On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:35:26 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
>BH>Sorry, I thought for some reason that we were talking about
>scientific evidence.
>SJ:We were - "scientific research into a naturalistic origin of
>life has been unsuccessful for 83 years". There has been no
>scientific research into a supernaturalistic origin of life AFAIK.
>BH>Why?
SJ>Brian, whether you realise it or not, you are evading the point!
:-)
BH>One of us surely is. I hope to show it is you :). The point I
>think that you are evading is that science cannot address the
>supernatural.
No. I am not evading that "science cannot address the supernatural".
I already have responded to that (see below):
--Wed, 13 Mar 96 06:13:54 EST -----------------------------
BH>Are we in agreement that the supernaturalistic origins of life
>cannot be verified by scientific methods?
SJ>No. It may be that "the supernaturalistic origins of life" *can
be*
>"verified by scientific methods". But it is just ruled out of court
>apriori by materialist-naturalistic science. My point was that
>"scientific research into a naturalistic origin of life has been
>unsuccessful for 83 years" and "when does dogged persistence become
>obsessive folly?"....
----------------------------------------------------------
I do *not* concede that "science cannot address the supernatural" but
*by definition* a science trapped by a philosophy of *materialistic-
naturalism*, cannot even acknowledge that there *is* a "supernatural"!
While it is reasonable for science to be naturalistic in the case of
normal
ongoing *operations* of the universe, it is *not* reasonable for
science
to be naturalistic in *origins*. If a supernatural Intelligent
Designer did in fact bring about the origin of the universe and life,
why
should science be unable to "address" it?
Now perhaps you will respond to *my* point directly without raising
your
own counter-questions?:
Student: Socrates, why do you always answer questions with a question?
Socrates: Why shouldn't I? :-)
BH>This is not defining to exclude it is just a recognition of the
>limitation of science. Understanding this point is the key to
>recognising the necessity of methodolical naturalism.
I agree that science (like all human endeavour) is "limited". But
there is no reason that science cannot infer the existence of an
Intelligent Designer from the abundant evidence of design in the
cosmos. It has no problem considering an infinite number of parallel
universes (see recent Discover), or aliens in a spaceship who
seeded life on Earth. What's so hard about considering an Intelligent
Designer who created the universe and first life? Since the majority
of mankind believe it in one form or another, why is it not at least
held as a possible hypothesis?
>SJ>Naturalism has a monopoly of the scientific resources of the
>State at its disposal and denies that there even "a
>supernaturalistic origins of life" can be a subject for "scientific
>research".
BH>I also deny it yet I am not a Naturalist.
You presumably are not a metaphysical naturalist? Johnson would
probably classify you as a "theistic naturalist":
"A theistic naturalist is a theist who thinks MN is the correct
approach to scientific inquiry and hence to understanding (for
example) how living things came into existence." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1995, p211)
>SJ>I repeat my question, "when does dogged persistence become obsessive
>folly?". Is taxpayers money to be squandered forever in trying to
>prove that life originated spontaneously from non-living chemicals?
> "... there are few sciences which have required so much
> thought -- the conquest of a few axioms has taken more
> than 2000 years."
> -- Rene Dugas, <A History of Mechanics>, Dover, 1988.
So are you as a theist, who presumably believes that in fact God did
create the first life, believe that it is OK if science goes on
wasting taxpayers money for another "2000 years" trying to prove what
you believe didn't happen?
>SJ> But if the naturalistic program to find a plausible undirected
>materialistic spontaneous generation scenario for the origin of life
>consistently fails, does this not leave a supernaturalistic
>ntelligent Designer origin the only alternative?
>BH>No, this is the argument from the false alternative.
>SJ>Why is this "false"? There can only be two alternatives: 1.
>naturalistic and 2. supernaturalistic. This is proved by your own
>counter-attack to my point:
>SJ>I find it interesting that scientific research into a
>naturalistic origin of life has been unsuccessful for 83 years
>
>BH>"...Inquiries into the supernaturalistic origins of life,
>how long have they been going on and with what success?
