Re: [asa] science martyrs

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Mar 02 2009 - 20:17:14 EST

David, I have already responded to most of these questions in another installment of this thread a few days ago.

In "Edge", Behe refutes the label of TE and differentiates his position from it. That is what I am referring to as special creation. I don't know what else to refer to it as but it is some form of interventionism apparently which crosses the line of science in my mind.

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 3/3/09, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] science martyrs
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: "Lawrence Johnston" <johnston@uidaho.edu>, "Marcio Pie" <pie@ufpr.br>, "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 7:48 AM
> 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.

      

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 20:17:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 02 2009 - 20:17:40 EST