Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Point-Counterpoint: Steven Weinberg vs. Eugenie Scott

William Dembski
June 21, 2007
Religion, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.” –Steven Weinberg, NYT, 21nov06

“Scott describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality. . . . In her earnest, soft-spoken voice, she tried to explain to parents and teachers [in Kansas] that science and evolution are not anti-religion. ‘Students don’t have to accept evolution,’ Scott frequently has said. ‘But they should learn it — as it is understood by scientists.'” –Monica Lam, Profile of Eugenie Scott, SFC, 7feb03

Question: Whom do you prefer, the straightforward Weinberg or the smarmy Scott? Is this a loaded question?

Comments
I have been watching this site for a month now. I had not planned on commenting at any point, but this thread has become absurd and I feel that I need to say something. Eugenie Scott at the National Center for Science Education is an intelligent and dedicated scientist working to promote basic science education. She is not attempting to deceive anyone or working to promote some secret atheist agenda, her aim is setting a high standard for science education. Period. Her above comments were directed to a group of people that are poorly educated, confused and superstitious. She is of course going to try to calm their fears. The pointless character assassination of an educator here is very troubling to me. It's troubling to see that I am living in a country with a very vocal minority that works hard to lessen the quality of education and pick apart any person trying to do something about it.Brandon
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Scott & Weinberg = good cop/bad cop in the Darwinian police force.Borne
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
LOL jb, that's exactly what I typed a couple of times before I settled on the poison analogy. Good cop/bad cop is definitely how these guys work. Now if we could "lawyer up" somehow...angryoldfatman
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Steven Weinberg is the nightmare for evolutionists. What he is saying is what unguided-evolutionists are thinking, but don't want to express it out loud (not just yet, anyway). People who are skeptical of unguided evolutionism "love" people like Weinberg bkz he is very open about the purposes of what today is called "science".Mats
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
I'd rather deal with Weinburg than Scott any day. At least with Weinburg what you see is what you get. I trust Scott about as far as I can throw her. Anyone who makes a statement like... "I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!" ...sounds a little underhanded to me. She certainly believes, like Weinburg, that science (and society in general) would be far better off without religious thought. Once she gets the churches to swallow her views in regard to "science", it's a very small step to lead them on to a materialist worldview.Forthekids
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Yes, I’d take Steven Weinberg’s cold straightforwardness over Eugenie Scott’s warm deceptiveness any day. People aren’t incorrigible—they’re just deceived—and therefore it is the truth that sets men free. The evil one cannot just walk up and level a gun at your head—but he might deceive your neighbor into doing just that. It is not the tanks and guns of the despot that enslave, but the deceived minions who carry out the despot’s orders and those who acquiesce to his delusions. Therefore let us be glad for those who clarify issues, even those on the wrong side whose positions and goals are transparent, and let us eschew those who intensify the prevailing fog. Is this a loaded question? Well if it presumes that clarity is good and obfuscation is not good—then it’s asking the obvious which may not be so obvious when feel good con artists have the floor.Rude
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
angryoldfatman @4: "The radicalism of Weinberg, Dawkins, et al, provides the antithesis for Eugenie Scott’s Hegelian synthesis. It’s easier to sell a slightly poisonous product after offering a lethally poisonous one first." In other words, "Good Cop/Bad Cop"jb
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
"Students don’t have to accept evolution," Scott frequently has said. "But they should learn it — as it is understood by scientists."" How evolution is understood by evolutionary scientists? From Gregory W. Graffin & William B. Provine: How Evolution and Religion Relate Evolutionists were presented with four choices on the relation between evolution and religion: A, they are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) whose tenets are not in conflict; B, religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of Homo sapiens—therefore religion should be considered as a part of our biological heritage, and its tenets should be seen as a labile social adaptation, subject to change and reinterpretation; C, they are mutually exclusive magisteria whose tenets indicate mutually exclusive conclusions; or D, they are totally harmonious—evolution is one of many ways to elucidate the evidences of God's designs. Only 8 percent of the respondents chose answer A, the NOMA principle advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, rejecting the harmonious view of evolution and religion as separate magisteria. Even fewer (3 percent) believe that evolution and religion are "totally harmonious," answer D. A weak response to both of these options is unsurprising since the participants are so strongly nonreligious, shown by their answers to other questions in the poll. But we did expect a strong showing for choice C, which suggests that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive and separated by a gulf that cannot be bridged. This was the answer chosen by Richard Dawkins, who has a strong reputation for declaring that science has much better answers for human society than does religion. Instead, the wide majority, 72 percent, of the respondents chose option B. These eminent evolutionists view religion as a sociobiological feature of human culture, a part of human evolution, not as a contradiction to evolution. Viewing religion as an evolved sociobiological feature removes all competition between evolution and religion for most respondents. Evolutionary scientists are strongly motivated to ameliorate conflict between evolution and religion. Sociobiology offers them an apparent conciliatory path to the compatibility of religion and evolution, avoiding all language of inescapable conflict. Sociobiological evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a "way of knowing" has nothing to teach us about evolution. This view allows a place for religion and sounds superficially comforting to compatibilists.Analyysi
