stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (olegt @ June 18 2008,23:35) | The fun continues. When Francis Beckwith observes that
| Quote | | At the end of the day, ID advocates do themselves no favors by hurling insults at people like Miller and Collins. For they are more accomplished, more successful, and more well-respected than any ID advocate anywhere. That’s harsh, I know. But it’s the truth. |
Dave counters:
| Quote | | You need to get out more. George W. Bush is an ID advocate and he’s arguably the most powerful man in the world. Collins and Miller together don’t amount to a pimple on his butt. I know it’s harsh but scientists and academics in general don’t get a lot of respect outside their sheltered world. Heck, even Ann Coulter makes them look insignificant by each and every metric you named. |
You should get out more often, Dave. Society hearts scientists. According to a 2003 Harris Interactive Poll,
| Quote | Americans see scientists, firemen, doctors, teachers and nurses as the professions and occupations which have the most prestige. At the other end of the spectrum, the occupations which are seen as having the least prestige are real estate agents, stockbrokers, actors, bankers and accountants.
Only three occupations are perceived to have "very great" prestige by more than half of all adults; these are scientists (57%), firemen (55%) and doctors (52%). They are followed by four professions which are perceived to have "very great" prestige by more than 40% but less than 50% - teachers (49%), nurses (47%), military officers (46%) and police officers (42%). |
2006 data are here. |
fbeckwith's whole post is really pretty good:
| Quote |
60
fbeckwith
06/18/2008
8:16 pm
Tard Alert!
“Theistic evolution” seems to be a legitimate option for Christian theists, but I believe that it has to be offered in a way in which it does not appear that “God” is a free rider. After all, Christian theism affirms God is the creator of all that contingently exists. This means that in a sense even theistic evolutionists are “creationists.” Having said that, it seems to me that for the TE advocates, God must play some role in their account of reality. If he does not, then TE is just a short hand way to say that “belief in God” is not inconsistent with an account of the universe that does not require God. This, by the way, does not mean that one has to embrace ID as presently conceived by its dominant advocates. But it does mean that if one believes that theological claims are legitimate claims of knowledge, then the TE advocate has to present his view in a way in which God plays an indispensable role in his account of the universe.
This is why ID’s emphasis on Darwinian evolution rather than cosmic design was a hugely tactical error. For the former lends itself to the criticism that ID is merely “God of the gaps,” for it tends to single out particular aspects of organisms for design accounts. This may be unfair, to be sure. But it is still very difficult to rebut the charge, since the design account is usually the result of a theory (e.g., WD”s explanatory filter) more controversial than the theory that the design account is attempting to refute.
At the end of the day, ID advocates do themselves no favors by hurling insults at people like Miller and Collins. For they are more accomplished, more successful, and more well-respected than any ID advocate anywhere. That’s harsh, I know. But it’s the truth.
The model that ID should have followed is how philosophers like Plantinga and Wolterstorff conducted themselves in the 1960s and 1970s when philosophical theism was a distinctly minority point of view. They published in the best journals, presented their papers at the best conferences, and did not use the instrument of the state to require that their views be taught at public universities. They built relationships with their adversaries and become leaders in their discipline. Did they sometimes have to bite their tongues when they were treated unjustly? Of course. But it was only because they thought of their cause as more important than winning every point in every venue.
For example, who was the genius who told Gulliermo Gonzales it was a good idea to remain a DI fellow and publish his book before he earned tenure? Everyone knew that this was an accident waiting to happen. Imagine if GG had received wise advice from friends to resign his DI fellowship, back off the ID stuff, publish more peer-reviewed articles, apply for more grants, etc. Do you think he would be at Grove City College now? I doubt it.
There are lots of noble reasons for which one should to lose a great job. ID is not even in the top 10.
|
also Ted's post is not retarded:
| Quote |
71
Ted Davis
06/18/2008
10:21 pm
Tard Alert!
DaveScot writes, “I know it’s harsh but scientists and academics in general don’t get a lot of respect outside their sheltered world. Heck, even Ann Coulter makes them look insignificant by each and every metric you named.”
But I think we both know that Frank was talking about expertise where it matters–namely, with the experts. What Ann Coulter thinks about cosmology matters to her readers, perhaps (and I am not one of them), but she don’t know diddley about tensor calculus.
If ID wants to get where it wants to go–namely, to overthrow “naturalism” (which can be defined in various ways, hence the quotation marks) — then it will need to produce science that’s better than the science that’s already there. Phil Johnson and others have said that it’s premature to expect ID to have a real alternative theory to teach in schools. (I was blasted some time ago here for saying that there is no alternative, but don’t blame the messenger.) It will continue to be premature until Frank’s comments are taken to heart, IMO.
|
I wonder if Davetard has the cojones to ban FBeckwith. And would Dembski then finally kick Dave out of the treehouse? My guess is yes to the first, and no to the second, because Dembski has the world's thinnest skin.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-290971
|
