Sauron

*sigh* I read it before I posted the link, Gurdur.

Whether you call it "theistic evolution" or OEC, it's still the same thing. They are advancing a position for which there is no scientific support -- as a valid topic in public school science calss. And they are doing this because of their religious beliefs.

Having debated several christians here at my place of work about Hugh Ross' positions, I can tell you that you're wrong. I *fully* understand the difference between YEC and OEC - but that difference doesn't help the situation here. Russell's advocacy of even a Deist OEC curriculum calls into question his objectivity.

An elegant restatement, but still OEC. Which, I'll point out again, has no scientific basis.

The fact that they are asking to supplement the existing material with a Deist kind of creationism (as opposed to replacing existing science courses) doesn't really improve your argument, Gurdur. That's just an elegant re-statement of the creationist whine "Why can't we just teach both sides, and let the kids decide?" Which, of course, neatly skirts the question of why nonscience of *any* kind should be allowed into the curriculum in the first place.

Gurdur, you seem to think that only a non-American can understand that there is a difference between YEC and OEC. May I suggest that is a conceit that you'd best be rid of?

I've already grasped this distinction - have for years. But it doesn't change the point, nor does it make your argument succeed.

No, you're just operating under the assumption that I don't grok the difference between OEC and YEC. I do.

Sauron

It wasn't an attack. The comparison to DeVry University is spot-on; it fills an analogus position in the UK as DeVry fills here in the USA.

Where I erred was in assuming that the respect level for OU was about the same for DeVry. In the US, DeVry is like a huge community college - not a diploma mill, but also not a prestige university. It's a very important educational outlet for a segment of society, wanting to better themselves.

Obviously, Open University appears to have a significantly higher respect level in the UK. That was my mistake, and I retract any statements that appear to denigrate OU or its staff/students.

Gurdur

How about I simply sum up the issues ?

• Quote:

  Originally posted by Sauron Whether you call it "theistic evolution" or OEC, it's still the same thing.

  No, it isn't. You insisted that that he was supporting creationism being taught in UK schools.
  It turns out that he was in fact wanting religion taught as religion in UK schools ---- a very significant difference in both emphasis and meaning.
  
  Just for your information, I also support the teaching of religion in schools, albeit as comparative and critical --- simply as a field of needful knowledge.
  
  
  Quote:

  They are advancing a position for which there is no scientific support -- as a valid topic in public school science calss. And they are doing this because of their religious beliefs.

  Irrelevant on one count, misleading on the other.
  Ethics is also something for which there is no scientific support --- which IMHO should be taught in schools anyway.
  As for the question of his religious beliefs being the impetus, re-read the grounding in the letter.
  Precisely since science does not answer certain questions, he wants religion done too.
  I would agree with him as long as it was comparative, and with a heavy ethics component.
  But the main point is, this does not invalidate his historical work, as you tried claiming it did --- and you are playing both a contradictory and a dangerous game with this, as will be detailed below.
  
  
  Quote:

  I *fully* understand the difference between YEC and OEC - but that difference doesn't help the situation here.

  Not paying attention, are you ? I already detailed why your bring OEC as well as YEC into it was irrelevant.
  Quote:

  Russell's advocacy of even a Deist OEC curriculum calls into question his objectivity.

  Again, you're playing a dangerous game which can only backfire upon you.
  I'll detail why in a moment.
  
  
  Quote:

  The fact that they are asking to supplement the existing material with a Deist kind of creationism (as opposed to replacing existing science courses) doesn't really improve your argument, Gurdur.

  I love the mischaracterizational talent, but hey, they want religion taught as religion in classes (and given the UK and its educational system, it could hardly be anything but comparative in state schools), and they want science taught as science.
  Which part of this do you not grasp ?
  
  Quote:

  That's just an elegant re-statement of the creationist whine "Why can't we just teach both sides, and let the kids decide?" Which, of course, neatly skirts the question of why nonscience of *any* kind should be allowed into the curriculum in the first place.

  One more mischaracterization from you, and also BTW *bang* went Ethics as a curriculum subject.
  
  
  Quote:

  No, you're just operating under the assumption that I don't grok the difference between OEC and YEC. I do.

  No, I'm operating under the assumption you confuse what he is advocating.
  

Since this has gotten so long as a post already, I will put the rest in a new post.

Gurdur

The issues

1. Sauron, you made an attack on Colin Russell which was simply way over-inflated.
   
   Moreover, the dangerous game you play here can only backfire; allow me to illustrate by changing some quotations from you:
   
   A book titled "The History of Science and Religion" makes one wonder about the agenda of such a book.
   ---- especially if it's written by someone known to be an atheist ? Or a Buddhist ? Where does this stop ?
   
   Colin Russell is also a director of the "John Ray Initiative" - an attempt to inject christianity into environmentalism,
   
   Colin Russell is an atheist who seeks to inject humanism into enviromentalism
   
   Credibility and objectivity are important. Having a religious axe to grind destroys both.
   
   Credibility and objectivity are important. Having an atheist axe to grind destroys both.
   
   The fact that Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter.
   
   The fact that Richard Dawkins is an avid atheist and a secularist has an immediate bearing upon the question of his objectivity in biological research.
   
2. Do you see the problem ?
   
   First you try attacking the academic credentials of Russell as if academic credentials mean something --- which of course I also believe.
   (And then you tried that mistaken attack on the OU.)
   IOW, academic credentials, science and academic history as the final arbiter.
   
   But then you ignore academic credentials to try a logical fallacy of poisoning the well by claiming Russell's religious beliefs outweigh his academic credentials and work.
   
