Robert Shedinger: Religion, Science and Evolution: Confessions of a Darwin Skeptic

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

“Which in turn requires the critic of science to fantasize that empiricists are a lower caste of scientists, with theorists as the Brahmin caste, without ever realizing that 99.9% of working biologists are both.”

Exactly. During the fallout from Darwin’s Doubt, I recall meeting quite a lot of people who, when it was pointed out that Meyer was not a scientist and had done no research, would say that he is a PHILOSOPHER of science, which of course is better – it’s like being the king of science.

That’s Eddie!

Here’s a great example:

Does Michael Denton understand current evolutionary theory?

You’re right; it’s not surprising, but not for the reason that you give. It’s not surprising because Gould is a thinker, not a mere high-level technician, like the other people I named. So one is going to get a richer, fuller, more historically grounded and philosophically reflective account of evolution from Gould than from the others I mentioned. That’s how I read Gould, and Denton, and everything else. You, on the other hand, haven’t read Gould’s account at all, and have looked at Denton’s thought only superficially, and from the outset you were motivated by polemical intent: (a) to prove he was a creationist [false], and (b) to prove his evolutionary thought was worthless [which you haven’t read enough of him yet to know].

Specifically, “…a thinker, not a mere high-level technician…”

In Eddie’s world, doing doesn’t apparently involve any thinking.