Hi Mac,
Sorry, I keep my mailbox as cluttered as my desk. Cleared some messages.
Dadano,
you wrote:
Originally posted by Dadano
Explain Jewish Agnostic.... Is that just a confused Jew?
[/b]
Unlike most religions, "Jewish" can refer not only to a system of beliefs but also to a race. Most Jews are descendents of Jewish forebears going all the way back to the original 12 tribes descended from Jacob. Berlinski is Jewish when it comes to race, but not religion. He is what is sometimes called "a non-observant Jew." Berlinski has stated publicly again and again that he doesn't know or care much if there is a God.
As far as I can discern the problem with Berlinski is, he simply isn't a scientist, he is a pundit. He works for The Discovery Institute here in Seattle which is known for it's famous "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. How many evolutionary biologists have their name attached to that?
This is reminiscent of the situation at the Reformation. You may have been a minister in good standing, a doctor of divinity, and a graduate of any number of schools, but when you embraced the Solas and denied the authority of the Pope you became nothing but a heretic and a charlatan. The same is true in the modern scientific community, deny Darwin's theory and point out it no longer works as a paradigm to explain the evidence and even the most profane or credentialed scientist becomes a "religious fanatic" and no true scientist. As a general rule, speaking against Neodarwinianism is like touching the third rail, and no scientist who wants to keep his career or his place in the academy will do it.
Here is Berlinski's CV:
"David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. Recent articles by Dr. Berlinski have been featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. He is author of numerous books, including A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon 1996), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000, Harcourt Brace),.Newton's Gift (The Free Press 2000). Forthcoming are his books: The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (Harcourt, October 2003), A Short History of Mathematics for the Modern Library series at Random House (2004), and Einstein & Goedel: Friendship between Equals (Simon & Schuster 2004). He is currently working on a book analyzing genetic algorithm
As for how many evolutionary biologists, several (and in particular molecular biologists where the theory really breaks down) former evolutionary biologists have signed but like Kenyon and Minnich, the moment you sign your name becomes mud and you cease to be respected. In fact, from that moment on you become the subject of nothing but Ad Homs. If the only arguments I could muster around here were to attack the members of the board personally, how much respect would I merit? None at all.
You are saying we need a God and his word for moral guidance?
Dadano, if there is no God, then there are no ethical absolutes nor any means of finding them out. As Dostoyevsky put it,
"If there is no God then all things are permissible." The modern existentialist, postmodern, and nihilist philosophers like Sartre, Nietzche, Focault, Derrida, etc. have all realized that and that while we may try to create morals, they have no real link to reality. Quark, protons, and the matter of the Universe have no interest in "Good" or "Evil" nor do they teach us anything about them, they are supremely irrelevant, and when we consider that the universe is, according to the materialists, slowly winding down to an eventual heat death and oblivion, morals become absurd. In any event, regardless of whether one person says or 51% of a group of people raise our hands that does not
really make something right or wrong.
To use the premise of the original link, how can a few slightly more evolved animals, a bunch of monkeys know what is "good?" As Stephen Pinker points out, our brains are "evolved" to help us stay alive long enough to procreate, that is all and supposedly inclined to behavior that helps us to do that.
But let me ask you simply, you tell me without reference to God or the bible why mocking Mrs. Ross (the little old lady in question) and her belief in what you consider to be a delusion was
really wrong? - SEAGOON
