tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5782125897148327482..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Richard Dawkins on the Michael Reiss AffairLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27737217731555777892008-09-21T20:00:00.000-04:002008-09-21T20:00:00.000-04:00No, but I do think that it needs to be done select...No, but I do think that it needs to be done selectively and with panache. My point is that some assertions about evolution are extremely certain (for instance the fact that it <I>has</I> happened) and creationists should not be allowed to question such an assertion in class ad nauseum. Then there are others (such as <I>their</I> assertion of intelligent design) for which debate might be more productive.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth I don't think it's worthwhile battling a young earth creationist in class especially because as Stephen Jay Gould said, creationists always seem to have the upper end in public debate because of their rhetoric. IT might make sense to just ask them for evidence and take it from there.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73907771313578847732008-09-19T15:31:00.000-04:002008-09-19T15:31:00.000-04:00Ashutosh says,I think one of the practical reasons...Ashutosh says,<BR/><BR/><I>I think one of the practical reasons why it may not actually be possible to confront creationism in class and point out problems with it is simply because it would be an endless refutation, because the problems with creationism are simply too many to address in class, and because creationists will keep on coming up with new assertions no matter how much you disprove their other ones.</I><BR/><BR/>So, the situation is hopeless and we should just give up? That doesn't sound lik a very good solution.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24499236373702140502008-09-19T12:17:00.000-04:002008-09-19T12:17:00.000-04:00I think one of the practical reasons why it may no...I think one of the practical reasons why it may not actually be possible to confront creationism in class and point out problems with it is simply because it would be an endless refutation, because the problems with creationism are simply too many to address in class, and because creationists will keep on coming up with new assertions no matter how much you disprove their other ones.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32507271902878165182008-09-19T07:57:00.000-04:002008-09-19T07:57:00.000-04:00Thank you Larry.Thank you Larry.Antoine Vekrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413954699764193488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44851048832043048962008-09-18T20:42:00.000-04:002008-09-18T20:42:00.000-04:00martinc says,A truer, although probably more polit...martinc says,<BR/><BR/><I>A truer, although probably more politically dangerous, statement would be 'some forms of pantheistic religion are compatible with science'.</I><BR/><BR/>Even truer would be "most religious beliefs are not compatible with science."Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51064653108125687702008-09-18T20:39:00.000-04:002008-09-18T20:39:00.000-04:00oldcola says,No, Ayala is not an hypocrite,My mist...oldcola says,<BR/><BR/><I>No, Ayala is not an hypocrite,</I><BR/><BR/>My mistake. I didn't mean that Ayala was a hypocrite. He is not.<BR/><BR/>I meant to accuse those who hounded Reiss out of his position but remained silent when the National Academies caved in to religion.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62364204904621374122008-09-18T17:47:00.000-04:002008-09-18T17:47:00.000-04:00The 'religion is compatible with science' line tha...The 'religion is compatible with science' line that is so beloved of the framers and many national organizations is true in a technical sense, just not in the sense that the general public would recognize. Everytime I hear it I am reminded of Bill Clinton saying "I am not having an affair with that woman" - it might be true on technical grounds but its just a way of hiding a nasty lie.<BR/>The Einsteinian/Spinozan pantheistic type of religion IS pretty much compatible with science, in my opinion, although the percentage of the public who adhere to this particular form of religion is miniscule (but big enough, apparently for the theists to hide behind). <BR/>A truer, although probably more politically dangerous, statement would be 'some forms of pantheistic religion are compatible with science'.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79876129440579653302008-09-18T17:09:00.000-04:002008-09-18T17:09:00.000-04:00Re Ayala: "... he's also a Dominican priest."Actua...Re Ayala: "... he's also a Dominican priest."<BR/><BR/>Actually, unless I am much mistaken, he has done what Dawkins suggested Reiss should do and given up his Orders (though not for the reason Dawkins suggested). However, you do remain technically correct, since the Catholic Church maintains that once a priest, always a priest. So even if "defrocked," Ayala is still a priest of the Catholic Church.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80054149775507196142008-09-18T16:38:00.000-04:002008-09-18T16:38:00.000-04:00No, Ayala is not an hypocrite, he express his idea...No, Ayala is not an hypocrite, he express his ideas almost clearly.<BR/>But he is an <I>accommodationists</I> and I think he is wrong about the compatibility between science and religion, and he keep it as fuzzy as Reiss kept it fuzzy about 'creationism'.<BR/><BR/>Compatible on what? Sya, when it comes to discuss about the origin and the consistence of souls? And the miracle of ensoulment? Certainly not. Don't you think?Antoine Vekrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413954699764193488noreply@blogger.com