Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Peter,

If, as another Brit, I may respond.

Two points occur immediately to me. Your example of Windows XP coming out
of white noise fed into a Schmidt trigger is, I think a complete straw man.
Obviously no-one would expect such a thing to happen, but evolution is
clearly nothing like that, and it is evidently not a totally random process
- mutations may be random events, but natural selection is completely
non-random.

If you want an example of a random noise input producing a complex, but
structured output, consider drawing a bow across a violin string - white
noise is applied by the random distribution of particles on the horsehair
bow, and the string, by a form of "natural selection" vibrates at the
fundamental and multiples of the harmonic frequencies to produce a beautiful
tone. Admittedly it's nothing like as complex as DNA code, but then it
happens in a fraction of a second and doesn't take billions of years.

The second point that occurs to me is that, as I'm also a software engineer,
I'm also well aware of the intelligent design effort that goes into a
complex piece of software. However, it seems to me that it is dangerous to
argue from analogy - just because your software and my software gained their
information via a design process doesn't prove that therefore the sequences
of DNA arose via a similar design process. The best you can say is that a
very intelligent programmer _could_ have programmed it in a similar manner
to a software engineer. But it doesn't show that it _had_ to happen that
way.

Elements of the software I produce are empirical (data-derived) models
containing thousands of numerical parameters. These parameters were
certainly not individually programmed, but were discovered by an automated
learning algorithm whereby an initial guess was adjusted by small amounts on
each pass through the data. Although it's not an evolutionary algorithm, it
bears quite a bit of similarity to the process. Yes, the algorithm was
intelligently designed by a mathematician. But who's to say that evolution
wasn't the algorithm designed by God to produce His creation?

