Re: The Reasonable Minority

In message <022a4eb3-4e9a-4c7a-8011-df7052a8fb0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Evopeach <keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Dec 10, 5:35 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-12-10, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This week I read two books which I found both enlightening and well
> reasoned. The first was "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and
> "The Design Revolution" by William Demski.

> While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an
> evangelical christian and a consumate scientist educated in physics,
> chemistry, biology, and medicine. He has little respect for people
> like Dawkins.

> Demski likewise has significant credentials in math, philosophy,
> information theory and yes theology.

Presumably you meant "Dembski". I can assure you that his take on
information theory is at best "creative". His books tend to use
mathematics like drunks use lamp posts: for support, rather than
illumination. It should be noted that he has displayed no particular
knowledge or understanding of _biology_, which you think might be
essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes.

I have some scholastic studies and work history in math, information
theory and critical thinking and I find his writing and ideas
consistent with these discliplines as do others more expert than I. If
you have evidence of his incompetence in his areas of degreed study
from excellent universities wouldn't that demean those institutions,
his advisors, committee members and grantors?

> These two men are not in agreement intotality but certainly have
> respect, honesty, sincerity and good scholarship on their side,

Only half right.

Asserting bad motives, dishonesty, insincereity and incompetence
without a showing is hardly constructive or convincing.

> as well as being fine wrtiters and presenters.

> Dr. Collins was kind enough to email a very civil and warm response to
> me concerning certain questions I have regarding his positions.

> As a formal student in the History of Science and associated
> discliplines of philosophy, critial thinking and such I am chagrined
> that people ignore the history of the last 500 years in which religion
> and science were quite well behaved one toward the other in majority,
> great thinkers and practioners were integrated in both endeavors and
> quite accomplished in both.

Such politesse is more by accident than by design, and occurred largely
because religion dominated thought for much of that time, effectively
supressing dissent from scientists.

Actually the same people were prominent scientists and philosophers
and often theists which a serious student of the history would be well
aware. The record is unimpeachable.





> The poles apart, cynical, rabid, outliers which dominate public debate
> presently are quite the opposite and not in the strict tradition of
> open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and mutual respect
> that history presents.

> For my part I admit to losing my cool in these sorts of forums and
> succumbing to a sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric at times.

> I hope to do better.

> If B.B.Warfield, Asa Grey, and Francis Collins can find common ground
> with their faith and evolution, I should at the least remain open and
> well read.

> If Remine, Demski, and several others can present well reasoned
> arguments for ID I want to consider sincerely those as well.

Perhaps a degree of skepticism would also be warranted, at least
equal to the skepticism that you apply to ideas which happen to run
counter to your own beliefs.

I prefer reading, considering, evaluation by reasoning, and openness
to a broad perspective to skepticism and cynicism.

> I expect the closed minded ones in the extreme endpoints of each side
> to remain as they are and I can certainly deal with them, hopefully
> with respect and understanding...life is rather complex and personal
> experiences do shape us all.

> I anticipate a day when public discussion is more civil, science and
> theology return to the mainstream of history, positions are not set in
> concrete, not so self assured, not closed to the possibility that they
> may not have all the truth and that some truth is in the other camp.

You'll have to show that there is some truth in your camp for this to
happen. I don't think following Dembski is a good path to start you
on your journey.

My camp includes Dr. Collins, Dempski, and other reasonable talented
and qualified people from a multidisciplinary prespective. I hardly
think biology has all the answers for how the universe came to be or
how it operates and there is much of science that lies outside such a
narrow field.

If your camp includes Dr. Collins then we would expect you to accept common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes, and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. This is difficult to reconcile with it including Dembski (sic), but he has said the ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism".

You then proceed to confuse the issue with a red-herring. No-one would expect biology to provide an explanation of how the universe came to be (that would be cosmology), or to provide "all the answers" for how it operates (depending on how we interpret operate, than might be physics, or it might be the totality of science, except that even science as a whole does not yet, and may never, offer a complete explanation.

It is a mischaracterisation to describe biology as a narrow field; I fear than I may be forgetting something, but I'd place biology as one of the 4 major divisions of science (physics, chemistry, geology and biology).

--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • ESSASYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
    ... ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: ... He holds a Ph.D. in biology. ... writing a book entitled Between Philosophy and Experiment: A History of ... Germany.* What most distinguishes the "two cultures" in Germany is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an ... chemistry, biology, and medicine. ... essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes. ... As a formal student in the History of Science and associated ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an ... chemistry, biology, and medicine. ... essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes. ... As a formal student in the History of Science and associated ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an ... chemistry, biology, and medicine. ... essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes. ... As a formal student in the History of Science and associated ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... While Collins accepts evolution and an old earth he is also an ... chemistry, biology, and medicine. ... essential to understanding evolution and evolutionary processes. ... As a formal student in the History of Science and associated ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading