Re: Snoke's paper

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 19:37:32 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> 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
>> [quote]
>> "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:
> *Dawkins*
> *Sagan*

You provided links to articles making assertions which they also do not
seem to support with much references. Could you do me a favor and
provide the references to support your claims about Dawkins and Sagan.
Lest we come to the conclusion that they may be strawmen?

> <>
>> *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.

Why? Religious faith should not be an impediment to scientific inquiry.
But there are many 'faces of science' so why focus on a few?

> 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 *@*
> <>

An important document which details the religious and political
motivations of the Discovery Institute. This document, which is
exquisitely described by Forrst and Gross in "Creationism's trojan
horse" helps understand much of why ID is scientifically vacuous.

But I fail to see why your attempt at a response is relevant. Let's call
it for what it is, an irrelevant distraction which fails not only to
support you assertions about science and scientism but also fails to
present a clear argument. What are you trying to say here? That
scientists have religious opinions?... So what? As long as their science
is solid, this should not be of any relevance.
Of course, when the science is flawed... Well, that's a whole other
story but relevant to why ID is scientifically vacuous a concept.
Received on Sat Aug 13 19:39:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 19:39:12 EDT