Re: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 10:52:15 EDT

I think it's also worth noting is that the "scientific wing" of ID is
largely made up of physical scientists. There is a general prejudice
in the physics and chemistry community, at least among younger
scientists, that if biologists really wanted to "do science" they
would have been one of us. I know that when I toyed with ID, I
fancied most biologists to be willing to accept much less than
"scientific proof" when they came up with their notions. I believe my
comment at the time was something to the effect of "we can show our
answers are right to five decimal places, how come they can't be that
precise?" Couple this to the cursory background in evolution given to
most chemists and physicists (myself included), and you have a cadre
of ID proponents who are especially stubborn, because they believe
their workaday way of doing science is superior and couldn't possibly
be infused with anti-scientific philosophy.

Chris

On 9/9/05, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> I agree with what's been said here so far &, in particular, think it's
> important to realize that the ID movement is part of a larger culture wars
> agenda. But there are other factors involved in the assault on good
> science. Some of this started in the 60s as part of the romanticism
> associated with the counter-culture, & the notion of some post-modernists
> that the scientific approach to understanding the physical world isn't any
> more valid that any other way also plays into it.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research
> Findings Are False
>
>
> >I agree, Don, that evangelistic atheists like Dawkins & Co. shoulder some
> >responsibility for contributing to the distrust of science. They speak to
> >a largely educated audience, and Dawkins often does so in the kind of
> >inflated rhetoric that makes for good copy to a press that thrives on
> >conflict. But at the same time they add more ammunition to the stores of
> >the professional advocates of YEC and ID who use their words to make a case
> >against mainstream science by not making the distinction between science
> >and scientism that you and I understand.
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 9 10:54:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 10:54:30 EDT