Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 111 (231990)
08-10-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by deerbreh
08-10-2005 2:18 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
It may be semantics but the "argument from authority" or "appeal to authority" is never valid, it is a logical fallacy. By this we mean "it is true because Dr. So and So says it is true."
As I said, there is such a thing as a valid argument from authority
quote:
Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
The authority must be interpreted correctly.
Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always ilegitimate.
The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 04:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by deerbreh, posted 08-10-2005 2:18 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2005 8:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 32 of 111 (231991)
08-10-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by arachnophilia
08-10-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
I think that you missed out the word "not" in front of considered, considering the rest of your post.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:38 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 111 (231993)
08-10-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
08-10-2005 2:21 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
As I already said, I don't expect to agree with him about much. And perhaps you are right, I would only be disappointed in him anyway. Maybe he's just like the other evos around here who claim to believe in the Bible but don't really believe in much of it. Except he SOUNDS different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 2:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 56 by deerbreh, posted 08-11-2005 2:59 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 111 (232000)
08-10-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theus
08-10-2005 3:24 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
Simply put, using any individual to represent all of the accomplishments of evolution from paleontology, genetics, biology, physiology, and ecology is misleading and irresponsible.
especially when it's bakker. he *IS* a leader in the sense that often times he comes up with a theory and it becomes accepted mainstream. but he is not an adequate representation of all of the field of paleontology. for instance, he think that disease killed the dinos: most of the rest of the field does not.
even thought he is the childhood idol of many members here (including myself), we shouldn't just accept his word anymore than anyone else's. ok, well, maybe more than hovind's. chances are bakker knows more about dinos than "dr. dino."
but i don't think his position on dawkins is correct at all. i don't see dawkins as an arrogant athiest.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theus, posted 08-10-2005 3:24 PM Theus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2005 8:41 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 42 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2005 8:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 111 (232002)
08-10-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
08-10-2005 4:25 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
yes, thanks for catching it. i do that sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 08-10-2005 4:25 PM GDR has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 111 (232003)
08-10-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-10-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
As I already said, I don't expect to agree with him about much. And perhaps you are right, I would only be disappointed in him anyway. Maybe he's just like the other evos around here who claim to believe in the Bible but don't really believe in much of it. Except he SOUNDS different.
well, he's good at instilling a sense of wonder in people. that's what he does as one of the popular faces of paleontology. he thinks dinosaurs re really cool, and gets people really excited about them.
and of course, before you talk too much about his faith, note that he's not only pentecostal, but apparently a preacher too.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-10-2005 4:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-10-2005 8:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 111 (232083)
08-10-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by arachnophilia
08-10-2005 4:41 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
and of course, before you talk too much about his faith, note that he's not only pentecostal, but apparently a preacher too.
I've noticed the mentions of that but I must have missed the source. Can you point me to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 08-10-2005 8:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 11:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 111 (232085)
08-10-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by arachnophilia
08-10-2005 4:36 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
but i don't think his position on dawkins is correct at all. i don't see dawkins as an arrogant athiest.
I would describe (and have) dawkins as not just an atheist but an anti-theist: he can be quite militant in his position. many times in his books I have seen references to the CvE debate with comments that are not justified by the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 08-10-2005 8:55 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 08-11-2005 3:13 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 53 by SteveN, posted 08-11-2005 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 111 (232088)
08-10-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
08-10-2005 4:22 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
Please note that the element that makes this "legitimate appeal to authority" worthy is the evidence, the facts, the logic behind the authority's position.
The statement "because {X} says so" on it's own is never valid in strict logic: it has to be based on evidence, facts, and preceding logical arguments.
When there is no real way to assess the truth of an argument, then the opinions of people who have studied it in detail certainly carry more weight than any novice in the field, but this still does not make the statement from authority true.
The basic point is that an argument is true or false
and this truth of falseness is necessarily independent of any and all who make the argument.
k?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-10-2005 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 111 (232090)
08-10-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
08-10-2005 8:38 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
Faith, he's not like the evos here. He appears more in the ID camp. Plus, he is quite right in pointing out that very early on a preacher that discovered dinosaurs linked them to extinct running birds, and the atheist evos in general have been forced to follow his lead.
He is not a YECer, but he is a Pentacostal preacher, believes the Bible is the infallible word of God but thinks that "day" cannot mean a 24 hour period due to the fact the sun and earth were not created until the 3rd and 4th days. I am not up on all his theology, but he's pretty critical of anti-theists like Dawkins and others in the evo-community.
I suppose they have to begrudge him some respect because he has been right on different aspects of what dinosaurs are, whether an YEC, OEC, ID, or evo paradigm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-10-2005 8:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2005 9:10 PM randman has replied
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-10-2005 9:26 PM randman has replied
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 08-11-2005 2:39 AM randman has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 111 (232092)
08-10-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
08-10-2005 8:41 PM


