Re: [asa] Undoing the war on science

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 11:59:36 EST

Agreed. The scientific method including MN protects all of us by keeping distinct what we can know emperically from what we can know by other means. This is no threat to the faith and is still in fact consistent with a rational Designer.

Railing against this is the kneejerk reaction. When we as the church get this mote out of our eye then we will be more effective at getting the vallid specks that you mention below out of the eyes of the atheists.

Schwarzwald is right that the definition of science is in play and that is possibly the true war going on, each side is fighting for the imprimatur of science to support their non-scientific positions. But tit for tat is not productive and no responsible way to engage in this debate. The church has to take the lead in coming clean here and admit that the Design Inference, while it may be in fact rational and logical, it is not scientific, it is a faith position.

Thanks

John

--- On Thu, 12/4/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Undoing the war on science
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu, "gordon brown" <Gordon.Brown@colorado.edu>
> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 4:17 PM
> I think John is on to something.
>
> From the article:
>
> "It is an attitude, a stance towards measuring,
> evaluating and describing
> the world that is based on skepticism, investigation and
> evidence."
>
> I have found that people who talk about evidence are
> accused of being
> creationists merely for talking about evidence as a
> subject.
>
> I have found that skepticism is simply not allowed. It is
> punished by
> personal attack.
> I'm thinking Dean Kenyon (Biochemical PreDestination,
> SF State, did I get
> the name right?),
> Jerry Bergman, Gonzalez. The list gets longer. By
> punishing them the
> western secular monolith (and arguably the academy itself)
> doesn't have to
> deal with their uncomfortable skepticism and dissent.
>
> For example, let me give a personal anecdote. Arthur
> Strahler,
> Understanding Science, p 138, discusses quality of
> hypothesis, and shows a
> graph from Percy Bridgeman, Harvard professor and Nobel
> Laureate. Between
> meetings I showed the graph to a member of the Minnesota
> Science Standards
> Committee, Jamie Crannel, and he immediately leaped to the
> conclusion that
> the graph is some sort of creationist conspiracy. What is
> behind that?
> Could it be *gasp* Politics? Could he have been on the
> committee because
> he was on a mission to bash demon creationists? I mean,
> of course
> everyone knows that anyone who questions the words of the
> high priests
> must by definition be a demon creationist, right? My point
> is, this was a
> government policy maker with a background in teaching high
> school chemistry
> bashing a graph from a Nobel Laureate. Very
> disappointing. Maybe he is
> actually a Bush administration official in disguise?
>
> Speaking of evidence, does the article on the horrible
> Bushies actually
> establish the connection between high level policy making
> Bush
> Administration officals and layers of middle management
> bureaucrats who
> broke the arms of all those who allegedly resigned in
> frustration? What
> they are claiming might be true or it might not be true,
> but where did the
> authors show any evidence to back up their position?
> Maybe my browser
> jumped to the wrong web page? I do agree with Olivia on
> one point.
> World-View taints everything. It is a legitimate issue.
> Could it be this
> is why the scientific method's effect (or side effect)
> is so important:
> Elimination of personal biases?
>
> Cheers,
> -Dave C (ASA member)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:53 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Although there is a kneejerk "war on
> science" reaction from the church,
> > this reveals that the authors of this article have a
> war of their own, on
> > Christian values.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 12/3/08, gordon brown
> <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > > From: gordon brown
> <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Undoing the war on science
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:26 PM
> > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, John Burgeson (ASA member)
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/?th&emc=th
> > > >
> > > > is an interesting essay on "the war on
> > > science."
> > > >
> > > > -- Burgy
> > > >
> > >
> > > Although I agree with most of this article, I
> disagree with
> > > the assertion that abstinence-only sex education
> is an
> > > assault on science. Maybe, as they say, it
> doesn't work,
> > > but there is no reason why it must involve
> denying the facts
> > > of science.
> > >
> > > Gordon Brown (ASA member)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
> body of the
> > > message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
> the message.
> >

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 4 12:00:00 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 04 2008 - 12:00:00 EST