Monday, February 28, 2011

 

Treasures


Like Jason Rosenhouse, I haven't really been following the latest Gnu stampede over Jean Kazez' anti-Courtier's Reply. Jason gives a limited reply to Kazez and I'll give a limited reply to Jason.

Most of Jean's post is about the impropriety of discussing certain metaethical theories in the public square, specifically moral error theory. The idea is that the issues involved are too complicated, and too easily caricatured to the detriment of atheists, to be worth discussing in public.

Jason agrees that moral error theory, which "commits you to the view that the statement, 'Torturing babies just for fun is wrong,' cannot be described as true" is probably not something you want associated with Gnu Atheism. On the other hand, he makes the reasonable point that many issues of immediate public concern are highly complicated and easily open to distortion. His examples are global warming, the economic crisis and the current political turmoil in Egypt and Libya. Jason goes on to say:

That is how many of us see the issue of science/religion compatibility. We note the excessive respect and power granted to religious institutions and see a serious social problem. We note the existence of well-funded groups relentlessly peddling science/religion compatibility, a view we tend to regard as pernicious nonsense. ...

People tend to be insular. This is especially true of religious conservatives. They tend to keep doing what they've always done, and thinking what they've always thought, until something novel catches their attention. If you want to win people to your way of thinking you must first make them aware that your way of thinking is out there. Sometimes that means screaming and yelling a bit, and not worrying so much about bruising a few feelings.

But are religious conservatives really the target of the Gnus in this discussion? After all, highly visible and astute publicists for religious conservatism, such as R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, already agree with the Gnus that science and their religion are incompatible. The issue is and has always been whether some ... not to put too fine a point on it ... more evolved forms of theism are "incompatible" with science.

Quite apart from the pause that you should get from the tactical agreement your bitterest opponents have with your own arguments, the question is whether it is any better to loudly proclaim, to the kind of intelligent and reasonably educated theists who might be swayed on the plethora of issues surrounding the desirability of a secular society, that we don't need no steenkin nuance on the issue of the compatibility of science and religion, than it is to declare it okay to torture babies.

Put another way, if the Gnus become associated, in the minds of the kinds of people who might be their social allies, with distorting science and religion as a political ploy, are they likely to gain anything for their own cause, much less for secularism in general?
.

Comments:
John, this is the kind of subtle argument it would be best not to make in the public square, since it's so likely to be misconstrued.
 
to the kind of intelligent and reasonably educated theists who might be swayed on the plethora of issues surrounding the desirability of a secular society,
Because intelligent and reasonably educated theists make decisions based on the philosophical argument about whether science is compatible with religion?
 
Because intelligent and reasonably educated theists make decisions based on the philosophical argument about whether science is compatible with religion?

No, no more than they would be swayed by by the real arguments about moral error theory. It's the perception of what's going on that counts and even intelligent and reasonably educated theists not deeply invested in the argument may well take it that otherwise fine scientists and educators, such as Ken Miller, are being called incompatible with science because of their religious beliefs. Many Americans have a perception of "fairness" that it is dangerous to cross in a political struggle.
 
The science of psychoanalysis is compatible with religion. Do a search: The First Scandal.
 
I thought psychoanalysis was a religion.


-- pew sitter
 
John, maybe I've forgotten a lot of things recently, but it seems like the bottom line with science education/religion is that there are a whole lot of people, and the official positions of most denominations, that see no problem with science, and evolution in particular.

So, that being said, what's up with Coyne & friends? What's their big problem?
 
No, no more than they would be swayed by by the real arguments about moral error theory.
And you know this, how?

Many Americans have a perception of "fairness" that it is dangerous to cross in a political struggle.
So let me see if I understand. Coyne et al say religion is incompatible with science - this is going to be perceived as Ken Miller is incompatible with science (can't find a gnu who says that).That will be dangerous because these intelligent and reasonable theists will then turn away from other secular causes and become fundamentalists - because lets face it if Ken Miller is incompatible with science, what chance do they have?

Seriously? You set a low bar for *intelligent*, don't you?
 
