Friday, August 04, 2006

Cornelia Sticks With Her Creed

In a recent NY Times article, (also here and here) Cornelia Dean discussed several books dealing with science and religion, including the new one by Francis Collins. She repeated her "creed," which I discussed previously here and here:
Of course there is no credible scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.

I find it remarkable that a Times writer can get away with reciting the same old editorial mantra in article after article. Hey Cornelia, who gets to decide what is a "credible scientific challenge"? Excuse me, your plausibility structures are showing. Of course, Cornelia's Creed is probably correct if you add the qualifier "as long as you approach the evidence with the presuppositions of a rigid materialist."

I discuss various approaches to the evidence, including "rigid materialism," here.

The article also includes this interesting quote by Lewis Wolpert on the need to "evangelize" religious people:
So, he concludes, “We have to both respect, if we can, the beliefs of others, and accept the responsibility to try and change them if the evidence for them is weak or scientifically improbable.”

More power to you, Lewis. One of the purposes of this blog is to show that the faith people have in macroevolutionary theory is not supported by the evidence, and that the evidence for important aspects of the theory is "weak or scientifically improbable." May the best evidence win.


At August 04, 2006 11:14 AM, Anonymous John said...

Excerpt from article, quoting Wolpert:

Human reasoning is “beset with logical problems that include overdependence on authority, overemphasis on coincidence, distortion of the evidence, circular reasoning (apply to this, use of anecdotes, ignorance of science and failures of logic,” he writes. And whatever these traits may say about acceptance of religion, they have a lot to do with public misunderstanding of science.

Whew! I am so glad that Wolpert and his ilk are keeping science out of religion and vice versa. Wouldn't want to disturb that whole "non-overlapping magisteria" thing they have going on there. Why would those silly, paranoid KKKristian fundies think that fair-minded science-lovers are trying to destroy their right to believe in stupid, moronic, idiotic, evil things like invisible, impractical entities that can create universes?


Post a Comment

<< Home