's say there were such an EBBS and that not only did the EBBS show NO evidence of distorting scientific claims in the interests of promoting Easter Bunny Belief (EBB), BUT the EBBS was, in fact, an above average scientist and science administrator.

Then along comes a person - let's call him Dichard Rawkins (DR) - who claims that holding to EBB is catastrophic to the scientific endeavour, and that because of their EBB no EBBS should be considered a credible scientist, and that therefore no EBBS should be allowed to hold a position of social or scientific trust.

I would HOPE that it is obvious that DR is making such a criticism DESPITE the evidence that an EBBS can be competent - even of above average competence - and can practice science without distortion due to EBB.

As such, it should be obvious that it's DR who lacks scientific competence in that he is not allowing evidence to dictate his claims, but is operating according to an a priori agenda - that is, his conclusion is fixed prior to making any consideration of the data.

I would readily admit that to ban EBBS from positions of trust would be quite consistent with DR's anti-EBB agenda. But, what I would question, is why he thinks arguing that EBB brings EBBS's competence into question is a valid argument when the evidence so clearly demonstrates that this is not the case.

So, yeah, I suppose an attack on Francis Collins makes sense from Richard Dawkins' position - but that tells me a great deal more about Dawkins than it does about Collins.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> To see it from Dawkins perspective, would any ASA scientist/theologian
> object to a famous scientist who is appointed to NIH who believes in the
> Easter Bunny, and sets up a website promoting the Easter Bunny? Because
> from Dawkin’s perspective, the Easter Bunny is the exact same as
> Yahweh. To Dawkins, both are superstitious myth… on the same exact
> level of nonsense.
>
>
>
> So while you don’t obviously agree with Dawkin’s about Yahweh, it is
> easy to see why he says what he does, right?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 25 18:03:06 2009