Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:10:23 EDT

  • Next message: Sarah Berel-Harrop: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying. Here
    are two important qualifications and corrections of
    that apparent misunderstanding.

    --- John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
    > Blake wrote, in part: " And, in fact, due to the
    > concerns that the
    > secular university has, I think it is more likely
    > than not that believers
    > of any stripe are rather quiet about their beliefs
    > no matter what topic
    > they teach."
    >
    > Having just spent three years auditing classes at
    > Iliff, a "liberal"
    > Methodist seminary in Denver, I will point out that
    > "good" professors,
    > whatever their own positions might be, generally
    > encourage their students
    > to form and defend their own belief structures, at
    > least on faith issues.

    I would agree, it is a classical liberal approach to
    pedagogy and one that I have always followed. My
    point was that in my experience, it is most often
    violated by those with atheistic views alloyed with an
    intense dislike of organized religion. I have seen it
    repeatedly in classrooms and on faculties. This is
    not to say that people who do this are in any sort of
    majority, I indicated that it is a distinct minority,
    but I was suggesting that part of the negative
    perception of the academy comes from this small, vocal
    minority and to the extent that they do behave in this
    manner, the negative perception is understandable and
    *somewhat* deserved.
     (SNIP)

    > >>(please name a person in life sciences who has
    > been a popularizer of
    > biology to a more successful degree
    > than Dawkins, for example).>>
    >
    > Does Gould qualify?

    I don't think Gould is as popular in sales as Dawkins,
    although I don't have sell-through numbers to back
    that impression up. Of course, his attitude towards
    (and understanding of) religion has never been
    congenial, either. Perhaps not as unremittingly
    hostile as Dawkins, but certainly not nearly as close
    to balanced as someone like Ruse.
     
    > >>please name some theistic science popularizers who
    > actually include
    > their theism in their works? >>
    >
    > Eddington and Sir James Jeans -- of course they were
    > a generation ago.
    > Robert Jastrow. Polkinghorne. Ian Barbour. George
    > Murphy. Steven
    > Goldberg. David Griffin. Howard Van Til. Peacock.
    > Davis Young. The list
    > is very long.

    But the authors you mention have written books
    primarily or exclusively in the science and religion
    area -- not as simply science popularizers, which with
    the exception of Polkinghore's Particle Play I don't
    think any you listed have. I specifically *excepted*
    books on science and religion from the comparison. My
    point was that in popularization of science qua
    science -- NOT discussion of science and religion
    issues -- that the "apparent" bias is overwhelmingly
    in one direction because of the agendas of the science
    qua popularizers (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan, et al.).

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:12:42 EDT