Re: [asa] Defendscience vs. Collins

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 14:31:48 EDT

Agreed. I'd be more than happy to write an email in support of this

This Defend Science statement could not provide a better example of
overreach and, oddly enough, polluting science with philosophy and ideology.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Murray Hogg <> wrote:

> Something else which is disconcerting;
> A couple of years ago the same people were saying (
> <cite>
> To be clear: Many who continue to hold religious beliefs can and should
> rally to this call to DEFEND SCIENCE. This is not about science trying to
> destroy religion. It is about defending science from a specific right-wing
> political agenda which, coupled with a fundamentalist, Biblical-literalist
> religious ideology, is setting out to implement a program that will
> fundamentally pervert and undermine science and the scientific process
> itself.
> Individual scientists may be atheists or agnostics, or may hold various
> religious beliefs; and their politics range over the full spectrum of
> political views.
> </cite>
> When such declarations are made in the name of science and then blithely
> brushed aside, it's easy to see why some would argue that scientific
> "tolerance" of religion is only a ploy to win over, and eventually crush,
> religious belief.
> Were I an American I would be taking Merv's advice and writing a letter to
> congratulate the responsible party - perhaps somebody could locate and post
> the relevant details for the benefit of the group?
> Blessings,
> Murray
> Ted Davis wrote:
>> As Coope pointed out, this statement is full of religion -- or, irreligion
>> to be more precise. This isn't science by any legitimate name. It's also
>> overreaching, even when real science comes into it. For example:
>> "Stephen Jay Gould and other evolutionary biologists have further
>> emphasized that the evolutionary process does not follow any pre-determined
>> course, (let alone one who's 'purpose' is to create homo sapiens or any
>> other particular species)."
>> I know Gould believed that, and perhaps he was right. But this is hardly
>> science. And, it might well be inconsistent with genuine science -- ask
>> Simon Conway Morris for a second opinion, I would say.
>> Ted
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 3 14:32:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 03 2009 - 14:32:55 EDT