@Anonymous
The official position of the Catholic church is acceptance of evolution. It still doesn't stop them from forbidding stem cell research because a soul is injected at conception. Evolution is just a symptom.

You can't keep fighting small battles one for Evolution, one for stem cell research, one to allow contraceptives, another to allow abortion and so on and so forth - to say nothing about the social issues.
 
And you know this, how?

The same way Jason knows that it's a bad idea to become associated with the idea that torturing babies is okay. The same kind of informal observation over time that Gnus claim support their beliefs.

That will be dangerous because these intelligent and reasonable theists will then turn away from other secular causes and become fundamentalists ...

If there is anything we know about politics, especially in America today, it's that the middle doesn't have to become the same as the extreme in order for the extreme to win.

Seriously? You set a low bar for *intelligent*, don't you?

Really? You managed to miss the part where I talked about people "not deeply invested in the argument." You formed a perception about the argument that didn't take in all the "nuances" being offered even though you obviously are invested in it. I know you're intelligent. How much more the case when someone just sees some sneering letter to the editor or blog post on a subject they've not passionate about?

You can't keep fighting small battles one for Evolution, one for stem cell research, one to allow contraceptives, another to allow abortion and so on and so forth - to say nothing about the social issues.

Well, sure. "We" can overthrow the government and install an oligarchy of scientists and be done with democracy altogether. The point of all this is how best to win what we want. Gnus appear to think that the best way is through confrontation, including against "faitheists" who are clearly intelligent but simply disagree with them. Those societies that are most secular, so often pointed to by Gnus, were not made that way through confrontation but by slow erosion of the authority of religion. It's not at all certain that either approach will work but shooting the guys in your own trench is rarely a good idea.
 
"Coyne et al say religion is incompatible with science - this is going to be perceived as Ken Miller is incompatible with science (can't find a gnu who says that)."

I also can't find a gnu who can coherently resolve the implications of this.

They disrespect Miller's religion while hemming and hawing about him being a fine scientist. Yet when Francis Collins was appointed to his latest position, there were grumblings. There were some justified opinions IMO that Collins reputation as a religious scientist may have helped him win the appointment, so I'm not referring to those.

The question is, if a scientist is also religious, what do they really want to do about that? And no, I'm not talking about someone like Gaskill where there's evidence he's pushing ID as science.

What's implied by the gnus is that religion is a failing especially in a scientist. If we are to apply their standard - that science and philosophical naturalism are basically one and the same, what does that mean in terms of hiring, advancement, funding?

If they were in power and not deterred by laws discriminating against religion, how would they act? Why wouldn't they make their actions reflect their opinions? What about their stance doesn't imply religious scientists should become second-class scientists?
 
@John
The same way Jason knows...
Ah come on. Only the gnu's are supposed to use tu quoque.

You formed a perception about the argument that didn't take in all the "nuances"
No I gave intelligent and reasonably educated people more credit than you do.

I know you're intelligent.
Well thanks , but probably untrue.

Well, sure. "We" can overthrow the government and install an oligarchy of scientists and be done with democracy altogether.
What in my answer gave you this impression? To me its fairly obvious that if you could reduce the influence of religion in the public sphere (and especially in the political) you could go a long way to achieving a good number of secular goals. I don't see how the accomodationist position even acknowledges that argument (or even whether it believes that this a worthy goal).

Gnus appear to think that the best way is through confrontation,
No this is you framing the argument. What we would be satisfied with is the right to criticise religion and religious practices , no different from what we can do today in politics. It becomes a confrontation when people keep saying you shouldn't do that.
 
Ah come on. Only the gnu's are supposed to use tu quoque.

It wasn't a tu quoque. I think Jason is quite justified in thinking that going on about something that, in popular media, can be easily construed as endorsing baby torture is a bad idea.

I also think that the kind of "informal observation" Gnus use to conclude there is no god(s) is perfectly respectable. I just don't think it is "science." As a corollary, I don't think it can be said that all religion is "incompatible" with science.

No I gave intelligent and reasonably educated people more credit than you do.

