Re: Dembski

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 00:56:49 EST

  • Next message: Morton, Glenn: "The oldest art"

    I have been studying and working in geology for 24 years in 6 universities
    and three companies. I have worked with Christians, pagans, aetheists, and
    agnostics. Some I have worked well with, other have been very difficult.
    I have encountered support, disagreement, amused tolerance and outright
    contempt for my faith but to the best of my knowledge people's opinion of
    my faith has never effected their professional conduct and attitude towards
    me.In my experience the attitudes of Dawkins, Provine, Puglicci, and
    Schafersman, et al are very much a minority.


    "" wrote:

    > Burgy wrote:
    > [...]
    > >It is clear that your first definition above, "someone who holds that
    > >the scientific evidence supports evolution and that this implies
    > >atheism," is close, if not synonymous with the definition of Darwinism
    > >favored by Johnson and Dembski. The question of whether such persons,
    > >which clearly includes Dawkins, Provine, Puglicci, and Schafersman,
    > >is "a noisy but very small minority" is one which is not so clear --
    > >at least not to me. Note that I don't hold such a view particularly --
    > >neither do I reject it. It is simply an open question, and I really
    > >don't know how to address it. It is clear that the four individuals
    > >mentioned above, particularly Dawkins, taken together get a fair
    > >amount of press, argue well, etc.
    > [...]
    > We've seen similar discussions on this list before, I think.
    > If there is anything that I've learned from following discussions
    > with high emotional content, politics or excess baggage, it is
    > that volume is a poor indicator of representative opinion. The
    > press rarely publishes headlines like: "No conflict here!" They
    > actively seek out extremes of opinion. The same goes for any groups
    > that feel the need to get attention. It's not that they argue well,
    > it's that they are the few that argue. Note that polarization is
    > a classic tactic used to boost extremes by draining support from the
    > middle.
    > Here are about 50-75 data points:
    > None of my colleagues in biochemistry with whom I've had relevant
    > conversations on the topic agree with the extreme posititions taken
    > by the gentlemen listed above. Well, there was one exception. A
    > fellow grad student (at the time) who later entered the ministry
    > felt uneasy about whether evolutionary theory and Christianity could
    > be reconciled. Friends that have worked on projects directly related
    > to studies on evolution have never suggested that Darwinism implies
    > atheism. In fact, many were theists themselves. Most of the
    > professionals I've known easily separate the "wheat from the chaff"
    > on such poorly supported metaphysical opinions.
    > Regards,
    > Tim Ikeda
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
    > .

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 01:34:58 EST