[clip]
>Ruse: State of shock!
>
>===============end of experpts===================
>
>Are the TE's on this reflector in a state of shock?
No. This is old stuff and the stuff that many TEs have acknowledged for some
time. In fact, the misuse of the philosophy of science by atheistic
evolutionists provides a very good starting point for introducing my
students to the philosophy of sciemce. The point this makes is that while
some people attach metaphysical "religious" claims to a scientific model, it
is important to distinguish between what is science and what is philosophy.
This then leads nicely into discussion of the role, strengths and weaknesses
of scientific theories and the data that are used or needed to support or
refute them.
By and large, scientists are poor philosophers because they do not receive
much training on the appropriate use of theory and data. It would be a
mistake to point to the misuse of philosophy by scientists as the basis for
rejecting a scientific model.
>TE is an oxymoron.
Only to those who accept the secular definition of evolution.
>Almost everytime I try to introduce an atheist to Jesus, they say stuff
>like, "but what about evolution." Why do they say this? Because they
>suddenly want to change the subject and talk about _science_? No. It's
>because they--even as high school students--recognize evolution represents
>a religious philosophy that competes with Christianity, not one that can be
>accomodated by Christianity.
I have the same experience with my students, but the blame for their
misunderstanding can also be placed with those creationists who insist that
evolution is the antithesis of Christianity, case closed. My experience is
that they are quite interested in TE, as well as learning about the
appropriate use of theory and data, as I mentioned above. My experience is
also that many, perhaps most of the students, would put Neal's point
differently--rather than recognizing that evolution is not compatible with
Christianity, they perceive that Christianity is not compatible with
science. This distinction represents more than semantic order. I dont think
that Neal understands how many atheists/agnostics see the conflict between
evolution and faith.
>We need to recognize E is atheism, renounce TE, continue doing authentic
>science, or quit--that's up to you, and stop being responsible for
>perpetuating the confusion caused TE is endorsed.
I don't know Neal. TE seems to clear the picture a great deal for my
students and colleagues in the sciences--and these are who Ruse refers to
when he talks about "evolutionists."
It's the sort of
>confusion that would result if someone said, "sure you can have your
>religious beliefs, as long as you don't really believe they're true."
>That's what Stephen Jay Gould proposes when he says stuff equivalent to
>,"Science is ok, Religion is ok. They're mutually exclusive of each other.
>But that's ok."
This gets worse as it goes on, Neal. Gould's compartmentalization of faith
and science is a great problem--one that TE clears up. TE neither holds to
the mutually exclusive thesis, nor requires one to qualify his belief in a
personal god who created, possibly using a mechanism that can be explained
to some degree by science. You fail to grasp what TE's claim.
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________