--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
> Truman: "So now that Dr. Jo Ann Marie Gora, Ball State University
> president, with a bachelor's in political science, master's and
> doctorate in sociology is a 'Darwinist'? When I think of a
> Darwinist, I think of evolutionary biologists."
> That's cool, but when I think of a Darwinist, I think of anyone who
> believes in Darwinian theory. Is there any doubt that Dr. Gora is
> among the ranks of Darwinian true believers?
I think she has more of a "true belief" in the overwhelming scientific community consensus. It's what you would probably call "Big Science".
> Truman: "Why do you call people 'Darwinists' when you really
> mean 'Materialists'?"
> In most instances there's not a shade of difference between them,
> so why split hairs?
Because "Darwinist" is in regard to biological phenomena. Where "Materialist" includes all other areas of physical phenomena. Or are you one of those people that think the universe just popped into existence and fine tuned itself without any help from a designer?
> Truman: "And it should not be 'Darwinian Thought Police'
> but 'Materialist Thought Police'."
> Call them whatever you want, but I use the phrase "Darwinian
> thought police" to refer to those who use their positions of
> authority to enforce Darwinian orthodoxy by intimidating,
> ostracizing, or otherwise punishing dissenters from the Darwinian
> faith. Dr. Gora fits that description.
When you use the phrase "Thought Police" in context with "Orwellian Attack" with that link you provided, that description is highly exaggerated.
What is going on with ID is hardly like that described in that novel by Orwell. I know you have accused me and other "Darwinists" as being paranoid, but I think you are projecting.
Again, it is not "Darwinian orthodoxy" that was enforced. He did not teach "dissent from Darwinism". His class was introducing ID as a scientific theory. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the community do not regard ID as a scientific theory. Therefore Gora concluded that it was not an honest presentation of an "Intersection of Science and Religion".
As Dr. Carl Giberson put it:
<<<Hedin's assigned readings and bibliography are somewhat unbalanced, although one of the two required texts is a solid popularization of conventional big bang cosmology, unadorned by theological speculation. However, were students to infer that the extensive bibliography list covers the bases for the discussion of the "Boundaries of Science" they would be mistaken. Of the roughly 20 books listed, half advocate basic intelligent design with the remainder divided evenly between books by Christians sympathetic to raising constructive questions about God in the context of science -- like Keith Ward and myself -- or non-theists with minority viewpoints that resonate in some way with traditional theism -- like Roger Penrose and Paul Davies. Noticeably absent are genuinely critical books of the sort written by Vic Stenger, Steven Weinberg and even Jerry Coyne that address the same issues but offer informed atheistic responses.>>>
> The rest of what you wrote was remarkably silly, so I won't add
> to your embarrassment by commenting on it.
What I wrote is only as silly as the "Ball State President's Orwellian Attack on Academic Freedom".
If it adds to your embarrassment, it was not my intention.