Originally posted by queeq
There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is a false description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.
Poe's Copenhagen buddies do. They feel they have linguistic evidence to show the bible was written by a number of redactors they date to very late. So they have to make the archaeological record fit their model. Which goes basically with all scholars: they work from a model and tehre are a few models to work from. It takes a lot of work to make someone change his view on the model he's working from. It takes an open mind to considers te strong points of another model and the weak points of your own. And yet, I feel every scholar should do that. Most scholars I know, heard andread about, love the fact that new insights blur te question. They more you find out, the less you know, is a common credo, embraced by any serious scholar.
And to be frank, I agree maximalists have the agenda to make everything fit, because they say the Bible is correct and can be used as a guide. But this is a relatively small group and hardly representative for the large group of scholars, between maximalists and minmalists, that have earned their tracks in the field. One cannot just say: everything in the Bible is accurate and proven, just as one cannot say everything in the Bible is made up fiction. Both POV's are extremely dogmatic and ungrounded in the reality of the wide range of research of and around the Bible. That kind of argument is simplistic and people holding it, want to close their eyes for the reality and/or limitations of such research.
Originally posted by queeq
So what? A lot of scientists are asked to contribute. It's what's normal: you ask people from other fields to comment on your finds and conclusions. It doesn't automatically mean you agree with everything they say when you contribute. You just comment to what other people write: common practise in science. In fact. that's how it works: you publish, people respond (by request or not) and the debate goes on.
[list=1][*]A mainstream scientist does not engage a marginal scientist, because doing so undermines his work and lends legitimacy to marginal views.
[*]Aidon Dodson is not simply critically responding to the work of others; he is contribution his own work.[/list]
Originally posted by queeq
There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is a false description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.
Unlike many marginal scientists, mainstream scientists do not do this.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So you're going to retreat under the comforting umbrella of secular humanist snipings?Good to know, I suppose.
Who is retreating? I pointed out why the concern expressed over these guys is valid. Time and again their methods are condemned by their peers, who have no agenda. You posted an article claiming to proves scientist have an agenda, but it only talked about how the christian scientist was already using his education to further his agenda. Bad science is bad science, no matter what your motivation.
Originally posted by Devil King
Who is retreating? I pointed out why the concern expressed over these guys is valid. Time and again their methods are condemned by their peers, who have no agenda. You posted an article claiming to proves scientist have an agenda, but it only talked about how the christian scientist was already using his education to further his agenda. Bad science is bad science, no matter what your motivation.
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship.
Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.
In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.
NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.