Evolution Message Board - Msg: 27164326

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13664)	2/13/2011 1:25:58 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 69300

Some of the difficulty that I see with this discussion is that Dawkins' example is over the top." It was a metaphor to make a point. "The stork theory is trivially falsifiable." No more so than the bible. The idea of inerrancy destroys ALL biblical claims unless one dismisses ALL science. Sorry. THAT IS A FACT. It is ONE OR THE OTHER!! Dawkin's analogy simply makes salient what is obvious within logical parameters. "Gaskell subscribes to an unauthorized faith." If that is all one sees it as...then I am with you. If (However) one sees it as subscribing to the most unscientific nonsense imaginable--nonsense verified as such by the most outrageous absurdities and (forgive me but speech fails at this point)..then... Biblical nonsense DENIES science. There is no way to know in advance how much his beliefs would deny reason. "I see no indication that it would hamper his work, research or teaching, as an optical astronomer." It might not. But I think it would...and so do some people entrusted with a lifetime of dedication to science. You may be one of those people, so I don't dismiss your opinion. I certainly don't claim that his dismissal can be absolutely justified. I do claim that the responsibility and the criteria were real, and I do hope that those who knew him personally (and were in a position to conceive rational consensus)...did the most rational thing! "Now if there is a clear indication that Gaskell would use his position to discuss religion, I would retract my defense. I have lived long enough to know that this decision was prefaced by intense discussion and commentary (similar to what you have touched on here with a feather)! Occams razor tells me not to dispute their decision without a free ticket to a whore house. So I can appreciate that Dawkin's metaphor did not necessarily address the point you wished to make. But I did not critique it through any conceived or contrived social prejudice. The outside indications (to me) is that smart people found a way to keep a nut out of a position of authority that could give him license to create harm. If that is true then I am happy to support it. If I am wrong then I rest content that the information available to me allowed me to use the Law of Parsimony to reach the conclusion that those with inside information made the right decision. If they were wrong then I am wrong. But I have been President of several Associations in my life. We generally have more pertinent information than outsiders. I always did what I thought was right. That was the default position... And I can assure you that bringing Hitler into it lends nothing to the rationality of our enjoyable discussion.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next