Joined: Dec. 2008
|Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2009,07:12)|
|Quote (iskim labmildew @ May 16 2009,08:12)|
|I asked Tommy V about his play...|
Tommy V said,
† † †
A proponent of ID in the play points out that the character is then not objecting to ID for scientific reasons, but because of his atheism. Later in the play the lead character realizes that his friends in the biology department value natural selection, not for its validity, but because it is an answer that does not require God.
From the scientific viewpoint, itís about how each person is ultimately assuming the very thing that he is trying to prove. Essentially, you take out what you put in. You see what you want to see.
So I asked,
† † †
Thanks for the reply and summary.
If you had to write the play with the setting among the faculty of the biology department at Baylor University, how would that have changed the plot? I think that all of them are theists, which would take the atheist or agnostic angle off the table. What motivations would you supply them with for their rejection of Intelligent Design if that were the place setting?
And Tommy V. responds:
To be honest with you, I have no idea how to answer that question.
I knew Baylor had a larger proponent of theists biologists[sic] than most, but the schoolís faculty nearly rebelled when a center for ID was formed so I figured the theists were still very much in the minority there.
To be honest with you, I donít quite understand the objection to ID by a theists [sic], as I believe the arguments are strong enough to at least earn a place in the discussion, even if one doesnít fully come to the same conclusions.
(emphases, etc. mine -- deadman_932)
So, to recap...the author isn't a scientist but believes that "fairness" means indicting non-theistic scientists for rejecting "Intelligent Design" -- without really looking at the motives of those theist scientists who also reject ID and why they might do so (like, say, data, evidence or lack thereof...that sort of thing).
Sounds to me like someone didn't do their homework and created a knee-jerk outlet for their conservative tendencies.
Of course, Tommy V could disabuse me of that notion by laying out a positive case for ID here or anywhere on the vast interwebs, thereby showing that he actually *does* have a grasp of the issues involved.
However, I'd wager cynically that he'll then fall back on "but I'm not a scientist" again while simultaneously saying he believes the data to be good enough to bring to the table.
Isn't he saying that the theistic biologists at Baylor are in the minority and the atheist biologists hold sway. I think that this playwright should be given the Kevin Miller award for research.