Re: Snoke's paper

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 16:48:55 EDT

At 03:10 PM 8/13/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:

>janice matchett wrote: #1# "But many, like Dawkins,, still want
>to call their man-centered religion, "science" - when in reality it is
>Scientism. Scientism: "Only that which can be proved by science is true." ~
>Could I ask you to support your claims with some references for what
>Dawkins and Sagan have said?
>For instance Sagan is quoted
>"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul
>hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is
>certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence
>against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.
>Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate
>causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we
>do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence
>of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the
>confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as
>to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate
>positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional
>energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and
>open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our
>collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of
>God."[/quote] -"The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain, p. 311.

#2# I provided links to both Dawkins and Sagan in my previous posts. But
here they are again:



>janice matchett wrote:
>>#1# "....But many, like Dawkins,, still want to call their
>>*man-centered religion*, "science" - when in reality it is
>>Scientism. *Scientism: "Only that which can be proved by science is true."

>I doubt that 'many' adhere to what you describe as scientism. Scientism is
>as wrong as religious claims if it states that science can prove/disprove
>the existence of a supernatural entity. The problem is, as I see it, that
>ID proponents are inserting the supernatural into science without
>addressing the relevant questions. For instance, by stating the design can
>be detected, ID proponents have taken the leap of faith that, what
>Elsberry et al refer to as, rarefied design can also be detected. ID as it
>exist right now is scientifically vacuous. At most it can be argued that
>ID may guide research for better or worse. The lack of a theoretical
>foundation for ID seems self evident and in many cases is not even denied
>(anymore) by ID proponents. Once the concept of science is understood,
>science nor religion should have anything to fear from each other.

#2# If they want to recover their reputations and be respected by the
public as serious scientists, I suggest that they distance themselves from
all the people who are promoted by web sites like, and stop allowing people like Richard Dawkins,, to be "the faces" of science.

For instance, here are a couple of people that supposedly serious
"scientists" are using as PR instruments and as speakers at many of their
conventions, meetings, etc.:

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Circulates Online by James Still

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of James Still:

James Still B.A., Philosophy, University of Minnesota - "...helped to build
and maintain the Secular Web. ... President of the Internet Infidels from
2000 until 2002. ..Compulsively and deterministically dwells on
philosophical problems and issues, ..epistemology, avid
yoga practitioner ... reads widely in Eastern mysticism"
<>, etc.,
etc., <>@

"The Wedge at Work": How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way
into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of Barbara Forrest:

Barbara Carroll Forrest - B.A., English, Southeastern Louisiana University,
1974 - M.A., Philosophy, Louisiana State University, 1978 - Ph.D.,
Philosophy, Tulane University, 1988

Teaching positions:

Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 2002 - Present
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Full-time Instructor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Part-time Instructor in Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,

Among her awards: "Friend of Darwin" Award, National Center for Science
Education, March 1998

Conference Presentations [excerpts]:

"A Critical Philosophical Analysis of the Moral Distinction Between Active
and Passive Euthanasia," Mid-South Sociological Association, Jackson, MS,
November, 1978.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," and "The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Science
and Society Conference. Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of the
History of Natural Sciences and Technology; Faculty of Philosophy, St.
Petersburg State University. St Petersburg, Russia, June 19-25, 1999.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," at Science and God: A Naturalistic Examination of Cosmology,
the Anthropic Principle, and Design Theories. Society of Humanist
Philosophers, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, September 25-26, 1999.

Lectures/Presentations [excerpts]:

"Creation and Evolution: A Philosophical View of the Concept of Balanced
Treatment." Public forum: "Evolution and Creationism in Louisiana Public
Schools," SLU, March 31, 1981.

"The Influence of Darwin on 19th- and 20th-Century Culture," Dept. of
Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, April 21, 1995. ...

Journal Articles [excerpt]: "An Analysis of the Causal Interpretation of
Karl Marx's Theory of History," Lamar Journal of the Humanities, Spring 1989.

...Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," Philo, Fall-Winter 2000.

"The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Zygon, December 2000.

etc., <>@

The "Wedge Document": "So What?": Staff Discovery Institute March 1, 2004
here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the
"wedge document."

~ Janice
Received on Sat Aug 13 16:50:39 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 16:50:40 EDT