Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Brian Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 15:43:07 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Truth and lies from Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    At 12:35 PM 8/27/2003 -0600, Terry M. Gray wrote:
    >Brian Harper wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>This issue does seem to be problematic. Is methodological naturalism
    >>really the way of doing science or is it just a way to circumvent ID?
    >>If it is (and I agree that it is), then why is it one sided? Why doesn't
    >>MN also constrain the atheist scientist?
    >>
    >>This lack of symmetry will continue to provide fuel to the
    >>flames of rhetoric until its corrected.
    >
    >I'm having some difficulty in this thread understanding why we don't think
    >that Dawkins violates MN. (I'm going to leave Gould out--I'm somewhat
    >surprised at how hard we're coming down on him--he's a totally different
    >beast than Dawkins in my opinion.) When Dawkins promotes atheism (or
    >anti-theism) in the name of science, he is NOT doing MN. He's not
    >constrained by it because he's not just about promoting a science agenda,
    >but also a religio-philosophical agenda. (There's this "life is religion"
    >part of me that says that he is being more honest and wholistically human
    >about his religious view than we Christians and others who encourage the
    >elimination of religion-talk from our science-talk.)

    Yes, I agree he isn't doing MN. My question about symmetry
    is why he would not be similarly constrained as a theist.
    For example, I believe he should be treated by the scientific
    community with the same disdain shown towards ID.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 15:45:11 EDT