>
BH>I think you misunderstood my point. I was not arguing that the
>failure to find a supernaturalistic explanation for the origin of
>life provides evidence for the naturalistic explanation. By turning
>the situation around I was hopeing that you would see the fallacy.
>Perhaps I was being too subtle ;-).
Perhaps you were! :-) Perhaps you could now answer my question? :-)
>Let's discuss the argument from the false alternative a little.
>First let me submit the following definition that I dug up:
>
> Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives:
> The error of insisting without full inquiry or evidence that
> the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted
> and/or are mutually exclusive.
No. We can discuss this point when you have *first* answered my
original question:
--- Tue, 20 Feb 1996--------------------------------------
I find it interesting that scientific research into a naturalistic
origin of life has been unsuccessful for 83 years and not 43 years as
I originally thought! This must be worthy for an entry in the Guiness
Book of Records, for the longest unsuccessful pursuit of a scientific
idea? Much has been written about how admirable it is for naturalists
to not give up easily. But when does dogged persistence become
obsessive folly? 43 years? 83 years? 103 years? :-)
-------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>SJ>The point is that "theistic science" will *never* get an article
>in Nature until naturalists change their philosphy that nature is all
>there is.
BH>But Polkinghorne published an article in _Nature_ attacking the
>philosophy that nature is all there is.
Before I comment, could I have the reference to the article please?
I do not deny that ocasionally the scientific journals publish
articles on "philosophy", but I had in mind what Arthur Shapiro,
professor of zoology at the Davis campus of the University of
California, wrote:
"I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article on
the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture. I
can see interviews with the leading figures in history and philosophy
of science about how and why this happened. For the moment, the
authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They
know their way of looking at the world will not be generally accepted
and that they will be restricted for a while to their own journals.
They also know that they will be under intense pressure to demonstrate
respectability by weeding out crackpots, kooks and purveyors of young-
earth snake oil. If they are successful, the day will come when the
editorial board of Science will convene in emergency session to decide
what to do about a paper which is of the highest quality and utterly
unexceptionable, of great and broad interest, and which proceeds from
the prior assumption of intelligent design. For a preview of that
crisis, you should read this book. Of course, if you are smug enough
to think "theistic science" is an oxymoron, you won't." (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1995, p239)
>[...]
>BH>The realization that the origin of life did not occur by chance
>does not in any way suggest that the intervention of an Intelligent
>Designer was necessary. Would we agree that the orbit of the earth
>about the sun is not determined by chance? Does this require the
>intervention of an Intelligent Designer?
SJ>The "orbit of the earth" is not a unique, historical event, life
>the origin of life was. You are confusing *origins* with
>*operations*! :-)
BH>I must be really bad at communicating since you continue to miss
>all my points :).
No. I dont *miss* them at all. I respond *exactly* to them. You
don't like my answers, so you claim I "continue to miss
all my points"! :-)
BH>The point was that the orbit of the earth is determined by law and
>not by chance. The origin of life may be deterministic rather than
>stochastic or it may involve a combination of deterministic and
>stochastic elements or it may involve something no one even has a
>clue of or it may be undecidable.
No doubt. But this is a red-herring. I repeat:
------------------------------------------------------
The "orbit of the earth" is not a unique, historical event, life
>the origin of life was. You are confusing *origins* with
>*operations*! :-)
------------------------------------------------------
Brian, we are never going to get anywhere if you don't deal with
what I say, but slide off on tangents! :-) Experience on fidonet has
taught me that this is a black hole, so I will insist on you answering
my points before we go on to discuss yours. If you insist on me
answering your counter-questions before you answer my original
questions, then our discussion will end on that topic. :-)
>[...]
>BH>Secondly, you say "If this goes on much longer ..." when it hasn't
>even gone on at all yet.
SJ>Sorry. I have re-read your post. It says that Yockey published
>his paper on the Internet in February 1996...For some reason I
>thought it was a couple of years ago. I will await the
>self-correction that will give Loeb rightful priority.
BH>Just another minor point. The clock doesn't start ticking until
>the result is published in a refereed journal and one allows time
>for independent verification.
Fine. As the hair shampoo commercial with Rachel Hunter says:
"It won't happen immediately....but it *will* happen" :-)
My initial misunderstanding was that Yockey *had* published in a
refereed journal (eg. Journal of Theoretical Biology). I presume
that Yockey will eventually do this?
>SJ>Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that Yockey was the
>first person to notice Loeb's mistranslation, considering there are
>many eminent German OOL researchers who surely must have read Loeb's
>report.
BH>And I find it difficult to believe that you are not insinuating a
>cover-up though you object whenever I mention the possibility.
I am not "insinuating a cover-up". It is possible that no German OOL
scholar noticed Loeb's words in the original. But I "find it
difficult to believe". I believe a "cover-up" is possible, but I do
not assert it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt at this
stage.
>BH>Finally, and most importantly, you are much too quick in concluding
>a cover up. This is a very serious charge and needs to be rigorously
>substantiated. I for one fail even to find a motive for a cover up.
SJ>As I said previously, I made *no* "charge" of "a cover up." I
repeat:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>I was quite careful in what I said. I said "IF THIS IS IGNORED,
>AND LOEB NOT GIVEN HIS RIGHTFUL PRIORITY", then it would seem to
>indicate that here we have a case of paradigm blindness at best and
>fraudulent cover up at worst?".
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
BH>And you also said:
>
>SJ:=========================================================
>That's OK, but let's not lose the main point here. Why has not
>Loeb been given his rightful priority? Why is the Miller-Urey
>experiment still hailed in school textbooks as the beginning
>of OOL research? If this goes on much longer, then it is hard
>to avoid the charge of a "cover up" to avoid providing support
>for creationism, as Gould acknowledges does happen:
>
>...
>
>This continuing silence sounds more and more like a cover-up! :-)
>
>...
>
>Surely some *German* OOL scholars (of which there are many, eg.
>Klaus Dose, Manfred Eigen, Karl Woese), would have read Loeb
>and realised his priority? It's hard to believe that Yockey
>was the first to pick it up. I suggest that this has been
>another "trade secret" among OOL researchers that a comparative
>outsider like Yockey would not have been aware of.
>===============================================================
BH>Sorry if I misrepresent your views but you sure do talk a lot about
>cover-ups for someone who is not making a charge of there being a
>cover-up.
Unfortunately, you do seem to "misrepresent" my "views", Brian! :-)
You are trying to show that I am claiming that there definitely *was*
a "cover-up". I emphatically do *not* assert that there *was* a cover
up! I do "talk a lot about cover-ups" because you keep challenging me
on it, so I have to keep repeating what I said with the words "cover
up" included! :-)
None of what I said above says there *was* a "cover-up". It simply
records my suspicion (based on my misunderstanding of the date of
Yockey's publication) that there *may* have been. But even when I
thought Yockey had published it several years ago, I did not claim it
*was* a cover-up.
I have already shown how my daughter's university Biology text has
what could be argued is deception in claiming in 1993 that there was a
reducing atmosphere and a pre-biotic soup, when they must have known
there wasn't. I have no great confidence in naturalism in the area of
*origins*, and based on what Paul says in Rom 1, I expect metaphysical
naturalists to "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18), when the Creator looms
into view. However, I also recognise that God's common grace in the
area of competing personal scientists ambitions, helps self-correct
the worst excesses of this (eg. Piltdown man, etc).
Brian, I think we are going around in circles, and if you fail to
directly address my original question, then I suggest we wind up this
thread with the usual "agree to disagree"? :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------