THEY SAID WHAT!? 01/22/2009
 

The following comments recently appeared on a pro-evolution website. Quote 1 is from the author of the column, and quotes 4-5 are from someone who posted comments on the column. They were written by members who accept evolution (here).

1. “First, make this the year that you do what you’ve always planned to do: read Origin of Species. It’s marvelously readable. It is also one of the classics of Western civilization that one ought to have read to be considered culturally literate.”

2. “Deniers of evolution are just as loathsome as deniers of the Holocaust.”

3. “Deniers of evolution are . . . totally disconnected from physical and empirical realities.”

4. “Deniers of evolution are . . . [are] opting instead to dwell in the oblivion of their own nonsensed, dissociative inner-world.”

5. “Deniers of evolution are . . . clinging to false religion and false gods that they have fashioned in their own image.”

Does anyone else have a problem with these statements?  These comments demonstrate the lows some evolutionists in our ranks have gone to in order to support their position. They have also resorted to ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with their beliefs.  I have been the target of some of these ad hominem attacks because I disagree with some of their evolutionary viewpoints. 

It should stop.

It is possible to express divergent viewpoints regarding the creation of the world and evolution in a non-demeaning manner; several Latter-day Saint evolutionists and non-evolutionists have demonstrated this fact. But why some have attempted to demean others is beyond me. I consider it inappropriate and unscholarly to ridicule others in this manner regardless what side of the issue we are on. 

My 2 cents.

 


Comments

Jettboy

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 8:30:54 am

Science has become politics and religion rolled into one. It has its own excommunications and Fatwa.

 

Jack

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 9:07:53 am

I think, perhaps, it should be understood that all of the quotes from "someone who posted on the column" were made by one commenter in one comment. It wasn't like hoards of winged Darwinian dogmatists came swooping down onto the helpless Creationists.

That said, I do a have a problem with some of the pro-Darwin side. I think they confuse silly ideas with ideas that seem silly to them because they're not "scientific"--as they suppose. As a non-scientist, one of the things that really troubles me about the scientific community today is that it almost seems to sneer (collectively) at anything that isn't hard science--any other discipline, that is, that purports to offer valuable input in answering anything ontological.

 

Dave

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 9:11:40 am

Jettboy,
Here is my list of recent excommunications and fatwas.

Excommunicated: ID scholars Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzales.

Fatwas:
-everyone who rejects evolution is an IDiot.
-everyone who doesn't fall in and "goose step" with the evolutionists will be banned from academia.
-everyone who doesn't partake of Darwin's 200th birthday cake will be fed Exlax brownies instead.

 

Jeff G

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:26:46 am

"These comments demonstrate the lows some evolutionists in our ranks have gone to in order to support their position. They have also resorted to ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with their beliefs."

Does anyone else see any problems with this? If irony where made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.

 

Dave

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:31:43 am

Jack,

Your view of the current situation is fairly accurate. The scientific community's rejection of alternative ways of knowing and alternative, non-material ontologies is most unfortunate. Part of their actions are influenced by memories of the past, in particular the dark ages when science was a handmaiden to religious dogma. But another part of it is due to arrogance, in my opinion.

From my experiences of going to scientific conferences and hanging around scholars, sometimes this attitude of "we know best" creeps in. "If the government and religious leaders listened to us, they would become enlightened like us."

Anyway, science needs to remember that it does not have a monopoly on truth claims. Truth can be found in the arts, literature, and religion; it does not just come from scientific experiments. This applies to so-called natural scientific issues.

 

Jared*

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 7:02:53 pm

I think that you misunderstood #2, judging by your bracketed insertion. He was drawing a comparison: just as we would want people to investigate Mormonism by getting information from Mormons rather than detractors, so he requests that people investigate evolution by reading material produced by mainstream scientists rather than detractors. (There is often overlap between anti-Mormons and anti-evolutionists, btw.) I'm having trouble seeing the problem with that.

I think you're being a little thin-skinned on #1. He didn't say that you had to agree with it, just that you should read it. (As it happens, I haven't. Doh!) And the bit about cultural literacy is the kind of rhetoric people often use when they advocate a book (or movie, music, etc) that they think one ought to be familiar with. On the other hand, there may be some truth to it. There are many movies that are frequently quoted or alluded to in popular culture that I have not seen. To the extent that I don't catch or understand such allusions, I am culturally illiterate.

I'll grant that #3 is over the top. It might still be offensive, but perhaps a better comparison would be HIV denial. After all, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. (Please wikipedia the names if they are unfamiliar to you.) And you can even find at least a few scientists (one with a Nobel prize, even) who share their opinion.

Having said all of that, I'm all for civility.

 

SteveP

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 8:42:29 pm

Yeah, Jared, Dave miss-read me there and inserted his own reading in the commentary brackets and the [anti-evolutionary] is not in the original nor in the original intent. The correct commentary would be: "We ask truth-seekers to investigate the Church from us rather than from our [anti-Mormon] detractors. And the right reading was as you suggest.

