Discovery Institute loses one

It seems clear that Flew WAS duped. Davidson may have been fooled by the wording or may have foolishly trusted the originators of the document. It seems clear that he has also recently revised his opinion of the theological soundness of ID (or possibly has only recently formed such an opinion).

You appear confused about the present issue. I was attempting to point out that Davidson is actually very smart and not dumb enough to be duped. The entire incident was premeditated by Davidson, because if it was as he says, then he would never have made the story public.Henry Herepton the Reptile

Then apply my previous observations about Davidson to Flew.Either way your view makes life-long atheists/Darwinists very dumb or very wicked.Henry Herepton the ReptileThis message has been edited by Herepton, 09-18-2005 07:11 PM

LOL Again, do you dispute(1) that the statement says nothing contradictory about evolution or in any way supports Intelligent Design?
(2) that the DI exhibits these signatures as if they show that evolution is admitted false and that therefore Intelligent Design is the answer?If you don't dispute point (1) then you could hardly claim that davidson signing the statement was misrepresenting his position on evolution, whether duped or intentionally, in any way.If you don't dispute point (2) then you cannot claim that davidson intentionally misusing his (valid by point 1) position on evolution to misrepresent his position on ID, AND that all the deception is on the hands of DI.Ball in your court, time to dance.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

imho, having read alot about the di, that would be totally fair game.but one of the possible outcomes of this is that we discredit his claim that the di is being deceptive. if every scientist that answers our questions agrees with the di position, then he's basically a statistical aberation. one guy who made a mistake.

---

אָרַח

No. It more likely means that Flew's mental powers have deterirorated due to his advanced age. There is no need to assume that he is stupid even now - only insufficiently skeptical of ID sources. Likely the same error that Davidson made.I would make an additional note that wickedness is more appropriately attributed to the deciever than the deceived.+

I haven't seen any evidence, though, that he was ever an atheist. He's certainly asserted, many times, that atheism is the proper, logical presumption, and asserts that still, but that doesn't seem to stop him from believing in, in his words, "the God of Aristotle and Spinoza." Yeah. Somebody who believes in a non-interventionist creator God. Such a belief is not compatible with Christianity; deists are not, cannot be, Christians. No, it just absolutely negates the significance. So some old geezer changes his mind. Why should any atheist care? What evidence? If you had actually read anything by Flew, you would know that atheism is the appropriate presumption so long as there's a lack of evidence for God. Now, unless folks like you have substantially altered their positions, that's still true. Even Flew, as recently as March of this year, asserts that it's still true. That's right - Flew still asserts that atheism is still the proper, most logical presumption.Does that sound like a watershed conversion to Christianity, or a sweeping recantation of atheism, to you? I have a boss. Two of them, in fact. It doesn't particularly bother me. I have absolutely no idea what "psychological state" you think you're referring to, here.And you haven't answered my question. What is the relevance of Flew's beliefs? And here's another question - why do you feel that Flew is so important that you had to misrepresent his beliefs?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-27-2005 11:02 PM

umdo you?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Greetings.My name is Dr. Douglas G. Frank. I introduced myself on the 'email' thread of this topic, offering my email (I am on the DI 400 list). Following my post, a discussion quickly ensued and the thread was no longer serving its original purpose, so it was closed.My original post was:
http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster -->EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster
(I made several subsequent posts in response to questions there, so I will be brief here, now.)My apologies! I am new to this community, and was basically following the lead of the other members on the thread. Apparently the thread has been relocated here.I am a scientist/teacher/inventor/businessman. My email is: Doug@ToolsForAnalysis.comI believe the existence of the 'list of 400' is a double-edged sword.First, as the list grows, it will become increasingly difficult for DI opponents to simply marginalize the growing list of respected scientists. They will have to address the real concerns and questions. Perhaps education reform will result. This is a positive.Second, as the list grows, DI scientific claims will have to pass through an increasingly challenging filter--a sort of built in peer review. DI will not want to lose members from the list, and so will carefully pre-review strategies and claims. This is a positive.I support this effort because I believe that all are served by a credible scientific dialogue on both sides of the issue. (See the other thread for more discussion).From where I sit, science education is in a sorry state. Science is typically taught as a collection of facts and/or skills. To the contrary, the scientific method is a process, and should be taught as such. This includes a healthy skepticism of ALL scientific models, including evolutionary ones.In my science classes (I devote some time each week to teaching advanced math and science classes at a school for gifted students), I teach math and science to some of the brightest high schoolers in our country. I have found that an open discussion of this topic not only helps the students become scientifically literate and current, but is also a highly useful heuristic for teaching the scientific method and learning to recognize the the characteristics of scientific knowledge.Anyway, time for me to get back to work.Respectfully,
Dr. Douglas G. Frank, President
Precision Analytical Instruments, Inc.
Blue Ash, OH

So, would you sign a document that states that the current theory of gravity that is taught in schools does not adequately account for all the evidence, and that alternative explanations should be explored?

Interesting that you would ask this...as a matter fact, I would. I actually use this example in my classes:I drop a pen on the floor, then ask 'why' it falls.
The typical response is 'gravity'
Then I ask, but what IS gravity?Students try various explanations, but in the end they learn that science gives names to phenomena and models phenomena, but it can't say what something is or why it is like it is...only how it behaves.This very fruitful discussion usually results in deep conversations about the nature of the 'ether' of the universe, string theory, cosmology, etc...And the 'process of science' is learned in a profound way. Science is not a collection of facts. It is a way of thinking and a process by which we strive to understand nature.Fair enough?Dr. Frank

try me.the mass of the earth distorts spacetime in such a way that vector of pen's path through spacetime intersected the planet.another acceptable question is "why did the earth fall into the pen?" from pen's point of view, it certainly did, and even in a newtonian sense, all masses attract: the earth did move. gravity is the curvature and distortion of spacetime caused by mass.why does mass warp spacetime? because it's there. that question is about as silly as wondering why you displace water when you go for a swim. sci-fi and philosophy are not science. but general relativity and string theory are. you can ask "how did the rules come to be?" but that's philosophy -- religion. yes, this is true. but striving to understand nature does not mean that we do not understand nature.

---

אָרַח

And yet you stated elsewhere that the statement signed on the list is nothing out of the ordinary for normal scientific skepticism in any field.How do you get from {A} to {B} here? If the statement expresses normal skepticism then there is no additional concern or question to address. Nothing to be marginalized for because of signing it. How does this relate to education reform?Note that I concur with the assessment re skepticism (which actually renders the statement irrelevant) and have said so before (see early in this thread), but that this is not the issue I have with it (the issue I have is misrepresenting this statement as some kind of justification for the neo-Paleyism of "intelligent design" when there is no connection between the statement and anything to do with ID). Yawn. That filter already exists: it is called the scientific method - if you do science it is science, if you don't do science it doesn't matter what you call it, it isn't science. Do you think untestable concepts should be included? Astrology? What validity do scientific hypothesis (concepts based on scientific evidence but which have not been validation tested yet) have in the process? Do you discuss ways to test the hypothesis involved?I have no problem with reaching the end of current knowledge and saying "beyond this we just don't know yet" - whether it is dark matter or abiogenesis or neuro-psychology. I do have a problem with claiming that our lack of knowledge implies something one way or the other.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.