For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

Hi Randman,This is from my Message 254 from the previous thread, Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?: I again suggest that you read people's posts all the way through instead of whatever it is you do, skim them or ignore them or whatever.--Percy

I understand you feel wronged, but nitpicking your way through my posts and the interview and making Talmudic distinctions favoring your own point of view is probably not a good use of time.This from you in Message 1 of the original thread is what I felt was wrong: But it appears you still misunderstand the nature of my objection. Clearly, Darwin, Watson and Wilson believe that life had arisen in this way. The problem is that neither Watson nor Wilson ever made any such comment as you put quotes around. They never at any point stated that life had risen autonomously. My concern wasn't that you were misrepresenting their views, but that you were misrepresenting the content of the interview. And given your history of misinterpretation, this was of great concern to me.My other concern was your assertion that they believed they were making scientific statements concerning God. They did not. Had you been present during the interview to make your misinterpretation clear, they would have clarified to say they only meant that in life's processes there is no evidence nor need for a designer. Scientists of their standing well understand the absence of evidence issue.The big impact of evolution was outside of science in the socio/cultural realm, and this is what they were referring to. It is also what creationists often refer to, as their frequent complaint is evolution's contribution to the moral decline of western culture.--Percy

Okay, I understand you feel this way. I won't argue it with you. You can have free rein in this thread to convince others of how wrong I was. Good luck!--Percy

I went to this webpage: But where it says, "Click to icon to play" there is no image and clicking on it doesn't do anything. Is this working for anyone?Viewing the source, there's a link to a Quicktime audio file: This seems to work fine.--Percy

No, they didn't really say this. Just the fact that Randman asserted the claim means that it should be approached with skepticism.Just to be absolutely clear, here's what Randman claims: And here is the relevant part of the transcript from Asgara, or you can listen to it beginning at 14:25 of the audio file. The dialogue goes like this: What Watson actually said, and what Wilson was responding to, is that he didn't know of but one serious scientist who believed in a personal God. He definitely did not say that he knew of only one scientist who held to religious belief.What's baffling about Randman is his continual need to distort what was actually said. We all accept and understand that scientists as a group are less religious than the population as a whole, and that the greater the scientist the less religious he tends to be is. But that doesn't mean that Watson's comment can be interpreted to mean that he knew only one person who holds to religious belief. He was quite clear in indicating that he was talking about believing in a personal God.--Percy

Hi Randman,I thought you were going to discuss how wrong I was in this thread, and I was prepared to step aside and let you make your case. But since that's no longer the topic I guess I'll rejoin the discussion: No, they did not claim this. If you were there during the interview and had posed this interpretation, they would have told you that's not what meant.What they're actually saying is that a scientific approach to understanding the world makes it difficult to believe in a personal God, primarily because there is no evidence for one. But as I said earlier, scientists of this stature understand the absence of evidence issue very well, and would never reach the conclusions you're ascribing to them.--Percy

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. You want your worst fears about evolutionists confirmed, and so you reach conclusions consistent with those fears. You're welcome to your interpretation. I have little concern that many others will find it persuasive as it sees everything in terms of black and white and ignores far too much.--Percy

So you're saying...what? That Watson and Wilson both know more than one serious scientist who accepts a personal God, but are unwilling to admit this in a public setting? So you're accusing people of lying again? Doesn't the constant, "He lies, he deceives, he's dishonest," stuff get old to you after a while? It's sure getting old with everybody else. Maybe we should make you part of some EvC Forum initiation where one can't be considered a true evolutionist with full member status until they've been accused of dishonesty by Randman. You'll be our definer of the true evolutionist!You don't even know Watson's and Wilson's criteria for considering someone a "serious scientist". Your accusation is based upon no information, just an inherent distrust of anything and anyone associated with evolution, and a willingness to make baseless accusations ad nauseam.The other thing is that it is quite possible that your scientist/minister does not believe in a personal God who interferes in daily life and answers prayers. Did you read the whole interview? At one point he says some things consistent with a personal God, like this: But then he goes on to say: His views on death are definitely non-traditional: I'd say the interview is inconclusive regarding whether he accepts a personal God. He never mentions prayer or God's actions in the world.He also disagrees with you about evolution, which is off-topic, but since topic is never important to you anyway, what the heck: Bottom line: you've got to try to rein in your tendency to see dishonesty and deceit in everyone who disagrees with you.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-15-2006 03:26 PM