Regards,
Iain

On 7/18/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow George – I am amazed! May I as a Brit make a comment?
>
>
>
> What is MN? It's a set of assumptions based around two poles – Matter and
> Energy. Any outcome must be bounded by those assumptions. Now suppose those
> assumptions are wrong in any absolute sense? Will that ever be discovered?
>
>
>
> Probably not – because MN is almost universally now come to be the only
> 'correct' way of doing science. And when MN fails, as it has manifestly, in
> any question about the origin of a single self-replicating cell or indeed on
> the increasingly vast matters shown up by the Encode project, those who
> operate by a commitment to MN fall back on another set of commitments. It's
> deep in the world-view of arguably virtually all scientists. That assumption
> is that MN is linked, to its logical precursor, Ontological Naturalism. So,
> if the answer to for example "the origin of life question" is elusive (it
> is?) then ON informs our Scientism and, by faith, we understand that the
> worlds were framed by MN. So we wait in faith, committed to MN, for the
> answer to the question of the origin of the single living cell.
>
>
>
> Now a third pole of science ought to embrace something akin to
> Intelligence or Mind. We know that Information is at the heart of life. No
> computer engineer can look at DNA without recognising that the cell is
> programmed for life.
>
>
>
> I've spent my life applying computers to Industrial Process Control
> problems. I've lived with the challenges of designing rugged software that
> doesn't fall over and cause, in my case, Steel Mills to crash. What I know
> is how difficult that challenge is. I know that it costs incalculable hours
> to develop software that runs reliably. I know that any 'glitches' or 'bugs'
> in the software didn't get better overnight. No, we pored over the code to
> work out, intelligently, what was going wrong and how to put it right.
>
>
>
> Everything we know about Information tells us that it only arises from
> pre-existing Intelligence. It is neither matter nor energy. Those who hold
> to MN might as well postulate that Windows XP (or any other 'language' )
> could arise simply by squirting a long string of 'white noise' into a
> bi-level device (e.g. - a Schmidt trigger) and expecting as output a
> string of code that when married with an X86 Instruction set would suddenly
> become Windows XP or any other Operating System. The real world simply isn't
> like that. There seems to be a complete absence of empirical evidence to say
> that the biological world is any different. But because we've assumed MN we
> have formed an attachment to it that is so inseparably linked to science,
> that anyone who argues science can be done with an additional pole, such as
> Information, or Mind, then that person is ostracised - "he's not doing
> science".
>
>
>
> I am amazed too that one can set aside the enormous ramifications of 'The
> Resurrection' in a single sweep of the hand *"**But - bracketing off for a
> moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we don't
> have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena.*" What do
> you mean by your phrase "Any reason"? Most of the New Testament challenges
> that statement. While the Resurrection is clearly absolutely huge, it is by
> no means the only 'Singularity' in either the NT or the OT.
>
>
>
> Then we come to such themes as spelled out in Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is
> the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, *sustaining
> all things by his powerful word*. After he had provided purification for
> sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
>
>
>
> I am engineer, not a scientist or a philosopher – but I am old now and
> I've heard enough and seen enough to know than MN is a limit on science and
> is the territory of the a priori commitment to Naturalism. What's the
> difference between Naturalism and Atheism?
>
>
>
> Peter Loose
>
> Chelmsford
>
> UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:18 AM
> *To:* George Murphy; David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
> *Cc:* PvM; Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> After a long lapse, another of the typos you all know & love. Below read
> "Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all
> reality, or that we may NOT encounter observable phenomena that such science
> can't finally explain."
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Ted Davis<TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2007 1:16 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> 2 comments -
>
>
>
> 1) Those who've been on the list for awhile may remember that Hunter was
> on it a couple of years ago & that some of us debated these issues then.
>
>
>
> 2) All the history, philosophy & theology involved in this discussion is
> interesting, but we shouldn't lose track of one crude empirical fact:
> Science operating within the constraints of MN *works* - it has been
> working for ~400 years & continues to work very well in explaining known
> phenomena & predicting new ones. Of course that doesn't mean that what it's
> able to study exhausts all reality, or that we may encounter observable
> phenomena that such science can't finally explain. But - bracketting off
> for a moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we
> don't have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena. Of
> course that's where ID raises it's distinctive objection, but the best it's
> done so far is to point to some phenomena that haven't *yet* been
> explained fully. There is simply no good reason for scientists, whatever
> their religious beliefs, to abandon MN as a presupposition for doing
> science: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2007 11:51 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> Ted said: * I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself**
> probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
> science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> this.*
>
> But what Hunter seems to be saying is that what we now call MN is rooted
> in the epistemology and method of Bacon and Locke. For the Enlightenment
> empiricists, empirical study of the world is an effort to obtain unified
> knowledge about reality-as-it-is. If reality-as-it-is includes the
> empirically observable hand-of-God, then that observation properly falls
> under the umbrella of "science," or, to use an eighteenth century term,
> "natural philosophy." The gist of Hunter's argument -- at least what the
> book review seems to reflect -- is that "science" should return to this
> broader notion of "natural philosophy." The current restrictions of MN
> would reflect an improper, a priori skeptical elision of God from nature, as
> well as an improper turn away from "empirical," observational,
> inductive Baconian science towards more speculative deductive methods ala
> Popper.
>
>
>
> But my first question about this is how to return to Bacon and Locke after
> Darwin, Einstein, and Heisenberg -- in other words, do Bacon and Locke work
> after Newton's mechanism has been dethroned? And my second question is how
> to return to Bacon and Locke after the collapse -- or at least undermining
> -- of foundationalist empistemology's naive view of culture, history and
> language.
>
>
>
> On 7/16/07, *Ted Davis* <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 7/15/2007 5:01 PM >>>quotes Wikipedia on
> Methodological naturalism, as follows:
>
> <quote>Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or
> hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong,
> but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the
> same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> phenomena or hypotheses.</quote>
>
> Then, Pim adds the following comment:
>
> If all Hunter is interested in is pointing out that there may have
> been some who had religious motivations to restrict science, such
> should again not be confused with a methodological approach. Science
> neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> practical purposes is the logical complement of natural.
>
> Here are my comments:
> First, this is not an adequate definition of MN, IMO. In fact,
> ironically,
> it lends support to the incorrect argument from ID advocates, that MN
> simply
> collapses into metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Thus, I'm
> surprised
> that Pim quoted it. Note the language: " all phenomena and hypotheses can
> be studied by the
> same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> phenomena
> or hypotheses." Here is my paraphrase, aimed at making my point: If
> scientific methods (ie, naturalism) can't detect it, it ain't real, it's
> only a figment of one's imagination. Am I missing something here? If so,
> please be explicit about what I'm missing. I do think this is the tone
> and
> intent of this very poor definition.
>
> Second, Pim, the definition you cite from wiki contradicts your own
> comment, when you wrote: "Science
> neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> practical purposes is the logical complement of natural." If the
> supernatural is "nonexistent" or "unknowable," (see wiki), then the latter
>
> part of Pim's sentences is entirely emptied of content. If the
> "supernatural ... is not inherently different from natural phenomena or
> hypotheses," then it collapses into the natural, and I fail to see how it
> becomes "the logical complement of natural." Please have another look at
> that wiki definition, Pim, and clarify your own view in light of it.
>
> Third, I offer a much better (IMO) definition, taken from the entry on
> "Scientific naturalism" that I wrote with philosopher Robin Collins for
> the
> Garland encyclopedia of science & religion
> (http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Religion-Western-Tradition/dp/0815316569
> ),
> a shorter version of which (essays unabridged, however) from JHU press
> ( http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/2308.html). Here is our
> definition of MN: "the belief that science should explain phenomena only
> in
> terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the
> natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by
> chance (methodological naturalism)."
>
> Why do I believe this definition is much superior? First, it spells out
> that MN is a belief; one might even call it a belief about beliefs, in
> terms
> of its implications. Our definition leaves ample ground (as it should)
> for
> one to make reality claims about a God who really is bigger than "nature,"
> and who actually interacts with "nature," which is better called "the
> creation." It simply affirms, properly, that inferences about God go
> beyond
> what science itself can claim. It in no way rules out the legitimacy of
> such inferences. Second, when read in context (our definition of part of
> a
> much longer definition of four types of naturalism), it is clear to people
> that MN does not equate to or collapse into overreaching forms of
> naturalism. Thus, e.g., we define "scientific naturalism" (our term for
> the
> most wide reaching kind of naturalism) as follows: "the claim that nature
> is
> all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural order above
> nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and
> facts
> about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method." Our
> definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave this type of speculation
> aside entirely. Whereas the wiki definition, IMO, strongly suggests or
> implies precisely that nature is all there is--at least, all that is
> genuinely meaningful to discuss, which is the spirit of the logical
> positivism that still underlies efforts to ridicule belief in God and keep
>
> it out of the academy.
>
> The definition Robin and I give, in what is frankly a far more reliable
> and
> academically serious publication that wikipedia, is (I believe and I hope
> others agree) a definition that is much more appropriate to consider on
> the
> ASA list. I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
> probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
> science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> this.
>
> Ted (ASA member, and glad of it)
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date: 15/07/2007
> 14:21
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.