Dawkin's attitude
I would describe (and have) dawkins as not just an atheist but an anti-theist: he can be quite militant in his position. many times in his books I have seen references to the CvE debate with comments that are not justified by the facts.
I have read essays by Dawkins that make me agree with you there. He has his own conclusions which is fine but he does get fairly strident in voicing them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2005 8:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 42 of 111 (232094)
08-10-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by arachnophilia
08-10-2005 4:36 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
i don't see dawkins as an arrogant athiest.
I do. I've seen him a couple of times on TV talking about the non-existence of God. He never explicitly says it but he leaves you in no doubt that he believes the only reason anyone would believe in a God of any sort is because they aren't as smart he is.
Basically he comes across as a smug, arrogant tosser.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 4:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2005 11:14 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 111 (232097)
08-10-2005 9:06 PM


he had fundamentalist parents
Bakker had fundamentalist parents who believed very strongly in education, as is typical and contrary to what evos on this board claim.
In fact, he is himself a fundamentalist in the broader term. He believes in being born-again, getting saved, miracles, healings, etc,...
Now, technically, in the religious sense of the word, he may not be a fundamentalist, but neither are most people evos and liberals label as such. Pat Robertson, for example, would be more in Bakker's camp and is not a fundamentalist, and Jerry Falwell would be an actual fundamentalist.
Reconstructionists and most Dominionists are not actually fundamentalists in the narrow sense, nor are any Pentacostals, Charismatics or most Evangelicals, but for from the secularist perspective, they are alll fundies because they all believe the Bible is the word of God, or most do.
So in the looser sense, Bakker is a raving fundie.
Interesting how one of the leading paleontologists of the world is a raving, tongue-talking, devil-casting, Bible-toting, lay hands for healing, etc,...type of preacher, generally part of one of the most wildest and more "primitive" branches of Christianity.
Guess he got that sound head for science and religion from his parents.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-10-2005 09:06 PM

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 111 (232100)
08-10-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
08-10-2005 8:52 PM


Respect earned by the validity of science
I suppose they have to begrudge him some respect because he has been right
LOL you make it sound like it has to be pulled out unwillingly ...
Perhaps "they" begrudge him respect because the science is valid, based on facts, developing new insights and then validating them with new evidence. Perhaps it is that the faith of the person doing science is irrelevant to valid science.
Perhaps your picture is wrong of "the evos here" and of "the atheist evos in general," and all they want to see is valid science irrespective of any personal faith.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 08-10-2005 8:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 08-14-2005 5:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 111 (232101)
08-10-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
08-10-2005 9:03 AM


It takes a lot of effort to read Agustine contemporaneously to about the mid 60s when GC Williams limited as far as I know this "city" (as to the e/c debate) with
quote:
"There is one respect, however, in which there is general agreeement. Always when biotic adaptation is postulated, its immediate or ultimate effect is the improvement of the situtation from a traditional asthetic point of view."p233 George C. Williams ADAPTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION
hence from Bakker I can try to read
quote:
I pulled my battered City of God out of my vest and read some neat passages about Doctrine and astronomy. Augustine really sings when he combines Nature with Scripture. He loved spiders and rabbits and saw created beauty even in a biting sand fly. And he lectured new converts that they should appreciate real science, even when taught by a Pagan.
what for Kant was split between dynamics and math. When I got to Cornell in the 80s biologists seemed to have forgoten that they never showed how the individual itself was to be COUNTED.
I dont know if Mayr tried to find this immediately proximate but if that is how he had, even if only once, read Williams, I would say he was mistaken given that such a person as a Bakker exists.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-10-2005 09:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 08-10-2005 9:03 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024