mormonsandscience

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Steve & Jared,

I have removed the quote you commented on.

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?

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,
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,

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

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