No one expends equal intellectual effort to everything in their life. I'm not willing to call someone unintelligent and uneducated simply because they treat certain subjects with less seriousness than I do. Who is giving who less credit is a matter of perspective.

I know you're intelligent.
Well thanks , but probably untrue.


No, that's something I'm quite sure of based on informal observation.

What in my answer gave you this impression?

That's called a reductio ad absurdum. The issue is how best to lead a society (particularly one as religious as ours) towards one that is more secular. As long as we're talking about a democratic society, then we have to consider the opinions and feeling of our fellow citizens. That doesn't mean we can't criticize them, but we should think hard and long about how to go about it. Simply dismissing those on our own "side" as "faithieists" and disparaging people like Miller (or, at least, speaking in terms that can be easily misconstrued as disparaging) is a valid issue.

To me its fairly obvious that if you could reduce the influence of religion in the public sphere (and especially in the political) you could go a long way to achieving a good number of secular goals. I don't see how the accomodationist position even acknowledges that argument (or even whether it believes that this a worthy goal).

I agree with the goal, as do, as far as I can tell, most "accommodationists."

No this is you framing the argument.

Ooh! "Framing"! Another word used to avoid the argument. And, of course, Gnus don't frame. (Now, that's a tu quoque ... though the real point is that the term is meaningless.)

What we would be satisfied with is the right to criticise religion and religious practices , no different from what we can do today in politics. It becomes a confrontation when people keep saying you shouldn't do that..

Bullcrap! Who is trying to stop Gnus from criticizing anyone, including Miller? "Accommodationists" make counter-arguments and counsel Gnus that they should consider the possibility that their tactics may be counterproductive. The simple fact is that the majority of the scientific community appears to agree with the "accommodationists," based on the fact that most of the "accommodationist" statements by science organizations complained about by Gnus have stood despite the objections by the Gnus. If argument over and conclusions about tactics is somehow wrong, then the very notion of rational discussion is wrong.
 
"Accommodationists" make counter-arguments and counsel Gnus that they should consider the possibility that their tactics may be counterproductive.
Hah!. You may think you are saying this, but that's not what comes across. And counter productive to what cause exactly?

I don't think it can be said that all religion is "incompatible" with science.
Way before I was agnostic or had even read Dawkins, I used to phrase this as an evidence based system(of which science is only one) is incompatible with a faith based one. That seems to be pretty obvious to me.

I agree with the goal, as do, as far as I can tell, most "accommodationists."
Fair enough. What are your tactics/methods in this case then?
Surely religion is compatible with science wont advance your case when you want to say less religion in politics/public please - after all good religion is in perfect harmony with science (Ayala).

Ooh! "Framing"! Another word used to avoid the argument
No the argument is gnu's didn't start this looking for confrontation (I still cant believe that Stangroom wastes so much time proving that Russell Blackford is incivil).
Its now turned out to be so because both *sides* have given into their biases.(my opinion). It would have been much simpler to say , fine we disagree about this incompatibility and incivility issue , but since we have so much else in common we can ignore it.
But it looks like flame wars are preferrable (and gnu's are responsible too but the accomodationists arent exactly blameless).

Who is trying to stop Gnus from criticizing anyone, including Miller?
I said accomodationists say you shouldn't do that(criticise religion in public, or religious figures (especially if they also do science). How else should I interpret "you shouldnt do this" other than "stop doing this". You now seem to phrase this as "counter-productive".

Based on the fact that most of the "accommodationist" statements by science organizations complained about by Gnus have stood despite the objections by the Gnus.
And the simple fact also is that there is as much distrust of science as there used to be evidenced by the relative stable numbers of people who reject evolution before and after gnu's. The only difference is that now some non believers are visible prominently in public (to a much larger extent) and thats not a bad thing.
 
"To me its fairly obvious that if you could reduce the influence of religion in the public sphere (and especially in the political) you could go a long way to achieving a good number of secular goals. I don't see how the accomodationist position even acknowledges that argument (or even whether it believes that this a worthy goal).

