Re: Curious about silence?
Richard NeSmith (richardn@southconn.com)
Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:15:51 +0000s-schim@students.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
> Richard NeSmith (richardn@southconn.com) wrote:
>
> > Mr. Schimmrich, I'm sorry I cluttered your mailbox. I thought this was a
> > "free-sharing, free-thinking" group of scientists. I obviously ruffled
> > your feathers...or maybe geodes. That was not my intention.
>
> You didn't ruffle my feathers at all. I would hope that we are "free-
> sharing" (including disagreements) but the phrase "free-thinking" raises
> red flags (Humanists like that phrase). Anyway, I understand what you mean
> and you are, of course, correct.
>
> > I appreciate your reply, however, it seems rather vicious. In fact, it
> > appears you are attacking me.
>
> I sincerely apologize for that. It was not my intention to be vicious
> or attack you personally. I tend to write off quick replies sometimes
> without thinking too long about how they might appear in tone.
>
> > Yes, when interpreting a man's work, it does help to attempt to see
> > where he is coming from. There was nothing sinister about the
> > inquiry.
>
> I didn't mean to imply the inquiry was sinister, only the implicit
> suggestion of "silence" on the part of people discussing the issue (like
> they didn't want it discussed). I was half joking anyway.
>
> > I just think it is odd that he graduated from Christ College
> > with a B.A. in Theology, that's all. Obviously, he had perspective
> > that many scientist would not have. If that is not signficant, or at
> > least odd in your eyes, then maybe you have a problem.
>
> I was just unsure of what your point was. You are, of course, correct
> that having a degree in theology would give him a perspective on things
> that, perhaps, non-theologians would not have. I don't think it was all
> that odd, however, since many natural scientists of the past had a
> theological education. In those days, there weren't any biology departments
> and if you wanted to be a natural scientist you would get a degree in
> something else, usually medicine. I seem to remember reading (maybe I'm
> wrong, if so I'm sure people will leap in to correct me :) that Darwin
> started studying medicine in Edinburgh but didn't have the stomach for it.
> For a gentleman of Darwin's day, a degree in theology wasn't too unusual and
> a vicars job would give him time to study natural history in his free time
> (he liked collecting and studying beetles, for example). It certainly wasn't
> as unusual as a scientists with a theological education would be today.
>
> > Too many times we hear someone bashed for their comments (especially
> > on this listserve), and frequently the come-back is, "Are you a ???
> > (geologist, biologist, etc.) with the assumption being that if you're
> > not then you could not possibly have anything intelligent to say. If
> > that is so, then Darwin was not a scientist, but rather a theologian.
>
> I disagree with your claim about the listserver. I think the problem is
> when people claim that evolution is false, for example, yet have never
> studied biology in any serious way. One doesn't need to be a biologist to
> comment on various aspects of evolutionary theory but one does need to
> really understand what modern-day biologists actually do say about it and
> why they believe it to be true.
>
> Anyway, I think Darwin was a first-rate scientist and he practiced
> science (indeed, he revolutionized science) not theology. He pastored
> no flock nor made any contributions to the study of theology (except,
> perhaps, indirectly by proposing evolutionary theory).
>
> > Again, my inquiry. Would anyone like to comment on how Darwin's training
> > prepared/did not prepare him, what premise did he begin with...If such
> > questions are not legit for this listserve, then maybe I'm on the wrong
> > channel!
>
> Of course they're legitimate, I was just unclear of exactly what you were
> getting at in your last post.
>
> I'm sure there's voluminous literature on this topic, maybe some on the
> listerver can suggest references?
>
> > In the future, Mr. Schimmrich, I would appreciate it if you would exercise
> > a little more professionalism when answering, rather than using such a
> > hostile approach (unless of course you own this list, of which I would owe
> > you an apology).
>
> Again, I sincerely apologize for writing a post that made it seem I was
> attacking you. That was not my intention. I wouldn't classify myself as
> hostile, but I do tend to be confrontational in these types of discussions.
> My apologies. God bless.
>
> - Steve (not Mr. Schimmrich)!
>
> --
> Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu
> Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246
> http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum
Steve,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to clear the
air, so to speak. Your comments are appreciated and respected, unlike
some of the short "pot-shots" that were made.First, let me apologize
that I mistated that Darwin attended Christ College, Oxford. I was
corrected, it was Cambridge. Second, I agree that the term
"free-thinking" is not one I should have used. Scratch that one.
I do wonder if we all agree that the major weakness of the scientific
method lies in the human instrument (bias), regardless of the
researcher. I questioned Darwin's background only because one's premise
frequently determines one's "results." That's not to say that they
cannot be compensated for, but it does mean we acknowledge the fact. I
have 6 degrees, three in biology..three in theology. I believe it is
quite healthy to look for inconsistencies on both sides. If we cannot
see or admit that there are some, then we all have a serious problem of
tunnel vision.
Respectfully,
Richard
P.S. Someone stated this inquiry was a conspiracy and said something
about reading Jim's book. Who or what is being referred to here?