   All you end up with is saying ultimately you will only accept works from those whose beliefs you agree with.
   IOW, the question of the person's beliefs as final arbiter.
   
   You have then undercut science and academia.
   
3. Thence to the matter of bringing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on White:
   
   Quote:

   ....Bede's rash characterization: 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.

   Indeed, Bede didn't substantiate his own attack here as much as I personally would have liked, and it's not something I like --- the lack of substantiation.
   However, we're supposed to be better; and quoting EB on characterizing his work as "outstanding" doesn't substantiate your defence of White anywhere near enough either.
   
   Jury still out on that score.
   

So much for the issues of academic authority.

Now maybe we can actually get to the rival theses being debated in this discussion without all the tiresome ad hominems and logical fallacies of poisoning the well.

Sauron

Oh, let me.

You believe that this letter advocates teaching religion in religion classes, and science in science classes. Having read other of Russell's comments, I do not believe that is so.

1st case in point:

2nd case in point:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Russell.html
Here we see Russell trying to deny the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno, and downplay the events in Galileo's life. But Bruno *was* martyred; burned alive, in fact, for his heresies. And while Galileo was not tortured, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for heresy - a clever bait-and-switch.

Russell has all the markings of someone who is trying to have it both ways: presenting the appearance of dispassionate researcher, while simultaneously trying to find whatever reasons he can to rehabilitate the history of christianity in western europe.

Gurdur

No. How about I remind you of my drawing attention to your ad hominem poisoning-the-well tactics that can only backfire, as I detailed ?
Reply to that ?
Most likely. I'ld have to research more, but that seems the most plausible.
Gosh. Just does not go one iota towards refuting me.

IIRC; a Scientific American article years ago was on this --- and its conclusion was that Giordano Bruno was burnt for witchcraft, not for proto-scientific heresies.

In any case, not important nor relevant. And certainly not refuting my belief as to the desires of Russell.

The art of hidden insinuation.

When will you finally tackle my criticism ?
This is not the Political Discussions forum, and you have made a big show of depending on academic history.
You simply cannot deride a respected academic's works for his religious beliefs, thereby committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well ad hominem, unless you can make a bloody good case --- which you haven't ---- otherwise you might just as well admit you will only accept academic work from those whose beliefs apart from their academic work you accept.

As I detailed above, it cuts both ways.

Should Bede reject the works of Richard Dawkins simply because Dawkins is an overt atheist ?

Sauron

Answer: if it were someone with an axe to grind - whatever axe - then anyone using reading that book, or using it as a reference, would be wise to make themselves aware of the author's agenda/axe. So while you and I might not worry too much if an atheist wrote such a book, we would both probably have a little mental "flag" set to remind us that an actively atheist author might:

a. stray too far over the line in his/her zeal; and

b. not be accepted by other debate participants as a respected and reasonably neutral source.

An example would be several of the entries in the Skeptics Bible, which even I can see aren't contradictions. The author(s) of that work went overboard. However, I can cull from the work those particular items that I think are reasonably free from error. I also have to realize going into the debate that presenting the SAB to a theist, however, will probably be a waste of time. So if I want to avoid the charge of selectively picking my sources from only those which agree with me, I'm probably not going to use the SAB as a reference. (Which is good practice anyhow; if a paritcular claim can *only* be found in the SAB, and nowhere else, then that fact alone should be a warning sign that the claim may not be widely accepted. And that's a good reason to not rely on such a claim during a debate.)

Your other examples are all variations of your first one, so I'll delete them. My answer above suffices for them as well.

What I'm saying here about Bede and his use of Russell is that:

(a) for the reasons given in my previous post, Russell has not established his credentials as someone sufficiently professional to keep his faith and agenda separate from his research; and

(b) Bede used Russell to try and support his toxic characterizaton of White: 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. Yet Bede offered no disclaimer that the source he was relying upon apparently had an agenda.

(c) Therefore, Bede failed to substantiate his toxic accusations against White who, as far as the facts show to date, is a far better historian than Bede gives credit for. Primarily because Bede also cannot separate his faith and agenda from his research.

Sauron

Let's see.

Calm down, Gurdur. You allowed yourself two posts to respond to me. Are you now insisting that I respond to you both yours in a single post?

Check my 2nd post.

Gurdur

Bollocks.
You've simply relied on vague insinuations.
You haven't tackled his central work in the slightest, you've simply attacked him ad hominem --- with extremely poor arguments.

No, not the facts.

That's the problem --- you have relied too much on backfiring ad hominems and not the facts.
Ýou've failed to give any decent substantiation yourself for your grossly inflated attacks.
All your attacks on Russell himself simply don't work to disprove his work in the slightest --- you haven't given us any critique of his actual work.

I suggest you calm down, take my criticisms, study them, and remember that good history is not a matter of bad polemics. This is not the PD.

Sauron

Uh, no. Insinuations not necessary. That's why I included quotations from Russell - to avoid the charge of insinuation.

I don't have to address his central work in detail. My objective was to substantiate my claim that that Russell is quite probably operating in bias. The quotations provide such evidence.

You seem to be confusing the burden of proof here. It is Bede's claim that White is a flawed researcher; it is Bede's claim that has to be proven.

Not at all. Let's do this, by the numbers:

1. Bede claimed White was a worthless historian.
2. I showed him a Britannica quotation stating otherwise.
3. Bede counters with Russell.
4. But Russell has an agenda.

The reference in my column is from Britannica, which no one has shown to be:
(a) inaccurate or
(b) driven by agenda.

Bede's reference appears to be operating from agenda. Given that score, I am "ahead" of Bede -- until such time as he provides a source that is:
(a) accurate as well as
(b) reasonably free from agenda