Re: [asa] science martyrs

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Mar 02 2009 - 15:48:03 EST

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:11 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have a contrarian opinion of Behe and Steinberg. I don't think the resistance against them is necessarily due to their faith

>but in using their credentials in science to push an agenda that is contrary to science.

This latter would be a completely different case (or criteria). So
there is a possibility you could make a valid case. But one would
have to show that the details of the agenda are against science, as
opposed to merely being ideas which exist within science but also
happen to just be bad ideas. One would need to get very specific.

>
> Case in point, Behe is a professor at a private Christian schools and his own department disavows him.

Because? They disavow him or they disavow one or more of his ideas?
Please show specific details of what they disavow. And how does
one know that a Christian school doesnt have some sort of preferred
religious viewpoint?
Does the doctrine of the school taint all the professors there? Or is
it merely a case that professors are averse to politics in general?

>In contrast, Francis Collins holds a prominent and prestigious government job and no one is calling for his resignation. The difference?

The difference is in part the specific ideas proposed. And in another
part the implications of the ideas. But there are both political and
scientific realms affected by the implications. So its complicated.
You have to sort that out to make a valid case.

>Behe is a special creationist

Behe believes in common descent. I've never heard of a creationist
that believes in common descent. A special creationist evolutionist.
Hmm. That takes the cake!!!! are you sure? Or is this based on mere
perception?

>and Collins is a TE.
Really? Does he call himself that?

>One can be falsified by science but the other can't.
Which can be falsfied by science? the creationism or the theistic evolutionism?

>
>One is in conflict with science and the other is complementary to it but not in conflict.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Theistic science is not in conflict with
science? Of course it is in conflict with science! Theism isn't
science. Theism is based on miracles. I would fight tooth and nail
to keep theistic science out of the classroom as a preferred belief
system. It is ONLY a religious viewpoint.

Unless of course some mingling of religion and science really allowed.
And some mingling of government and religion is allowed. A low and
very pregnable wall of separation.

One needs to go into Behe's book and show the parts of biochemistry
that are creationist versus theistic evolutionism. I don't think you
will find anything. A few sentences about religion at the end of the
book. But those sentences have nothing to do with rest of the
content - only the philosophical implications. One needs to use
analysis to show otherwise. If, for example, one can actually make
the case that blood clotting is a religious theory, well, then fine.
Seems to me most of the content is entirely subject to refutation by
scientific means. Someday somebody may have some. And that is normal
for science.

Now, Dean Kenyon has no religion as far as I know. What about him?

I think your resistance to Behe is that he has the wrong religion.
Consequently, I think a chinese communist is a more objective judge of
Behe's scientific proposals.

Are you sure you want to base scientific truth upon motivation instead
of upon objective evidence?

>
> John
>
>
> --- On Mon, 3/2/09, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] science martyrs
>> To: "Lawrence Johnston" <johnston@uidaho.edu>
>> Cc: "Marcio Pie" <pie@ufpr.br>, "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 5:29 AM
>> Dean Kenyon?  Author of Biochemical Predestination?  Changed
>> his mind,
>> suffered the consequences,  and didn't he have to have
>> court action to
>> re-instate him?
>>
>> But define martyr?  Does losing one's job or career
>> count?   Or does
>> it take shed blood to count? Or is doing jail time the
>> criteria?
>>
>> If Mike Behe isn't a martyr I'd be darned if I know
>> what one is.  Lets
>> say he is  scientifically wrong. So what?  His crime is
>> aiding people
>> who don't want to kiss the ring of the cardinals of the
>> church of
>> evolution.  That is all his crime is.  Its a political
>> crime.  Similar
>> in nature to what Oppenheimer   was  accused of.  The
>> cardinals have
>> instigated the new McCarthyism.
>>
>> Has not Jerry B., ASA member, suffered career loss for
>> writing a neutral piece?
>>
>> Rod LeVake, who lives near me, wrote a "proposed"
>>   lesson plan, was
>> told no, and he then said he would comply with any lesson
>> plan the
>> administrration wanted. But he lost his job (not his
>> employment - his
>> job)  because they feared  LeVake goes to the wrong church
>> and
>> therefore isn't capable of complying with the
>> administrations lesson
>> plan.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Lawrence Johnston
>> <johnston@uidaho.edu> wrote:
>> > An excellent set of examples is given in the recent
>> movie "Expelled" of
>> > academics who lost their jobs and their prospects for
>> their careers,
>> > because of their having doubts about Evolution.
>> >
>> > Larry Johnston
>> >
>> >
>> ===========================================================
>> >
>> > Lawrence H. Johnston                    home: 917 E.
>> 8th st.
>> >
>> > professor of physics, emeritus               Moscow,
>> Id 83843
>> >
>> > University of Idaho                           (208)
>> 882-2765
>> >
>> > Fellow of the American Physical Society      Website:
>> >
>> <http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/%7Ejohnston/HOMEPA%7E1.HTM>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Marcio Pie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi there,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I got a simple question: what are the
>> well-established cases of science
>> >> martyrs? By that I mean cases of scientists (or,
>> more appropriately, natural
>> >> philosophers) that experienced persecution
>> **because** of their scientific
>> >> beliefs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There is the commonly cited but mistaken case of
>> Galileo, which is part of
>> >> scientific pop culture, but has been regarded as a
>> myth by people like Ron
>> >> Numbers. Also, I just learned that Giordano Bruno
>> was not condemned because
>> >> of his scientific views, as commonly stated, but
>> rather due to his
>> >> theological views on the trinity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, is there any example of someone that was
>> really persecuted (or
>> >> martyrized) because of his/her scientific views?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Marcio
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 Mon Mar 2 15:48:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 02 2009 - 15:48:31 EST