 

Tim

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:52:37 am

I think many scientists are offended, and rightly so, when non-scientists (or, on rare occasion, another actual scientist) try to call something that is most definitely not science, science.
Most scientists I know realize that there are other ways of knowing, and science is just one of those ways. Maybe their preferred way (they are, after all, scientists) but not the only way.
Meanwhile, I find it rather ironic that those who run a website called Mormons and Science are not actually scientists, while those who are both Mormon and scientists get attacked for saying that "Origin of Species" is a must-read. I have yet to find a website that is run by a Mormon and a biologist that is anti-evolution. If anyone knows of one, please point me in that direction.

 

Dave

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 1:25:06 pm


Tim,

Where did you get the idea that people who run a website called Mormons and Science are not scientists? May I suggest that you refrain from making such hasty judgments about others, this is the sort of thing that leads to comments like those listed above.

In case you were wondering, I have published several articles in peer-reviewed medical and social scientific journals. Most of those articles list me as first and second author. I currently have one project under review and another "in press". Everyday I work with physician researchers on planning research and statistical designs. In one such project I am a key contributor in a $750,000 NIH (National Institutes of Health) grant proposal.

If, after reading this, you continue to assert that those who run a website called Mormons and Science are not actually scientists, may I suggest that your definition of a scientist is too restrictive.

 

Dave

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 1:31:23 pm

Steve & Jared,

I have removed the quote you commented on.

 

Tim

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 4:06:54 am

Maybe my definition of scientist is a bit too restrictive for your tastes.
In my opinion, publishing in medical and social science journals does not a scientist make. Medicine is medicine, and social sciences are social sciences.
I guess if you take a broad definition of "science," you could make them fit.
My definition of scientist is closely aligned with what you'll find when you wikipedia "natural science." Physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology.
When I first found this website, I assumed, due to the website name and the website subject matter, that you were a natural scientist (to be fair, the information you post in "about me" makes it clear that you are not, but I'm not sure how many casual visitors read that); I think other people are also similarly misled.
By the way, I did look at your "about me" link before I posted here, so I did know a little about your academic achievements. I try not to post in ignorance.
I guess we just have different opinions of what the word scientist means.

 

Jack

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 8:41:31 am

Tim,

I think you're making my point--that the hard(er) sciences really don't take the softer sciences very seriously. How is it that one who has what might be considered "maximum" academic training in the field of psychology should not have something useful to say about organic evolution? Can he/she not give viable, indeed, even challenging input on such topics relating to the development of consciousness? Can not one trained in statistics have something useful to say regarding modeling--regardless the scientific discipline in question--where numbers are concerned?

 

Dave

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 9:16:21 am

Tim,

According to your criteria, every anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, mathematician, physician, nurse, speech pathologist, geneticist, audiologist, and educator who does research on a regular basis is not a scientist. May I suggest you re-evaluate this claim.

I agree that they don't fit your definition of a natural scientist, but they are scientists nonetheless.

I don't claim to know very much about organic evolution, I leave that to the experts like Steve. But given my degree in the psychology theory and philosophy program with an emphasis in philosophy of science, I am qualified to speak about a good many things related to the theoretical justification of evolution.

Anyway, schools out.

 

Timj

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 6:00:13 pm

Geneticists are biologists, and thus natural scientists. I have a biology degree and taught high school science, and yet never felt justified in calling myself a scientist, even though I knew a great deal about the natural sciences. I certainly wouldn't consider nurses, etc. to be scientists.
You said,
"I don't claim to know very much about organic evolution...but...I am qualified to speak about a good many things related to the theoretical justification of evolution."
I think that belief right there is the root of the problem.

 

Dave Collingridge

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 9:02:39 pm

Tim,
I am not going to convince you to think otherwise. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes scientific activity and thus a scientist.

As for the relevance of the philosophy of science in evolutionary matters, read Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations", Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", and a book in the philosophy of science and then get back to me.

If you are unwilling to peruse these seminal works then our discussion on the importance of the philosophy of science is at an end.

 

Tim

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 4:01:52 am

Dave,
I'm not saying that the philosophy of science is unimportant.
I am saying that it's entirely useless unless you understand the science. Which, as far as evolution goes, you don't.
So, I would say to you, take basic courses in biology, including an introductory biology class, genetics, molecular biology, zoology, botany, ecology, and evolution, and then get back to me.
If you are unwilling to study these subjects in the depth they deserve, then our discussion about evolution is at an end.
And, yes, I have taken a course on the philosophy of science, although I don't claim to be well-versed in it, which is why I'll stick to defending that which I am well-versed in.

 

JTJ

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:39:13 pm

You people scare me. Seriously. I own a business, and if any of you work for me, you're fired. If you don't like science, or the people practicing it, get your own ideas and get into the ring and take your beatings like the rest of mankind to see if they are any better and can do more for the rest of humanity.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 8:59:33 am

JTJ,

I guess I won't be setting foot into your business then.

 

JTJ

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 3:06:23 pm

 

JTJ

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 3:07:40 pm

Dave C.
You're OK, you're arguments are reasonable. The rest of you are fired.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 1:35:41 pm

Thanks. I was not sure who you were firing.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics