SJ=====================>
>No. I am not evading that "science cannot address the supernatural".
>
>I already have responded to that (see below):
>
But your response was an evasion. You did not specify how science
could go about investigating the supernaturalistic origin of
life.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Supernaturalistic
explanations are not ruled out a-priori they're ruled out for
very good reasons. The methods of science cannot address the
supernatural. Your responses in this thread have been ample
evidence of this.
But remember the key point. This places a limitation on science
and not on reality. If Dawkins wants to say otherwise, then
we'll nail him. What do you say? ;-)
>--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?"....
OK, you insist on an answer, here it is:
First, though, I have to ask yet another question. What on earth
gave you the idea that I have enough knowledge of the subject
to even make a guess? It really is a silly question which I
should answer "I don't know, do you?", but since you insist
on an answer, here is my considered opinion:
Scientific investigation into the origin of life has barely
begun. Many new ideas are being generated all the time.
These ideas should be followed up. Research should continue
for as long as someone wants to try and can generate the
funds required.
[...]
>>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":
>
Perhaps, why should I care? I mentioned previously the debates
that went on here before you signed on. Several people gave
reasoned "pleas" with Phil that the "theistic naturalist"
label distorts their view. Phil apparantly doesn't care.
He wants to win by marginalizing his opponents with word
games. Exactly what he "complains" about naturalists doing.
[...]
>>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.
>
SJ:==
>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?
You claim the taxpayers money is being wasted. I'm sure you wouldn't
claim this without some evidence. Why don't you share that with us?
a) please outline (roughly) the history of the scientific investigation
into life's origin. What are the successes and failures? What has been
learned?
b) Give a rough figure on how much has been spent, total and current
spending per year.
c) Roughly give a monetary equivalent on what has been learned. Be
sure to include secondary benefits to biotechnology. [for example,
what is Joyce's (and others) findings in directed molecular evolution
worth to the pharmaceutical industry?]
Really, Steve, this insinuation about wasting taxpayers money
is ugly. It just further demonstrates how bankrupt your position
is. All you have is logical fallacies, hints at coverups,
compaints that you are ruled out of court _a-priori_, and
thinly veiled political threats.
What a nice apologetic.
[...]
>BH:===
>>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.
>
>SH:No. We can discuss this point when you have *first* answered my
>original question:
>
OK, your turn.
[...]
>
>>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?
>
John Polkinghorne, "Scientism Disguised", Nature 360:378, 1992.
[...]
>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.
>
>SJ 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! :-)
Good grief Steve. You are the one trying to slip out of a noose.
You claimed that there were only two alternatives, chance and
intelligent design. You forgot about physical law. If you
don't like my example, so what, its just an example. The point
is that I have shown your claim to be false.
>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. :-)
I have stayed right on topic. Your hand is empty.
>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! :-)
>
I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about cover-ups
or conspiracies?
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================