I agree with the goal, as do, as far as I can tell, most "accommodationists." "

I would need to know exactly what these goals are before I'd go so far as to agree with them all. One of the conflicts is that NAs put emphasis on a different goal - advancing philosophical naturalism, some to the extent of claiming that it's science - than those who have the goal of supporting science education.
 
You may think you are saying this, but that's not what comes across.

[Shrug] If that's the excuse, then you can't blame theists for thinking that the incompatiblists are attacking the scientific credentials of people like Miller. You can't have it both ways. If Gnus perception is what counts, then they are not making "decisions based on the philosophical argument about whether science is compatible with religion" but on emotional responses to what the "accomodationists" are saying. The accomodationists should take that into consideration when they say what they do but, then, so should the Gnus.

Way before I was agnostic or had even read Dawkins, I used to phrase this as an evidence based system(of which science is only one) is incompatible with a faith based one. That seems to be pretty obvious to me.

And, so, you don't say that "science" is incomatible with religion, just this larger "system"?

Surely religion is compatible with science wont advance your case when you want to say less religion in politics/public please ...

If I don't present theists with the stark choice between accepting science or religion, when it comes to something like stem cell research, they may well be more likely to accept the science, just as we see now in the debate over the deficit. Ask the public whether we should make the stark choice between reining in the deficit or not, they overwhelming choose to cut government spending. Ask them whether or not to cut spending on education, infrastructure or medicare and they don't want to do it, also by large majorities. The kind of theists we are talking about won't accept having to give up their religion in order to support science but they probably will accept science in the particular.

But it looks like flame wars are preferrable (and gnu's are responsible too but the accomodationists arent exactly blameless).

No one is ever blameless ... except me, of course.

How else should I interpret "you shouldnt do this" other than "stop doing this".

How should theistic scientists take being told that their beliefs are "incompatible" with science other than they are not "real" scientists? Have there been any attempts or even suggestions that Gnus be ousted from scientific societies or otherwise penalized? If I can't argue that my position is better than Gnus, are you saying anything different than what you say the accomodationists are doing?

And the simple fact also is that there is as much distrust of science as there used to be evidenced by the relative stable numbers of people who reject evolution before and after gnu's.

A substantial majority of Americans support stem cell research.

The only difference is that now some non believers are visible prominently in public (to a much larger extent) and thats not a bad thing.

I don't disagree. But that doesn't make the issue of their tactices less acute ... if anything, it makes it more so.
 
Phah! That's "tactics" in the last sentence.
 
John,

'Simply dismissing those on our own "side" as "faithieists" and disparaging people like Miller (or, at least, speaking in terms that can be easily misconstrued as disparaging) is a valid issue.'

When Coyne first had a review of Miller it was polite or civil or whatever. From what I recall, it was then Mooney who cranked up the temperature and then Coyne et al. came out with terms like faitheists and then there was a retaliation, and counter-retaliation.

I think Coyne, et al. do have some legitimate bones to pick with some commentators. Some have provoked, and then turned around after receiving a grumpy reply to provocation and said 'ah ha! you gnus are nasty!'.

It would be akin to swearing at someone, then when receiving an expletive in reply, exclaiming that the other guy should be more civil. I don't reckon that justifies it however. At lest not now. I'm of the opinion that Coyne, Benson, Blackford, etc - all of whom I have respect for - might be best off letting this 'go through to the keeper' and get on with stuff that we all agree is worth pursuing. There's only so much 'he said, she said' or back-and-forth we can engage in before we're pointlessly enemies.
 
There's only so much 'he said, she said' or back-and-forth we can engage in before we're pointlessly enemies.

I for one welcome our new overlords, the Reconciliationists.
 
[Shrug] If that's the excuse
Its not an excuse, its advise - Im making that statement with all the objectivity I can muster.

And, so, you don't say that "science" is incomatible with religion, just this larger "system"?
I did phrase it broader than that. Science is an evidence based system and supposedly the crucial parts of most religions are faith based (especially on the existence of God without which religion would be quite different). So yes it follows that "science" is incompatible with the faith based parts of religion(and If i take away the faith based parts then I probably wouldn't call it religion). Just as I think that most claims of religion would also fail a legal test (which isnt based on empirical evidence). I could just as well say there is no evidence for religion that would satisfy our courts(atleast one that doesnt have scalia and co.) . I also think that an evidence based system is also incompatible with superstitions. Or an evidence based system is incompatible with astrology.
And honestly if the religious kept their religion at home and in their churches , who would even care? Religious authority meddles in various places , if they stop it , then the incompatibility argument becomes superfluous. As before I don't see how an argument of the form "good" religion is in harmony with science achieves that goal.

If I don't present theists with the stark choice between accepting science or religion
But that's not the choice. Its helping people understand the difference in methodology , and explaining why religion should not have a say when evidence matters.

No one is ever blameless ... except me, of course.
Oh did I give that impression? im on the gnu's side (a gnu agnostic! - hopefully that's a first) and I dont think we are blameless.

How should theistic scientists take being told that their beliefs are "incompatible" with science other than they are not "real" scientists?
They should take it as an opportunity to reevaluate their beliefs. But is Francis Collins being a real scientist when he says morality could not have evolved? is he a real scientist when he says the universe has constants that are finely tuned?
The fact of the matter remains that being religious needs you to accept some propositions that are very likely false. Being scientific needs you to acknowledge that.

A substantial majority of Americans support stem cell research.
And we still don't have proper federal funding. Should tell you something no? The fact still remains those who oppose stem cell research do it for religious reasons (or for political reasons that depend on appeasing the religious authority) on the premise that a soul exists. Now what argument can you make?

you also didn't answer the only worthwile question in my previous post - what tactics/methods do you suggest for increased secularization of society?
 
@386sx
I for one welcome our new overlords, the Reconciliationists.
Ha! Let the label wars begin!
 
I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds

--Neville Chamberlain, 30 September 1938
 
Anonymous, there's really only one good reply to your quote of Chamberlain: BRAIIIIINS!
 
Brian: "When Coyne first had a review of Miller it was polite or civil or whatever. From what I recall, it was then Mooney who cranked up the temperature and then Coyne et al. came out with terms like faitheists and then there was a retaliation, and counter-retaliation."

Actually, things were building before that. From Ken Miller's reply to Coyne, he lists two blog posts as well as the TNR review.

I'm sure that we're all aware that publications will sometimes solicit book reviews from writers who they know will produce a, let's say, stirring review.

We can all google "Coyne Miller Review" and see the results from sandwalk and evolutionblog.

Rosenhouse, in his post called "Coyne Spanks Miller, Giberson," even feels he has to go out of his way to caution about labeling people "creationists," which Coyne came very close to doing in that review. I would think that someone like Miller, who has devoted a significant amount of time to defend science education against creationists, would be offended by having that label used on him.

Meanwhile, looking through the Intersection archives, I didn't see a post in January or February of 2009 that mentioned the review. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.

So I'm not interested in fighting this old battle either, but I will say this: A good first step in finding common ground - if you're really interested in that - would be to acknowledge that provocation is in the eye of the beholder, and to get the history right.
 
BTW, I may have the flu or something flu-like, so this may not be all that coherent ... as if that would make any difference ...

Brian:

When Coyne first had a review of Miller it was polite or civil or whatever.

From Coyne:

... a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.

Shorter Coyne: "I politely, civilly or whateverly suggest you remove yourself from religion or your pollution from science."

I'm of the opinion that Coyne, Benson, Blackford, etc - all of whom I have respect for - might be best off letting this 'go through to the keeper' and get on with stuff that we all agree is worth pursuing. There's only so much 'he said, she said' or back-and-forth we can engage in before we're pointlessly enemies.

I think that is the real point ... stop shooting the guys in your own trench.

Deepak:

Its not an excuse, its advise - Im making that statement with all the objectivity I can muster.

Funny ... I don't feel like I've been told to "shut up" ...

... it follows that "science" is incompatible with the faith based parts of religion ...

