qwerty mob said:
I think Q's point was that one's beliefs and one's occupation aren't correlative in any way, so by virtue of their independence they are discrete, inferentially... he didn't mean to slur you as being a theist, of course; so your "counter-sarcasm" what with Dyson and Miller is probably well received. =) No true Scotsman be darned.
First, I will say that as I go back and re-read that post, it is a bit too sarcastic. I apologize to all. I try to avoid that tone in my posts in general.
I didn't take it as a slur of my being a theist.
I agree that the one's beliefs and occupation are not correlative. And that is precisely the point. I
know trained scientists that hold some degree of religious ideas. I know them personally, I have read their work. And I know for a
fact that they are just as capable of understanding science, getting degreed, writing grants, finding grad students, conducting research, interpreting and analyzing data, writing papers, getting published, and getting tenure.
Granted, that to do this, they have to partition off the religious side of their brain. And many do just that.
And granted, others cannot seem to do this, so we end up with monstrosities such as Dr. Gish or Dr. Ross or Dr. Behe or the folks at the Institute for Creation Science. I do not regard these people as scientists, because the work that they do isn't science. They are no better than table-tapping paranomalists, as far as I am concerned.
Every piece of scientific writing is judged on the merits of it's science, accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Not on the personal life of the author. We don't need to know the personal convictions of the creationsists because their "scientific" ideas are obviously so far out of whack, they exempt themselves automatically. We judge them, too, on the basis of what their papers say, not what their religious beliefs are.
As it should be.
