> From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:02:48 EDT
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Cc: stark2301@voyager.net, dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> Subject: Re: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
>> Jim Stark wrote:
>
>> I concur. This is valid justification of science as a method or its actual
research work and the formation of models. However, the books that
scientists write are not research reports that confine interpretations to
model limitations. Those books do embrace their personal worldviews. They
do not fairly separate scientific fact from authoritative fact based on a
presumed set of model limitations. This is what students see more so than
the technical reports. The worldviews get presented to them as science.>>
>
> As a working scientist, and one who aspires to write technical books someday,
I through in my two yen....
>
> No matter what I do, I will have underlining assumptions that will seep into
my writing. It seems rather unreasonable to expect me to write a first
chapter of disclaimers about by fundamental world view, etc.
I think a disclaimer chapter would be unsatisfactory to both the writer and
reader. Just add clarifying sentences as the topic comes up. Separate fact
from personal interpretations. i.e. separate scientific fact from
authoritative fact. Identify the source of the authoritative fact. You would
not have to provide your full worldview --just the relevant beliefs or
values.
> Even if I did, could I really be sure that I even understand clearly my own
> world view?
This surprises me, perhaps because I have been polishing my own worldview
for quite awhile. It does change over time depending on the conflicts I run
into. Don't you think most writers know their personal worldviews?
> Philosophers who study my writing are probably more qualified than myself to
make those assertions. It is very very difficult for a writer to be
his/her own editor, and I suspect it would be even more difficult for a
thinker to critique his/her own thinking.
I have to set my writing aside for awhile to do a better job of editing.
Writing in these forums is a real challenge to get my thoughts down in a
clear manner to the reader.
>
> <<
> Dave's question:
>>> How does one's research change by including religious assumptions?
> Jim's reply:
> This depends on the research project. See my note to SteamDoc yesterday. I
believe that free will can be included in many research projects by just
admitting possible causes beyond the system. It would allow a more
realistic interpretation. We need to include the concept of agency in
scientific models. The scientist is the designing agent for the model.
>>>
>
>> Yes, working in the field of biology, I do accept evolution (or in some
parlance: evilution) as a working hypothesis. I accept it because it works
(compared to other ideas currently available). The place where faith comes
in for me is that I still believe that God was involved. However, that is
just it, "faith". If I begin to import my "faith" into my science, then I
am corrupting observation evidence (i.e., something that I can lay on the
table and your folk and my folk can examine it) with my one speculations.
It is true for many scientists that their faith can be readily separated
during actual research. However, when they write a book that is being
interpreted to the public, worldviews of the reader and writer become
relevant. Evolution is a good working hypothesis. Interpreting it to the
public has many possible slants.
>
>> In this respect, atheists who import their views into their work are
committing a violation of this rule, but let it not be from my pen that I
change the fundamental mandate of science (laying the articles on the
table) into another political rally.
Do you see me as challenging that mandate? Is your loyalty to a tradition
set by past scientist in a particular field of study? Or is it to the truth
of what that tradition ought to become? I give my loyalty to the truth.
>
>> I also object to your requiring "agency" into the matter. Agency is a higher
level operation than the process of evolution. Unlike the ultra
reductionist views of Dawkins & co, evolution must ultimately work via
chaos, which is right in the hands of holistic processes, and consequently,
not so easily simplified for fascile triumphalism. However, the boundary
conditions are at the foundation of the world (read universe) and not very
amenable to testing.
Evolution can be expanded to embrace several levels of agency. For research
work much of science requires a deterministic model which would have to
treat agency and free will as programs. Why deny their existence?
At a higher level of evolution free will ruptures that determinacy. Social
actions do involve non-deterministic free will. Yet, social scientists still
treat that free will as a program. Such research work seems to be very
misleading to the public. However, Once free will is acted upon, an
intention becomes a cause "after the fact". A deterministic model after any
action could still be used.
The role of agency would take on a new aspect at the quantum level of atoms
and particles. It might show how the part can be a window to the whole.
>
>> I think I would rather aspire to the more humble task of simply writing what
we understand about molecular biology, and what the current views are to
the best that I can understand them, and let the students decide for
themselves what sort of "faith" they want to put on it.
I have become convinced that students need to learn how to build a healthy
worldview as they examine the worldviews of various authors and fields of
study. They need to step out of self-referencing frameworks and see that
serving their selves is not the basis for a healthy worldview.
>
>> Yes, God interacting with nature does imply "agency", but only if there is
real proof of "design". So far, this is my "faith", and faith is not a
"proof".
Will intelligent design remain a concept to which we can only give
testimonial witness? Behe and Dembski are breaking new ground in this area.
Perhaps scientists need to accept humans as valid measuring instruments.
What criteria could we use to validate that measurement?
> <<
> Dave wrote:
>>> But there is a vast gulf between the models and the worldviews.
> Jim replied:
> Indeed there is! This is an educational problem. Authors need to make their
worldviews more visible to the reader so that they will be unable use
science to push their pet worldviews.
>
> .... I did not like it when the instructors or professors manipulated science
to promote their personal worldviews. Gullible students will absorb that
distortion as scientific fact. You got put down if you raised the wrong
questions.
>>>
>
>> OK, consider though. Yes, *I* believe in God, but suppose that a student in
my class believes in Buddha. That student will complain that I am inserting
my "God" into their world view of "Buddha". Likewise, if the student does
not believe in God, is it any better for me to pound the God thing into
their brain, or flunk them if the say they don't believe?
This depends on how you say it. It is an opportunity to share and help the
student to polish h/h worldview.
>> You've got to be fair, and Christians (as teachers) have an even heavier
weight on them, because unlike their atheist buddies, they *are* held
accountable to God for the way they teach this generation.
>>God does not approve repaying evil with evil, and harm with harm --- at least,
not the last time I cracked open my bible. Think about it. In grace we do
proceed.
>> Wayne
I believe that we are called to witness wherever we can, but not in any
forceful way. We must not try to indoctrinate. We share and let the
student intentionally change h/h self.
Jim Stark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 08:46:28 EDT