We're just not going to agree on this. I can see how a naive and very determined perspective could draw this conclusion. Keep in mind that the context was the debate with evangelical Christianity, and that they were thinking of the YEC God of 6 days of creation and Noah and so forth. In this case one would tend to phrase things in more absolute terms, like "no way you can reconcile", because there not only is no evidence for these things, there are mountains of evidence opposing them. Even though science is tentative, its very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the evidence does tend to rule out the YEC God pretty thoroughly. He's more a fairy tale character than a real God, sort of like pink dragons and sorcerors and so forth. But scientists of the stature of Watson and Wilson would never claim that science rules out all concepts of God because they understand that that is beyond the capability of science. Rereading the interview, I think you are correct that the preponderance of the evidence is that he accepts a personal God. For example, he did say he accepts a Protestant God, and he said he feels the presence of God, and that he believes God helped him with his ideas. His other comments about the universe being "just so" for life and so forth seem insufficient to counter those statements.But are you really accusing Watson and Wilson of dissembling when they say they know only one serious scientist who accepts a personal God? Do you believe they were trying to paint a knowingly inaccurate picture of the degree to which serious scientists are believers? This is well established by surveys, you know. The greater the scientist, the less influenced he is by religion. The highest tier of scientists, those at the Nobel level, have the greatest tendency of all toward unbelief. Statistically, Townes is unusual. Why would you doubt that Watson and Wilson, who hobnob at the top level of science, would know very few, indeed only one, serious scientist so devout that he not only believes in God, he accepts a personal God.--Percy

They didn't say they didn't know of any other scientists, etc. They said they didn't *know* any other scientists, etc.And they didn't say "that believe in God or are religious". They were very specific about a personal God who interferes in everyday affairs and answers prayers and so forth. Though I'm sure they know *of* Sternberg, they are very unlikely to *know* Sternberg. And whether they know him or not, I very much doubt they consider him a serious scientist.You can go on and on about this if you like, but I think you're only convincing people that you have a strong tendency to ascribe dishonest motives to anyone who disagrees with you. Have you found anyone here or anywhere in the field of evolution who you believe has an honest disagreement with you?--Percy

Sternberg is well-published. I don't believe it is possible to know for certain who Watson and Wilson consider serious scientists, though certainly Sternberg removed himself from consideration with his BSOW fiasco. Where I differ from Randman is that he believes he knows precisely what Watson and Wilson meant, and that they were therefore misrepresenting themselves when they claimed not to know but one serious scientist who believes in a personal God.Is a member of a recreational hockey team who plays several times a week a serious athelete? Probably not from the point of view of those now at the Olympics. Is your run-of-the mill university toiler a serious scientist? Possibly not from the point of view of Watson and Wilson, there's no way to know for sure from the available information. But they're unlikely to be well acquainted with many such people.There's another relevant point. My experience in academia and industry is that religious issues rarely come up. Except for those with overtly religious names (like some Jewish names), I can think of few colleagues whose religious affiliation or beliefs I know, and all were members of a Bible study class I attended. I assume that the same is true for Watson and Wilson - the subject simply rarely comes up in scientific circles. A colleague has to be fairly overt about his religious beliefs for them to become apparent.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-16-2006 10:32 AM

Sorry, Randman, no, I don't see it. I doubt that many others do, either. You're accusing them of dishonesty for stating opinions that differ from your own.Further, had they gone on to elaborate at the level of detail that you seem to think was required, Charlie Rose would very likely have interrupted them to return to the main topic.Even further, you're insisting on uncertain interpretations, for instance that though they said "know" they meant "know of".It is well known that top scientists of Nobel and near-Nobel level are much less frequently believers than the general population. Watson's and Wilson's comments are consistent with that.Is there any evolutionist you consider honest?--Percy

Are you going by what they said? Or by what Randman says they said?I only ask because Randman keeps repeating a more general and inaccurate version, that they said they only know but one scientist who holds religious beliefs. They were actually talking about "a personal god who interferes with our lives and listens to our prayers and aware of our existence..." That's a direct quote of Watson from the interview, see the transscript in Message 25. My understanding of the surveys of the top tier of scientists is that finding very few who believed in such a personal God would be just about what you'd expect.--Percy

A 1997 study reported by Wikipedia at Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia: This seems consistent with what Watson and Wilson said was their personal experience of other scientists they know concerning belief in a personal God. I see no dishonesty, deception or dissembling.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-16-2006 11:57 AM

Well, maybe I'll agree with you, but not on your say so since you repeatly misrepresent what was said. If you have other portions of the broadcast that you haven't explicitly excerpted yet then provide them and I'll look at them. But based on the 15 seconds of conversation just after Watson says "if we're talking about a personal God...", I can't agree that the context extends to claiming there is no God of any type.Watson would not have made the distinction about a personal God if it made no difference to the number of believing scientists he knows. Clearly just by framing his argument this way he makes clear that he knows scientists who believe in God, just not a personal God.Top scientists who believe in God tend to view him as putting the universe in motion by defining the laws and creating the initial conditions, and then letting it run by itself. I definitely did not interpret Watson and Wilson as claiming science rules out this type of God.--Percy