Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures

On Sep 26, 9:13 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@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.

I might be melding debates because I discussed determinism with more
than you in TO. But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as
compatibilism nullifies most statistical studies such as the synthetic
theory. And if that were the case, then I might not be convinced of
universal common descent.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)