From: Donald Nield (d.nield@auckland.ac.nz)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 17:32:30 EDT
Brian Harper wrote:
> 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.
I agree that Dawkins should be treated with disdain. In fact I have been told
by a biologist who has done postgraduate work at Oxford that Dawkins is treated
with disdain by members of the Oxford biological community.
Don Nield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 16:56:22 EDT