Re: Washington Post makes agenda for science crystal clear

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 11:03:04 EDT

I find an interesting contrast between WaPo and the Smithsonian. While WaPo
uses the word religious, the Smithsonian uses the word philosophical. What
Denyse's uni-dimensional analysis misses is the drift away from the
Dawkins/Sagan wing and how scientists may differ from the elites at the
Washington Post. Now the Smithsonian may be using the word philosophical to
cover their original error that they did include a religious film even
though their policy forbade it, but I don't think that is the case.

Denyse, what you should be celebrating is that the Smithsonian is implictly
agreeing with you that Sagan's Cosmos would be inappropriate for one of
their events. This is because while you might be able to say it isn't
religious you cannot say it isn't philosophical. Further, the Smithsonian is
not the only ones granting this point that Dawkins-style Darwinism is just
as inappropriate for the public schools as Intelligent Design. The reason is
not that people shouldn't try to figure out whether the Universe was
designed or not but that science is an inappropriate vehicle to answer the
question. This is an astonishing admission because Atheism is built on this
foundation of science answering these metaphysical questions and Dawkins'
friends at the Smithsonian are knocking the legs out from underneath him.

On 6/3/05, Denyse O'Leary <oleary@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Huh? Has Christmas come early? This Washington Post editorial is a gift to
> me because it illustrates precisely what I am trying to say about the way
> that science has become the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. The
> editorialist notes,
>
>
> "While "The Privileged Planet" is an extremely sophisticated religious
> film,
> it is a religious film nevertheless. It uses scientific information -- the
> apparently "perfect" position of Earth in its orbit and in its galaxy, the
> uniqueness of its atmosphere -- to answer, affirmatively, the
> philosophical
> question of whether life on Earth was part of a grand design, and not just
> the result of chance and chemistry. Neither God nor evolution is
> mentioned.
> Nevertheless, the film is consistent with the Discovery Institute's
> general
> aim, which is to drive a wedge into the scientific consensus about the
> origins of life and the universe and to give a patina of scientific
> credibility to the idea of an intelligent creator."
>
> O'Leary links and comments at
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> --
> Read brief excerpts from my book, By Design or by Chance?: The Growing
> Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress,
> 2004)
> at
>
> http://www.designorchance.com/press.html
>
> Study Guide:
> http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b088sk.htm
>
> Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806651776/qid=1109790930/sr=8
> -1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8617533-8799957?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> My blog:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
> (go to other blogs from here)
>
> Denyse O'Leary
> Tel: 416 485-2392
> Fax: 416 485-2392
> oleary@sympatico.ca
> www.designorchance.com <http://www.designorchance.com>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 3 11:04:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 11:04:51 EDT