In dictionaries where orthogonal = incompatible. But, really, I don't want to rehearse the whole argument. Are you asserting that accommodationism is irrational?

But that's not the choice. Its helping people understand the difference in methodology ...

The Gnus deny ... openly or sub rosa ... that "science" is tied to methodology ... that's the whole point of incompatiblism ... Ken Millers is "polluting" science because of his "unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims," even though they appear nowhere in his "science."

Oh did I give that impression?

No, that was really a joke about me!

But is Francis Collins being a real scientist when he says morality could not have evolved?

Has he claimed his belief is a scientific result?

And we still don't have proper federal funding. Should tell you something no?

Yes ... that nobody has yet come up with a way to politically achieve what "we" would like. Your evidence that the Gnus have, against all conventional political wisdom, is ... ?

... what tactics/methods do you suggest for increased secularization of society?

I thought it was obvious. Continue as we have been ... with Gnus continuing with their agenda (perhaps with a little less vigor ... if they so choose) and accommodationists continuing with their agenda as they do ... and let the rational arguments sift down.

386sx:

"Reconciliationists"

Love it!
 
Funny ... I don't feel like I've been told to "shut up"
Perhaps because I didn't tell you to. I said your message is being misunderstood and not that your message is counter-productive. Part of that is my bias, but probably part of it is also what you say/do doesn't match what you mean you say.
Again even the statement that "consider what you say might be counter productive" will still be met with opposition (since it implies that gnu's are the small children who actually don't consider the impact of their actions). But you might convince someone like me that it isn't worth arguing about- since in the general this is a good rule of thumb.
In dictionaries where orthogonal = incompatible.
God exists is a factual claim. I can use whatever I know about various systems of evidence or I can have faith that God exists - I can't do both and be consistent.
How is it orthogonal? I assume that any answer other than "yes" will need drastic changes to religion that I wouldn't call it religion anymore.(yes I know, there are a couple of exceptions i can think of)

Are you asserting that accommodationism is irrational?
No, I find it more in the appeasement/political category - Which has its place .
I just don't get the need to keep criticizing gnu's for, in my opinion, a fairly reasonable view on the incompatibility topic while keeping mum on the various idiotic pronouncements of the religious (e.g. biologos)

Has he claimed his belief is a scientific result?
But this is where the line gets blurred. You say everything is a matter of perception, right? If a reasonably famous scientist makes an assertion that morality could not have evolved is it a religious pronouncement or a scientific result? What is it perceived as? Clearly he's making a conclusion on a topic that science does have a say in because of his religious bias. Id think this a clear example of even reasonably competent scientists letting their religion cloud their science. That he doesn't claim this is a scientific result has no bearing on the matter (if a creationist claims the earth is 6000 years old but claims this result isnt a scientific result , does it make sense to you?)

Your evidence that the Gnus have, against all conventional political wisdom, is ... ?
I didnt say there has been success, I said atleast we take up the problem behind opposition to stem cell reasearch. I dont see accomodationists doing this(in a very limited reading so i might be wrong) - they are content to merely claim that the results of the research would be useful.

perhaps with a little less vigor
But what does this entail? List a few examples so I know what you mean. One seems to be avoid criticising people like Miller ("our allies")directly or indirectly. What else?
 
'Rosenhouse, in his post called "Coyne Spanks Miller, Giberson," even feels he has to go out of his way to caution about labeling people "creationists," which Coyne came very close to doing in that review.'

Well, to get pedantic, any person who believes that a deity created the universe and set in motion some method to obtain something like us that could worship that deity is a creationist. Miller then is a creationist. Not a YEC or OEC, but a theistic evolutionary creationist. It comes down to whether you believe there's a creator or not. But that's splitting hairs. I've had a cold for 3 weeks and can't be arsed arguing it. And Jason Rosenhouse is way smarter than me, so I won't try.


Shorter Coyne: "I politely, civilly or whateverly suggest you remove yourself from religion or your pollution from science."

It does appear that way from the quote. And I know you wouldn't quote mine.

