If thou art not mine friend... (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 19:49 (4404 days ago) @ David Turell

MATT: I will reiterate that the ID movement as espoused by the CRI is antithetical to the type of thinking espoused in David's book. David's book attempts to bring into the world a scientifically sane approach, and while I don't agree that there is enough basis to make a decision, he isn't writing what he's writing to push some nazi-esque agenda. He makes an argument for design that is far superior to Behe or Dembski in that he completely abandons the generally idiotic ideas of our ancestors. (Even if I don't agree with his notion of panentheism.)-DAVID: Thank you for your comments about my mode of thought. But don't be afraid of ID. Those folks have an obvious agenda, but their discussions unearth many untenable aspects of Darwinism and of evolutionary just-so stories. I take my information where ever I can find it, and what I find doesn't damage me, or scare me. What is your problem, once you understand their agenda? They can think just as well as you can.-I heartily endorse both sets of comments here, but would like to add one of my own relating to Matt's vehement attack on the CRI, whose goal is "to transform American society from one that is secular and plural to one that is Christian and monist." That need not necessarily invalidate all their scientific arguments, as you have acknowledged implicitly in your well merited praise of David's balanced approach. The same applies to Dawkins and his ilk, who use their own scientific arguments to promote their agenda of destroying religion. (He has set up The Richard Dawkins Foundation, which supports atheistic events and organizations.) The point I wish to make here, though, is that your attack is based on precisely the arguments David and Tony were putting forward on the thread HOW RELIABLE IS SCIENCE? If we do not trust scientists when they are being paid to push a particular agenda, what credence can we give to science generally, e.g. in fields like climate, food, energy, pharmaceutics, knowing that the living of its practitioners may well be governed by the nature of their findings? And do we actually know to what extent research positions and publications are controlled by the agenda of the people in charge?
 
You write "Evidence is evidence, and the truth always comes out on top." That is a wonderful expression of faith, but can we at any given moment be certain of "the evidence", and how can we at any given moment know what is "the truth"?