Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

Schwarzwald wrote:
> Heya all,
>
> Cameron's pointing out some interesting things here, but there's one
> particular aspect of his argument I want to emphasize.
>
> Does anyone - and I mean anyone - really believe that the NCSE,
> Eugenie Scott, the NABT, etc, are motivated purely, even largely, by a
> concern for science here?
>
> I mean, doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that science education in
> America, and in the west in general, so often seems to be measured
> largely or entirely in terms of belief - not understanding of, mind
> you, but simple declared belief! - in evolution? Why does everyone in
> these debates remember Dover, but no one seems to remember the NABT
> debacle, or consider it as an instructive moment in this debate's
> history? Does anyone find it odd that the NCSE's commitment to science
> education seems myopic to the point of caring for nothing but
> evolutionary theory - and, along with it, the discouragement of any
> percept of design whether or not such design is inherently opposed to
> evolution? And further, does anyone find it odd that a scientific
> theory has political advocates?
>

I think your (and Cameron's) characterization of everyone else's
motivations (i.e. Eugenie Scott in particular) is being uncharitable.
I can imagine her responding that it isn't her that chose to have this
insanely intense focus on evolution to the exclusion of all else. It
was the politically active creationists. And because of *their* intense
attack, she and others will rise to defend what she sees as sound
science precisely at the point of that attack: evolution. In other
words, this could reduce to a case of the "he started it first!" epithet
being thrown back & forth. If people were lobbying legislatures to try
to prevent gravity from being taught in physics classes, then gravity
would become the new "litmus test" that the NCSE and there would be
insanely disproportionate focus on that. Having said all this, though
--I actually do agree with you that both "sides" are off center on this
one because of the stark tension between them in their unscientific
dance with each other. They are whirling around, unwilling to let go
because each perceives that if they let go, their nemesis will suddenly
triumph at the expense of "true science". These dance partners
definitely need to be broken up. I don't know Eugene Scott that well,
but I doubt that she is really "anti-religious", though I don't doubt
she is anti-ID which is probably what has your ire up --and maybe
rightly so. A fair and impartial hearing for ID may have been an
unfortunate casualty in the cross-fire between political creationism and
political evolution defenders.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 15 06:50:17 2009