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
I would prefer the ID movement have enemies like Weinberg as he is easier to defeat.
I couldn't agree more. PS Berlinski is brilliant.IDist
June 22, 2007
June
06
Jun
22
22
2007
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
In answer to Bill's question, "Whom do you prefer", I would prefer the ID movement have enemies like Weinberg as he is easier to defeat. I like Scott as a person more than Weinberg. I do believe, deep down, Scott generally likes people and children. But her sweetness makes here a more formidable foe to ID. Berlinski describes Scott as a "harmless" little squirrel. She is simultaneously the more dangerous enemy to ID because she is so sweet. Sugar coated poison, in other words.... However, the best one for the Darwinian sales pitch is Ken Miller. I doubt few in the ID movement could defeat Miller's theatrical magic in live debate. Miller can be defeated in a protracted serious debate focusing on the facts. But that would bore all (except the most interested) to tears. He'll avoid such venues for obvious reasons. PS I suppose, with a little practice, Berlinski could make quick work of Miller. Berlinski and Wilder-Smith debated Dawkins, and knocked Dawkins out of the debate circuit 20 years ago.scordova
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
I find Scotts approach pretty disingenuous. I will never trust words out of the mouth of an atheist who vociferously promoted evolution and then claims there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Of course, Scott probably sees no conflict because she thinks there is no conflict between reality as she sees it and fairy tales as she sees it. Such an approach is manifestly dishonest, but who expects better from atheists ;)Jason Rennie
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
In her earnest, soft-spoken voice, she tried to explain to parents and teachers [in Kansas] that science and evolution are not anti-religion.
Of course, modern science is not anti-religion. It is supplying increasingly obvious evidence on all fronts that design is screaming at us. One needs a really effective set of earplugs not to hear it. "Evolution," as understood by Scott (she obviously subscribes to the blind-watchmaker thesis), is clearly "anti-religion," unless one understands religion to be the idea that all of life and existence is ultimately unplanned, pointless, and purposeless. Eugenie is trying to sell a lie to a populace that has enough common sense to detect philosophical snake oil when they smell it. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. As for Weinberg, he is an extremely brilliant fool. History is full of them. But at least he's honest about his agenda.GilDodgen
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Great post, bornagain77. I've seen you post along those lines before, but I agree - science strengthens my own faith. As for the preference between either, as others have said, I'll take neither. Scientists will do a good thing in ridding the world of religion? But what's 'religion'? Apparently, the great atheist or non-theist terror regimes of the past century were somehow religious. Is Weinberg advocating turning the intellectual guns against atheist cults of exclusion, superiority, and idol-worship? If so, the Brights may want to duck. As for Scott, I have no trouble with evolution being taught in a public school. But 'as understood by scientists' needs to be better defined; should it be taught in the way Weinberg views evolution? Dawkins? How about Freeman Dyson, or John Polkinghorne? All men of science, but how they 'understand' evolution differs in some rather drastic ways. More to the point - can Eugenie Scott cope with a curriculum where evolution is taught, but belief in an intelligence operating behind and perhaps even through life is merely considered permissible and reasonable? I don't presuppose her answer, but I can guess how others will react.nullasalus
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Eugenie's fuzzy-headed nothingness seems to be the approach of choice. It's the Gramscian "long march", which has been proven time and time again to be much more effective than the revolutionary (i.e. "pure" Marxist) approach. The radicalism of Weinberg, Dawkins, et al, provides the antithesis for Eugenie Scott's Hegelian synthesis. It's easier to sell a slightly poisonous product after offering a lethally poisonous one first.angryoldfatman
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
If you replaced the word scientists, in Weinberg's statement, with the word materialist, then his sentence would be logically true. I find science, contrary to Weinberg's belief, to be deeply edifying to my faith in God. For instance these predictions: 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common, Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would have naturally expected this. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Theism would have expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. Contrary to what Weinberg thinks, I think scientists are doing a mighty fine job of strengthening my faith in God!bornagain77
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
I love Weinberg's comments. They're the truth as atheists sees it, while Scott's is simply and unashamedly an attempt to sell evolution to the masses. Plus I simply don't believe she really believes "students don't have to accept evolution."jpark320
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
steven's comments are so simplistic that i think they will be quickly adopted by those who don't think too deeply but have knee-jerk reactions against religion. eugenie's are just slowly corrosive. it depends if you want religion (specifically monotheism) to be lit ablaze like arson, or to just melt like butter on a warm day. the former would end in persecution, the latter in fuzzy-headed nothingness.rswood
June 21, 2007
June
06
Jun
21
21
2007
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply