Re: [NEWS] Press Release: Dembski attacks Pennock and MIT Press

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 12:52:39 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: [NEWS] Press Release: Dembski attacks Pennock and MIT Press"

    Howard wrote: "I have no reason to doubt your account. And if
    Schafersman's words were in print you would have every right to quote
    them in print as his personal sentiments. Would you, however, feel
    justified in rewording them into an abrasive style and then ascribing
    them to "the Darwinian establishment"? "

    I retrieved part of what I had written about Schafersman back in 1997.
    Note that this part of my paper was reviewed by him before I submitted it
    for publication. Here is what I wrote:

    "In his paper, Schafersman develops the argument that, on a moral basis,
    theists ought not "do science." Specifically, he asserts: "I believe
    assuming the truth of naturalism only for the purpose of conducting or
    believing science is a logical and moral mistake." Later, he expands on
    this, by writing, "The moral entailment of ontological naturalism by
    methodological naturalism does not create an ethical lapse among those
    supernaturalists who assume methodological naturalism (for the purposes
    of science), but something similar to an insincerity or want of courage.
    . . .." ".

    I think his paper still exists on the NTSE site.

    My paper can be found on my web site at

    I presume Bill Dembski has seen my paper, as well as several by Dawkins,
    who asserts that people (like both Bill and I, as well as a host of
    others, are either stupid, ignorant or something else pejorative (I don't
    have the exact quote at hand, but I'm sure you've seen it. And it is
    clear that the above from Schafersman suggests (does not directly accuse)
    that both Bill and I, as well as you and others on this list, have either
    insincerity or a want of courage. Again, this is not uttered by
    Schafersman pejoratively; I would think that not even Dawkin's statement
    is made maliciously, but that both are their honest expressions of how
    they view scientists who are theistic, and that necessarily includes TEs.

    I will concede that Bill Dembski could have worded his statement somewhat
    more carefully, but as a statement of fact I think it is quite

    John Burgeson (Burgy)
           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 10 2002 - 13:06:32 EST