Friday, 27 April 2018

Bigots abound.

Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist: My claims are based on evidence and reason. I am an expert and so you should believe what I say. My theory is that the living world is the product of natural evolution alone.

Michael Behe, biochemist: My claims are based on evidence and reason. I am an expert and so you should believe what I say. My theory is that the living world is the product  of natural evolution and intelligent design.


Philosopher of science: Both sides make similar claims about the basis of their theories and claim to be doing science. How can we tell which is science and which is not? Are we just supposed to accept it on their authority or because many of their colleagues agree with them? Theories are under-determined by evidence so what is the basis on which we can rationally choose? What should we make of the tendency to introduce ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away anomalous evidence? Is theory choice even a matter of rational choice or is it instead a plumping of prejudice? Observe these similarities we can find between the two sides that make it less clear what the differences are [cites similarities]. In this course we attempt to address whether and why one is more worthy of belief than the other.

Jerry Coyne: Moron. Tool of the Templeton Foundation. How dare you question my authority!

Theologian: And in this course I want to set out my reasons for thinking that creationism and evolutionary biology are epistemically on a par.

Jerry Coyne: No such arguments should be permitted in a university.

Galileo: And in this course I want to set out my reasons for thinking that the earth goes round the sun.

Pope Paul V:  No such arguments should be permitted in a university.




No comments:

Post a Comment