|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
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: This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 04:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yes, thanks for catching it. i do that sometimes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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:hence from Bakker I can try to read quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024