The Meaning of Dawkin's Endowed Chair

Or just admit that the rules are a little impractical… and break them yourself…

Of course I am being neutral with respect to theology. And I am being neutral with respect to fairies. And leprechauns, and giant spaghetti monsters and …

That is just a really bad idea. The rules are not impractical. They are good rules. I follow The Rules of the Game. So does @AJRoberts from Reasons to Believe. You can either defend science from the inside from atheists and creationists. Or you get kicked out and try and change science from the outside. The first approach is much better.


Yes, Dr. Swamidass is right. Defend science from the inside because once you step outside, well your outside and nobody will listen to you.

1 Like

I don’t see science as a monolith. If they produce good work, then it can work.
After all, the funding comes from outside “Science”. And Its a matter of whether these scientists can convince someone to fund their research. Science is not a guild. I think this is something YEC proved. That they can find funding (however limited) for their kind of science.

I agree the path chosen by ID scientists is far harder. But i respect the fact that they are honestly trying to engage the science/scientists. The papers they publish in Bio complexity or Evoinfo labs are not for the consumption of the general public. Its for any scientist who can look beyond their prejudices and engage with it. This is quite different from papers published by YEC proponents.
Since they have the conviction to take this route. They should walk it. Who knows, it might prove a fruitful chapter in the history of “Science”. End of the day, its not good for science to be perceived as too much like a guild… Because you need the outside world for funding.

I’m just musing on what would happen if a celebrated Oxford man like Emeritus Professor of Maths (remember what “Professor” means in England) and Fellow of Philosophy of Science John Lennox were to be given that chair because of his standing and ability to communicate to the general public, and injected just exactly as much of his own ideological commitment to the role as Dawkins did. It’s hard to see it happening, to be hosnest.

1 Like

Isn’t John Lennox older than Richard Dawkins? Lennox is entertaining but doesn’t seen like the right guy (mathematician/theologian) for Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Need somebody who comes out against the pseudo science craze (anti-vaccination, anti-climate change, homeopathy medicine, faith healing). Neil Degrasse Tyson would be a good choice (if Dr. Swamidass declines because his research is at the stage where it would be a travesty to leave).

You are completely naive on how science is funded. Science is big business.

So big business is the most reliable way to gain secure knowledge?:thinking:

it is best way to create wealth from doing science

Are you talking about iPhone again?

No I am talking about how humans live now compared to how they lived 50,000 years ago, 5000 years ago, 500 years ago, and 50 years ago. You have to admit that billions of humans have benefited from the accelerating advancements that have come through science and technology -from stone tools to robotic surgury.

Science is the best way that humans have come up with to acquire knowledge. With this acquired knowledge can come better technology and enormous improvement in the lives of billions of humans.

Glad you added Technology to the mix…:slight_smile:
What about politics… would concepts like Democracy have a role in that?
Science and technology are kinda morally neutral…

Yes, they are. At least until people’s beliefs get woven in.

I would hope so. But politics tends to get clouded by beliefs which tend to divide people rather than create cooperative reasoning and fact finding.

Beliefs are not necessarily a bad thing Peter. It’s convictions such as the equality of all human beings under the law which have improved the quality of life for millions… And the Bible has played an important role in providing the foundations of such beliefs… for example the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God motivates people who understand it to treat all human beings with dignity and love.
When there are strong convictions, there will be debate and disagreements. This is also not necessarily bad. It’s such disagreements and debates (even in science) which leads to progress.

Its Patrick

Sorry, my sincere apologies.

Beliefs can cause great harm. The Bible and the myths contained in it has been used by believers and non-believers to cause great misery to billions of people, caused wars over interpretations, harmed lives in guise of truth, and impeded social progress. And that continues to this day.

It has also lead to a lot of good and great progress… the first universities and modern hospitals were directly related to the church. Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford etc all have Christian roots. Many of the father’s of modern science were devout Christian. Gregor Mendel who contributed greatly to the science in the modern Synthesis was a Christian monk!
You are indulging in revisionist history…