Sauron

Family Man, I'm sure you've seen the Lindberg / Numbers article on the ASA website, right?
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PS...7Lindberg.html

It's a pro-christian apologetics piece by one of Bede's heroes.

And the use of Colin Russell also appears suspect. A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book. In addition, several other quotes from Russell I've found make his objectivity in this regard questionable.

Bede - you wouldn't be quoting from a list of hand-picked christian historians that are roughly equivalent to creationist quoting their favorite ID scientists, would you?

Naw....that *can't* be it....

Sauron

I was a little more prescient than I thought. Apparently Colin Russell is a creationist as well. He was a signatory to a letter that urged Tony Blair to permit teaching creationism in British public schools:

http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm

Colin Russell is also a director of the "John Ray Initiative" - an attempt to inject christianity into environmentalism, with some questionable results and sources (Bjorn Lomborg - The Skeptical Environmentalist as a source?)
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.htm

He's also Professor Emeritus at the Open University in the Department of History of Science and Technology, which he founded in 1970.
http://www.jri.org.uk/intro/directors.htm

Bede, what credibility do you think we should assign to such a "historian"?

Bede

Russell is a Christian, as far as I am aware Lindberg is not, Numbers has been outed as a non-theist on these boards. What's that got to do with anything? Address arguments and stop trying to poison the well. By the way, the mods have assured me I can call White a lying scum without risk of censure as Vork called a living writer scum and this was OK. However, they have said that as I post here you cannot insult me. I am awaiting their action.

B

Bede

Do you know what the Open University is, Sauron? Clearly not. It was set up by a UK act of parliament and is highly respected totally secular institution in this counrty. That Russell helped found it shows he is a scholar of extremely high standing. As I said, stop poisoning the well.

And Russell is not a creationist either.

B

Sauron

Credibility and objectivity are important. Having a religious axe to grind destroys both. Given Russell's background, he clearly has such an axe. Therefore, your use of him is just as suspicious as a creationist quoting Russell Humphreys.

Strange comments for someone who tried to ignore the U of Penn citation by simply claiming it "wasn't up to date" but failing to offer any proof.

When and if the mods communicate with me, they can let me know.

Hm. I wonder if your deliberate mischaracterization of my posts will earn you their censure? I find that behavior of yours to be insulting. Perhaps I should involve the mods as well...??

Face it, Bede. You lost the argument on dissection. Resorting to the moderators to salvage your wounded pride is kind of like hiding behind the kindergarten teacher.

Sauron

Ah, how you manage to hide the facts so well; must be practice at christian apologetics.

The OU is an online / nights and evenings / correspondence course university, created to provide an educational outlet to a particular segment of society - part time higher education students, a substantial percentage of whom score lower and are below conventional educational standards in the UK.
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/

It's distance education - not an traditional university. It's roughly equivalent to DeVry University in the USA, or ITT Technical Institute.

It shows nothing of the sort. In fact, if he were a scholar of such high standing, it's more likely that he would be tenured at a conventional university.

Obviously he is - his name appears on the letter to Tony Blair, and the point of the letter is quite clear: the signatories advocate allowing creationism into the list of acceptable study topics in public schools.

Family Man

Bede --

Actually, one of the things that raised my suspicion about Lindberg is that he seems a trifle obsessed about White. I have studied this subject before and never heard his name mentioned. Why is Lindberg dealing with a 19th century scholar whose theories are out of date? However, for the most part I found Lindberg's essay to be sound, if he overreached at times to satisfy his bias.

I think I'm going to post a tentative hypothesis in a day or so. I started reading Lindberg/Numbers with this idea in mind, and I think I just read something in the Ashworth article that confirms it. While I don't think you're all wet on this issue, I think your "no conflict" hypothesis is about as tenable as the "at war" hypothesis. I've read about a lot of conflict in this book, and I've seen them bluntly state that there was conflict. However, there is more here than what meets the eye (and normally discussed)and I think that you'll find what I have to say palatable and sound, if not exactly what you wished for.

lpetrich

C'mon, you guys, why are you trying to use ad hominem arguments against Colin Russell? Why don't you try to address the quality of his "scholarship"?

But Bede's seems to infer from the demonstrable falsehood of "always a conflict" that there was "never a conflict". However, the truth lies in between, that there is "sometimes a conflict".

He also sneers that Biblical literalism does not count as Christianity. But if one believes in the absolute truth of the Bible, then literalism is a natural consequence. It also avoids the appearance of theological expediency, which is hard to avoid with allegorical interpretation -- "it is literal when I like it, and allegorical when I don't."

Sauron

Easy.

1. Bede's committed the original character assassination of White:

Sauron quotes Andrew Dickson White - a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

2. I (and others) asked him to back it up - show that reputable historians of science discount White with the level of snarling vociferousness that Bede demonstrated.

3. In a feeble attempt to respond, Bede quotes Russell, without informing everyone of Russell's affiliations and biases.

The fact that Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter. If he can "bend the rules" in science enough to accept creationism and advocate it in public schools, then what else might he be capable of? Who's to say he hasn't "bent the rules" in historical analysis enough to deliberately exclude White, merely because White undercuts the religious agenda?

It isn't enough to just quote sources - if that were sufficient, then creationists and ID'ists would be respected group. The sources have to be reliable and not pushing any agendas.

So the original challenge, #2 above:
show that reputable historians of science discount White

has not been met.

Bede is fond of strawmen. Which is why his complaints of being insulted are crocodile-tear complaints.

Yes. I noticed how he set himself up as the sole arbiter of what is, or isn't, christianity. Seems like that's a common arrogance of christians.

Indeed.

Bede

I really think you should all stop inserting 'never' into my statements. That way you will avoid attacking strawmen and actually address my arguments. Ipetrich, I 'never' said literalists are not real Christians (they are), YOU said non-literalists are Bedeians. Please try and be accurate and stop setting up yet more strawmen. Thanks.

As for the Open University, Sauron's comments are typical American arrogance and ignorance. Luckily one of the most intelligent atheists on these boards studies at the OU so they will be able to set him right.

Family Man, Lindberg has a lifetime and teaching undergraduates most of whom turn up in his classes with the 'conflict hypothesis' firmly lodged in their heads. Consequently. a good deal of his professional life is devoted to removing it and opening them up to all the ideas that you are now wrestling with. That, alone, explains a certain preoccupation with the hypothesis's greatest exponant. Imagine if Sauron turned up in Lindberg's class and started off on his Christianity held back dissection speil. He'd have his work cut out! BTW, the Lindberg quote Sauron says he is still waiting for, is in the second post of this thread which perhaps he should read.

As I won the Christian argument and conceded the possibility of new evidence, as yet unseen, in the Islamic one, I'll bow out of this thread now. Look forward to Family Man's contribution on a new thread.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason