Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

I agree, but if you are at all familiar with any of Bakkers work, you would be pretty sure he wasn't a YECist or an IDer.

I'm not, only what was posted here and at the links Percy gave on the mod thread. So how about Theistic Evolutionist?

But the ID movement DOES claim to be doing science. Thus it is clear that Bakker does not agree with them on a fundamental point. Rather he is taking a Christian evolutionist view which would get him roundly condemned from much of the YEC camp as a "compromising Christian".

OK, that's the crucial distinction. It's not just an old-earth theological interpretation of Genesis, it claims to be science. Yes, that's pretty much what I meant when I said I'd probably disagree with him about many things.

Many in the ID camp go to great lengths to say that this is not in fact what they are at all, whether we should believe them is another matter.TTFN,WK

Why does it matter what Bakker's position is, IDer, theistic evolutionist, agnostic evolutionist, atheistic evolutionist, or some combination there of? A particular person's belief, however steeped or unsteeped in science they may be, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of evolution, ID, YEC, OEC. Thinking it is relevant is a classic case of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Kind of like thinking George Bush's opinion on ID means something just because he is the President. What matters is how well the data fit the falsifiable predictions of the scientific model being proposed (and if there are no falsfiable predictions, it isn't science). Peer review determines whether the conclusions of a particular individual are justified, not credentials, whether they be scientific, social, political, or religious. I always found it amusing that some creationists were touting the urban legend that Darwin had renounced his TOE on his deathbed and embraced Christianity. Even if it were true, it would make no difference. Darwin's theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on what Darwin himself may or may not have believed at the end of his life.

Good points. As I said somewhere, having a "name" evo on the Bible-believing side of the argument would make a difference somehow, even though strictly speaking we should all pretend we're above such things. It was FUN to see a supposedly well known evo criticizing an atheist evo, childish though that may be.And by the way, the argument from authority is perfectly valid, but there are more and less valid versions of it. I mean, you should appeal to a relevant authority.

well, the expression of a belief can be seen as a cause for various uncommon scientific theories and methodologies. but in bakker's case, i don't suspect the fact that he is a pentecostal (fundamentalist) preacher is making him think those dinosaurs he studies are less than 6000 years old.

---

אָרַח

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." No, it is probably true because Dr. So and So has done the relevant research (either on his own or reviewed the research of others or both)and has concluded from that research that it is probaby true. It is a subtle difference but it is a difference.

faith, you're missing a very important point. bakker is still an "evolutionist."my side of the debate, the theistic evolution side, often cites well known scientists who believe in god as well as evolution as evidence that creation and evolution are not incompatible.in bakker's case, he may be pentecostal, but it doesn't mean he doesn't fully understand geology and paleontology, and the old earth and patterns of evolution that it clearly demonstrates. for instance, he's VERY well known for being one of the first paleontologists to claim that small theropods evolved into modern birds. bakker is not exactly on your side, just because he thinks dawkins is an arrogant prick.

---

אָרַח

Clearly supported by the fact that anyone with a modicum of common sense wouldn't cite 'Dr. Kent Hovind' as support for any argument.Brian

Quite, but this statement illustrates yet another logical fallacy. Just because one scientist criticizes the findings, methodology, or behavior of a second scientist, that does not mean that the major findings of the second scientist are invalidated. It might just mean (1) the first scientist personally dislikes the second one (2) the first scientist is a crackpot who likes to rock the boat or (3) the first scientist mostly agrees with the second scientist but wants him to refine his methodology or his conclusions to make the research more robust. In the case of Bakker and Dawkins, I suspect it is all three.

Would this be the same "Dr." Hovind whose "dissertation" from Patriot "University" "grew from 100 to 250 pages" AFTER he received his "Ph.D."?"My dissertation was originally about 100 pages. I continued adding material and it grew to 250 pages. Over the last 10 years I have constantly been adding material. It is now many hundreds of pages and will be put into book form as time permits."It is even funnier when people appeal to authorities whose basis for being an authority is a mail order degree.

Deerbreh, I agree with you completely. It is frustrating to minimalize the real arguments on figureheads... particularly when those figurheads, like Dr. Bakker, haven't shown the cross-disciplinary research to justify such a large position.I don't like the sort of boss-ism that seems to be emerging in this discussion... We in evolution don't have leaders, we have individuals pursuing their own independent research goals. And any attack broadly based on evolution will fail because it does not address the real issue. Evolution is not the change of species... it is the variation in hemoglobin seen across related taxa, it is the intergenerational change in the genome, it is the variance in morphological form of the inominate bones seen in early Australopithecines to readers of this forum.Simply put, using any individual to represent all of the accomplishments of evolution from paleontology, genetics, biology, physiology, and ecology is misleading and irresponsible. It may be possible to do so for the first ten chapters of Genesis, but not for such an encompasing theory as evolution.I think were confusing the forest and the trees.A tout a l'heurre,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

quite. hardly the false dichotomy faith seems to be imposing. also, i'm totally sure bakker should not be considered a crackpot. his theories often sound like crackpot ideas, but so far most of them have turned out to be right.he's just properly excited about his field of study.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-10-2005 04:37 PM

---

אָרַח