Comments on: Intelligent Design and Tenure on the Net http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/ Rants and Analysis from an intellectual dilettante — previously "Singlespeed in Florida" Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:50:04 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez - Telic Thoughts http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-8 More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez - Telic Thoughts Tue, 22 May 2007 01:39:09 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-8 [...] there is some unusally insightful commentary at As the Worm Turns: But what I really think is lost in the overall debate — not just about tenure, about Intelligent [...] [...] there is some unusally insightful commentary at As the Worm Turns: But what I really think is lost in the overall debate — not just about tenure, about Intelligent [...]

]]> By: dpoyesac http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-7 dpoyesac Mon, 21 May 2007 20:39:43 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-7 You're right — Dawkins and PZ Meyers are not the only voices in the din. But Dawkins is the one who gets to have a pretend debate on the Bill O'Reilly show. The most strident, least flexible of the pro-science crowd are — for worse, I think — the current public face of the movement. And I think we need to distinguish our target audience: the "dishonest and fraudulent" IDers may be misleading us about the specifics of the Gonzalez tenure case. But whether they are not not, the fact that it <em>seems</em> like anti-religious prejudice makes them appear more credible in the eyes of the moderately religious Christians we ought to be targeting and converting. ID will never supplant biology as a science, because it's just plain wrong. But that's not what we're fighting for: we're fighting for the role of science, the role of biology, in public policy and public life. In order to win this debate (especially against people like O'Leary and the Discovery Institute) we can't alienate the majority of moderate believers. You’re right — Dawkins and PZ Meyers are not the only voices in the din. But Dawkins is the one who gets to have a pretend debate on the Bill O’Reilly show. The most strident, least flexible of the pro-science crowd are — for worse, I think — the current public face of the movement.
And I think we need to distinguish our target audience: the “dishonest and fraudulent” IDers may be misleading us about the specifics of the Gonzalez tenure case. But whether they are not not, the fact that it seems like anti-religious prejudice makes them appear more credible in the eyes of the moderately religious Christians we ought to be targeting and converting.

ID will never supplant biology as a science, because it’s just plain wrong. But that’s not what we’re fighting for: we’re fighting for the role of science, the role of biology, in public policy and public life. In order to win this debate (especially against people like O’Leary and the Discovery Institute) we can’t alienate the majority of moderate believers.

]]> By: Dan http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-6 Dan Mon, 21 May 2007 20:24:18 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-6 Not to mention, Darwin himself. I wonder, how many thoughtful Christians have actually bothered reading Darwin before concluding that he was wrong? Not many, I'm betting. Not to mention, Darwin himself. I wonder, how many thoughtful Christians have actually bothered reading Darwin before concluding that he was wrong? Not many, I’m betting.

]]> By: Dan http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-5 Dan Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:24 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-5 Fine, Dawkins can enflame more than enlighten for some people. But you sound as though alternatives to Dawkins are lacking - have you not heard of Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Stephen Jay Gould, Sean B. Carroll, or others? And I hardly think that the "mainstream, thoughtful believing Christians who sit next to me in graduate-level philosophy courses" are the fraudulent and dishonest public proponents of Intelligent Design that I'm referring to. You're thoughtful Christian friends may be sympathetic to ID, but that doesn't make them vocal supporters. Fine, Dawkins can enflame more than enlighten for some people. But you sound as though alternatives to Dawkins are lacking – have you not heard of Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Stephen Jay Gould, Sean B. Carroll, or others?

And I hardly think that the “mainstream, thoughtful believing Christians who sit next to me in graduate-level philosophy courses” are the fraudulent and dishonest public proponents of Intelligent Design that I’m referring to. You’re thoughtful Christian friends may be sympathetic to ID, but that doesn’t make them vocal supporters.

]]> By: dpoyesac http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-4 dpoyesac Mon, 21 May 2007 19:41:02 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-4 <strong>Some</strong> proponents of Intelligent Design are dishonest and fraudulent. But some aren't. Some are honestly convinced by the arguments in favor of it — and could be convinced to defect back to the Darwinian side, <strong>if</strong> the proper kind of case can be made (a well-reasoned, honest, sensitive case, rather than the hardline, unforgiving tactics of, for example, Richard Dawkins). We'll never convince Dembski or O'Leary and the Discover Institute. But the mainstream, thoughtful believing Christians who sit next to me in graduate-level philosophy courses? They are the ones who can be weened off Intelligent Design and towards a more Darwinian approach. But they aren't going to be convinced by — what appears to them to be — strong-arm tactics. Some proponents of Intelligent Design are dishonest and fraudulent. But some aren’t. Some are honestly convinced by the arguments in favor of it — and could be convinced to defect back to the Darwinian side, if the proper kind of case can be made (a well-reasoned, honest, sensitive case, rather than the hardline, unforgiving tactics of, for example, Richard Dawkins).

We’ll never convince Dembski or O’Leary and the Discover Institute. But the mainstream, thoughtful believing Christians who sit next to me in graduate-level philosophy courses? They are the ones who can be weened off Intelligent Design and towards a more Darwinian approach. But they aren’t going to be convinced by — what appears to them to be — strong-arm tactics.

]]> By: Dan http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-3 Dan Mon, 21 May 2007 14:24:44 +0000 http://dpoyesac.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/intelligent-design-and-tenure-on-the-net/#comment-3 <blockquote>When scientists act in a biased, unclear manner it only ends up helping those who stand against the objectivity of science.</blockquote> Yet it's not clear at all that that is how the tenure case was conducted. Sure, that's what the Christian apologetics would have us think, but is it really? You freely admit that Intelligent Design is dishonest and fraudulent - so wasn't the rancor merely a bias towards responsible science?

When scientists act in a biased, unclear manner it only ends up helping those who stand against the objectivity of science.

Yet it’s not clear at all that that is how the tenure case was conducted. Sure, that’s what the Christian apologetics would have us think, but is it really? You freely admit that Intelligent Design is dishonest and fraudulent – so wasn’t the rancor merely a bias towards responsible science?

]]>