Omphalos and scientific realism
vrep...@hotmail.com
Philip Gosse. I have a question. A consistent holder of this position
would have to maintain that the best science, the science that ought to
be taught in public schools, and practiced by scientists, would have to
be evolution. If that is so, then the question "Can a Darwinist be a
Six-Day Creationist?," which seems sillt on its face, would have to be
answered in the affirmative. The Darwinist Creationist of the Omphalos
stripe would be holding an extrascientific religious belief which he
would consider to be true, while setting that belief aside while
practicing science. He would say that while evolution is our best
science and is empirically adequate, creationism is true. His position
would be a rejection of scientific realism, a topic I rarely see
discussed in the context of the discussion of evolution.
Suppose you were on a search committee to consider a candidate for
professor of biology in a state university. The biologist has produced
a considerable amount of peer-reviewed work in evolutionary biology,
but is known to be a Omphalos-style creationist. He agree that his
creationism is not testable and hence not science. In his classes he
mentions his creationism on the first day, but then explains that since
we are doing science here and not religion, this has nothing to do with
the practice of biology as such, and won't be brought up again. Does
the fact that he has, and is known to have, a non-realist understanding
of the science he practices, a reason to deny him a position on the
biology faculty of a university?
r norman
I have been on many search committees to consider candidates for
tenure track biology positions at a state university. It is highly
unlikely that such a person exists. However, someone with impeccable
credentials and demonstrated teaching skills in the appropriate areas,
as you describe, specifically keeping personal religious views quite
separate from the classroom and lab, would quite probably stand a good
chance being hired. We hire people of all different religious
stripes, usually not knowing what these are until well after the
hiring process (if then) and it is irrelevant to the hiring,
retention, and promotion process. We don't inquire or explore or
consider (if discovered) the person's sexual behavior or food
preferences or partialities to a particular color of flower. However,
if the individual chose to make an issue of his or her beliefs at the
interview, pushing creationism although carefully adding "of course I
don't teach this in a biology class", then there would be considerable
question.
A person who uses their University status as a platform to broadcast
claims professionally that do not meet professional scientific
standards or to proselytize others, students or whoever, would be
unacceptable. The mere expression of private religious beliefs in an
appropriate context is another story. Some of our faculty take
leadership positions in various religious organizations with no
problem. Some are active politically with no problem. Some are
active with a variety of community groups with no problem.
Note: our department does have a Creationist staff member in charge of
managing the teaching labs and supervising student lab assistants who
prepare material and clean up those labs. She does an excellent job
and is evaluated and retained strictly on that basis. She has been
chided for posting creationist material on public bulletin boards but
is allowed to have whatever material she wishes displayed in her own
office. Students who work with her know of her views and of the views
of the other faculty on that topic. But that doesn't have anything to
do with the operation of the labs or the progress of those same
students through the curriculum.
hers...@indiana.edu
Kurt Wise is about as good a fit as there is to this concept. He found
it more comfortable to be at an institution where his odd beliefs are
not challenged, though (Bryan College).
BruceW
> I have seen a number of references here to the Omphalos thesis
> of Philip Gosse. I have a question. A consistent holder of this
> position would have to maintain that the best science, the
> science that ought to be taught in public schools, and practiced
> by scientists, would have to be evolution. If that is so, then
> the question "Can a Darwinist be a Six-Day Creationist?," which
> seems sillt on its face, would have to be answered in the
> affirmative.
Gotta be very careful with our words here. An "Omphalos Darwinist"
would assert that what we see when we look back before creation is
a deliberately placed illusion. A Darwinian would say "living things
evolved", but an Omphalos Darwinist would say "living things *appear*
to have evolved, but were in fact specially created". Not quite the
same thing.
> The Darwinist Creationist of the Omphalos stripe would be holding
> an extrascientific religious belief which he would consider to
> be true, while setting that belief aside while practicing science.
> He would say that while evolution is our best science and is
> empirically adequate, creationism is true. His position would
> be a rejection of scientific realism, a topic I rarely see
> discussed in the context of the discussion of evolution.
>
> Suppose you were on a search committee to consider a candidate
> for professor of biology in a state university. The biologist
> has produced a considerable amount of peer-reviewed work in
> evolutionary biology, but is known to be a Omphalos-style
> creationist. He agree that his creationism is not testable and
> hence not science. In his classes he mentions his creationism
> on the first day, but then explains that since we are doing
> science here and not religion, this has nothing to do with the
> practice of biology as such, and won't be brought up again. Does
> the fact that he has, and is known to have, a non-realist
> understanding of the science he practices, a reason to deny him
> a position on the biology faculty of a university?
I wouldn't see why. His view would have some features in common
with those of a theistic evolutionist, for example, in that they
both have personal beliefs which are outside the realm of science.
Fine with me, as long as they stick to science in the classroom/
lab/whatever.
This probably doesn't come up a lot, as there don't seem to be
very many Omphalosians running around loose.
-BruceW
Bobby D. Bryant
> I have seen a number of references here to the Omphalos thesis of
> Philip Gosse. I have a question. A consistent holder of this position
> would have to maintain that the best science, the science that ought to
> be taught in public schools, and practiced by scientists, would have to
> be evolution. If that is so, then the question "Can a Darwinist be a
> Six-Day Creationist?," which seems sillt on its face, would have to be
> answered in the affirmative. The Darwinist Creationist of the Omphalos
> stripe would be holding an extrascientific religious belief which he
> would consider to be true, while setting that belief aside while
> practicing science. He would say that while evolution is our best
> science and is empirically adequate, creationism is true. His position
> would be a rejection of scientific realism, a topic I rarely see
> discussed in the context of the discussion of evolution.
>
> Suppose you were on a search committee to consider a candidate for
> professor of biology in a state university. The biologist has produced
> a considerable amount of peer-reviewed work in evolutionary biology,
> but is known to be a Omphalos-style creationist.
I'm not sure how you would know that, unless s/he was in the habit
of broadcasting it.
> He agree that his creationism is not testable and hence not
> science. In his classes he mentions his creationism on the first
> day, but then explains that since we are doing science here and not
> religion, this has nothing to do with the practice of biology as
> such, and won't be brought up again.
> Does the fact that he has, and is known to have, a non-realist
> understanding of the science he practices, a reason to deny him a
> position on the biology faculty of a university?
I suspect we *all* hold *some* irrational beliefs.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Robert J. Kolker
> Suppose you were on a search committee to consider a candidate for
> professor of biology in a state university. The biologist has produced
> a considerable amount of peer-reviewed work in evolutionary biology,
> but is known to be a Omphalos-style creationist. He agree that his
> creationism is not testable and hence not science. In his classes he
> mentions his creationism on the first day, but then explains that since
> we are doing science here and not religion, this has nothing to do with
> the practice of biology as such, and won't be brought up again. Does
> the fact that he has, and is known to have, a non-realist understanding
> of the science he practices, a reason to deny him a position on the
> biology faculty of a university?
If he work is quality work and meets scientific standards, I don't see
why. Who cares what his private religious beliefs are. They have nothing
to do with his scientific work.
Bob Kolker
>
Bob Pease
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:dhccii$f7e$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Yup.
But the problem is that I have no intention of making "Heresy" (
disagreement with my irrational beliefs)
a crime and condition for disqualification from public office.
History has not been kind to heretics,
RJ P