Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures

James Goetz <james.goetz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:00 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:36 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 Sep, 13:00, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:08 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Clergy Letter Project has now gone over 11,000 signatures
for its letter in support of evolution.

<http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm>

I applaud the effort, but it sounds like some of the clergy that
are signing on are basing their agreement on trusting science
and scientists. They don't know enough to understand why it is
true, and they aren't able to support that belief with personal
knowledge. This could backfire on the effort.

On what basis do you presume that a member of the clergy would not
have any personal knowledge regarding matters of science?

I know at least two who have physics degrees. But that aside, what
is wrong with accepting epistemic division of labour? I don't see
why it is somehow wrong to accept the scientists at their word - we
all do this all the time. I even trust programmers. Sometimes.
Biochemists never, of course, when they speak on evolution.

It may be easy for a biologist to scoff at the dishonest
intelligent design creationist scam, but these guys don't have
that education, and they don't have the resources or know how to
access them to get the information that they need.

On what basis do you presume that they would be unable to obtain
or gain access to resources to improve their understanding of
science?

And indeed I think pretty well *all* evolution-accepters started out
accepting it on the basis of reading popular or introductory level
science. I accept the big bang, for example, but I have not the
slightest knowledge on which to base this apart from reading popular
science works. It may be some have later turned to the study of
evolution in technical detail, but I very much doubt that at any
time when they were acquiring their views that many were doing this.

Well, I accepted evolution while taking my first graduate level course
in molecular anthropology.

By the way, John, have you studied evolution in technical detail? For
example, can you defend the common ancestry of all primates? Can you
do it without assuming the legitimacy of random distributions?

I was defending you guys, not attacking, Jim. But what do you mean "the
legitimacy of random distributions"? Do I need to defend statistics
before I can defend anything else? I don't get your point.

I have studied some evolution in technical detail, but only as much as I
need to do philosophy. But I did read a fair bit on the phylogeny of
pinnipeds to ensure that I had a handle on some issues (and they are
monophyletic, so there). So I can give a reasonable account of the
phylogeny of primates in terms of their synapomorphies.

I know that you were defending, thank you. And I recall you writing a
mean post describing various scenarios of speciation. And I like your
FAQ on macroevolution.

I was implying that we need to use statistics to defend evolution. But
that is a bit harsh because I do not recall Darwin using statistics in
his defense of evolution.

Well as statistics was developed in part to deal with evolution, it
seems a little circular. But Darwin *did* understand about variaiton in
populations, as this was a hot topic amongst systematists in the period,
and Quetelet had developed his "statics" well before the publication of
the Origin.

However, the development of the synthetic theory depended upon
statistics. And I could not resist bringing up an earlier unfinished
debate.

I'm afraid my episodic memory is shot. I forget that debate.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.
    ... The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not ... adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught ... of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I recommend this analysis of Dembskis "No Free Lunch"
    ... So the rest of the ID community is, in fact, still religious? ... science has had a preconceived belief structure centered ... for Evolution to even have a shot at working. ... various forms of creationism have done is prohibit the teaching of ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... are signing on are basing their agreement on trusting science ... why it is somehow wrong to accept the scientists at their word - we ... Biochemists never, of course, when they speak on evolution. ... Do I need to defend statistics ...
    (talk.origins)