Thing is, I have some sympathy for Coyne, et al. but I read them as saying 'religious scientists do great science, but that don't mean science and religion are compatible, except in the trivial sense that religious scientists do great science.' But we've been over this so, so, so many times. I even blogged on it poorly last year, but gave up in frustration at my lack of analytical skills and the endless merry-go-round that is this debate.


It might be the 3 week cold, but I'm over it. Let's accept that we don't like Mooney, Coyne or whomever individually we don't like, then retarget our snark guns at creobots.

Having said that, I know I'll be told that I'm telling both gnus and accomodationists to STFU. Hopefully I can unite both tribes against me, then deflect both onto creobots.

What happened to the reconciliationists?
 
"Well, to get pedantic, any person who believes that a deity created the universe and set in motion some method to obtain something like us that could worship that deity is a creationist. Miller then is a creationist."

That is a redefining of the word as it was once understood, and I don't agree with the redefinition at all. Miller is not a creationist, he does not need to be stopped nor lumped in with whatever you mean by creobots. He and other theists like the plaintiff in Dover have been on the front lines defending good science education.

So with that understanding, what exactly is it we're supposed to agree upon again?
 
That is a redefining of the word as it was once understood, and I don't agree with the redefinition at all.
He believes that the universe was created by a creator. Seems to me to be the essential trait of a creationist. I'm not calling him a YED or OEC.

Miller is not a creationist,

We'll have to agree to disagree. He believes in a creator that created the universe. That to me seems to be the essential mark of a creationist.

he does not need to be stopped nor lumped in with whatever you mean by creobots.

I agree. Creobots are those who try to displace science their creation myth. He certainly isn't doing that, as he's a top scientist and proponent of science. Thus he's not a creobot.

He and other theists like the plaintiff in Dover have been on the front lines defending good science education.

Absolutely. I never said he wasn't.
 
Aghrrh! I repeated myself in the last comment. Cut and paste error. Whoops!
 
Thinking about this again. I'll retract my claim that Miller is a creationist based on his belief in a creator. This is because in some locations, the US most probably, 'creationist' has added tones that are political and either pejorative (scientist) or superlative (Bible belter) depending on who you talk to.

I checked wikipedia and it lists theological evolution as evolutionary creation. Which I thought would've made Miller a evolutionary creationist. But still, given the word creationist implies more than a belief in a creator, such as a suite of beliefs that Miller doesn't hold, I take it back. I can't be arsed having an argument of a bit of semantic shuffling.
 
And what you still interested?
 
Thanks Brian. I appreciate your flexibility.
 
I'm really not feeling well enough to continue this just now but I'll say this:

That he doesn't claim this is a scientific result has no bearing on the matter (if a creationist claims the earth is 6000 years old but claims this result isnt a scientific result , does it make sense to you?)

So, if a famous scientist makes a political statement (say, who would make the better president ... something science could arguably be brought to bear on) we should take it as a scientific claim? BTW, I'm an agnostic precisely because I don't think there is any way humans can have knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of gods.
 
I'm really not feeling well
get well soon so you cant give this an excuse :)

So, if a famous scientist makes a political statement
No bad analogy - a famous scientist made a statement on a scientific matter. (unless you believe that the evolution of morality is not a scientific matter).
For e.g. A doctor could make a comment about politics all he wants. However when he is making a claim on either the healing power of homeopathy or the healing power of lourdes you cannot then say well he didn't say this is a medical conclusion. Ditto for Collins. He is commenting on a scientific matter.

Your analogy does not work. Who would make a better president isn't a scientific claim (unless you do produce some sort of model to accurately predict the future and we agree on what constitutes "better" and if you did then yes the same would apply).
 
Hi there,

I have a inquiry for the webmaster/admin here at dododreams.blogspot.com.

Can I use part of the information from this post right above if I provide a link back to your website?

Thanks,
Jack
 
Who would make a better president isn't a scientific claim (unless you do produce some sort of model to accurately predict the future and we agree on what constitutes "better" and if you did then yes the same would apply).

And your accurate model to predict what the world would be like if there is (or isn't) a god is? ...
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives