>>Susan:
>>I want to know what an
>>immaterialist scientist would do to discover how lightening works. I want
>>to know what would be different.
>
>>Let's assume that you, Johnson and Stephen all get your wish and science is
>>no longer conducted with a materialist-naturalist bias. I want to know how
>>a scientist would then go about discovering what causes lightening. Any of
>>you other ID theorists can jump in here and help Bervan out. What would
>>non-materialist science look like?
>
>Bertvan:
>A scientist who assumes the universe is designed would do science the same
>way a materialist would.
no shit.
>I suspect many scientists now work under such an assumption. They merely
>include "why" as a question that might be answered. They expect everything
>in nature to have a purpose. Margulis and Lovelock are two who come to
>mind. The Gaia concept would never have been formulated by a materialist.
>Indeed, I believe most resident materialists on this board have declared it
>to be "Hogwash". Other people are finding it useful.
I can go some distance with the Gaia concept, but not the whole way,
obviously. The whole way requires naked belief and nothing else. It's not
too big a shock that the earth's ecology is an integrated system--that is
well-supported by observation. The belief that the ball of dirt is alive
and sentient is a religious belief--I don't disapprove of it as a religious
idea, in fact I applaud it. But it's not a *scientific* idea and can't be.
It can't be verified. It can only be believed.
>Susan,
>>I think you would prefer jackbooted
>>thugs pounding on your door to simply being wrong.
>
>Bertvan;
>. I have been wrong many times in my life, Susan. I once regarded Darwinism
>as a profound insight.
so have there been jackbooted thugs pounding on your door since you changed
your mind?
>Susan:
>>"materialists" don't care about "why"--other than in the sense of "why does
>>lightning seem to always occur when there are clouds"--the "why" I assume
>>you are talking about is a religious, not a scientific question. Answers to
>>the religious "whys" cannot be verified in any way. They can only be
>>believed or not, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
>Bertvan:
>There are probably many "why" questions that can be answered scientifically,
>and I agree they won't be investigated by materialists. Materialists,
>believing nature to be the result of random processes, without plan, purpose
>or design are content to label parts of nature as "random", accidental or
>serving no purpose. As you point out, materialists are not interested in why.
not interested in *religious* "whys" Why do some people get diabetes and
others don't. Why do some people think they are being monitored by aliens
(or demons or angels). Why do animals in a specific isolated area resemble
each other but not resemble animals on the other side of the world? Those
are scientific whys.
Why do humans exist at all? Why is there *anything* at all? Those are
religious questions. Science doesn't address them.
>Susan:
>So astrology should be taught in astronomy class? Feng Shui should be
>taught in geology class? Those are supernatural-immaterial sciences. I'm
>sure they describe reality too.
>
>Bertvan:
>No one has suggested teaching astronomy and you know it.
astrology. Yes they are--sort of. Johnson, et al. talk about the
"materialistic bias in science" but it's obvious they don't mean *all* of
science. They only mean the parts of science that disturb them religiously.
But they don't *say* that, therefore their ideas can be extended to their
logical conclusion. What is immaterialistic science? What is supernatural
science? What is supernatural physics? What is supernatural cosmology if
not astrology?
>(Although of
>someone did, I doubt geologists or astronomers would get as hysterical about
>it as biologists do.)
They most certainly would! They no more want their disciplines shoved aside
so that some kind of religion can be taught in its place than the
biologists or paleontologists do! Actually the astronomers have already
felt the hot breath of the fundamentalists on their neck. The Kansas school
board voted not only to supress evolution, but cosmology as well. The
Kansas school board and their co-religionists don't know what you and the
Gaia guys know--that everything is interconnected. The disciplines which
study all that interconnected stuff are themselves interconnected. In order
to truly supress evolution they will also have to suppress geology and
physics as well as astronomy and biology. In fact they will have to
dismantle all of western science. As Pope John Paul pointed out "The
convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken
independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument
in favour of this theory."
>As the complexity of nature is revealed, more and
>more scientists will probably work under an assumption of design, with or
>without your permission. They will do science the same way everyone else
>does, but they will ask more questions.
:-) more questions than they do now? AND THEY NEED MY PERMISSION? Wow! I
never thought of that!
If they can get results with those "assumptions" that can be verified by
their peers, then I say "more power to them."
>"Random mutations and natural
>selection" appears inadequate as an explanation to more and more people.
there is also genetic drift. There are probably others. But variation
(whether truly random or not) and selection as been demonstrated to occur
so many times by so many people that it isn't going away anytime soon.
>Darwinists have recently suggested the Hox genes "do it". Until we know
>exactly how, WHY and when the hox genes "do it", that explanation is no
>different than saying "God does it". Will Darwinists be content to declare
>that whatever the hox genes do a random process? That the hox genes "do it"
>any old time and for no particular reason?
this is *your* hobby horse. If it can be examined, it will be. If the
experiments can be repeated, they will be. Nobody knows "why" asperin
works. It *does* work and so it is used.
>Susan
>>And the agenda of creationists is hardly a secret! No need to shield
>>evolution from criticism--if the criticism is actually of the actual
>>science, which most creationist criticisms are not. Or if the criticisms
>>are valid, which most creationist criticisms are not. Evolution has
>>undergone over 130 years of rigorous criticism and investigation and has
>>emerged virtually intact. Evolution is quite used to criticism.
>
>Bertvan:
>"Random mutation and natural selection has been around, practically unchanged
>for 130 years. Other sciences such as physics, astronomy and micro biology
>have made progress, but the theory of evolution flounders exactly where it
>was 130 years ago. "
Uh, did you notice the discovery of genetics? DNA? The original theory of
evolution has been very resiliant, but it has been changed as new
information as accumulated.
>Not everyone who believes the universe to be the result
>of a rational design is a creationist, Susan. I assume it is a waste of
>breath to tell you again.
You cling to the discredited ideas of the creationists because it suits
you, but these ideas are not yours and I know where they came from.
>Susan:
>> ID is not immune from critique either,
>>however. And criticising ID is not the same thing as "wanting to wipe it
>>out."
>
>Bertvan
>If you are only indulging in friendly criticism of ID, why are you so
>determined to get it banished from the classroom?
because it is religion, specifically Christian religion. And I don't want
science classes to become a platform of religious indoctrination for one of
the many religions in this country--even if it is the dominant religion.
Let them teach it in Sunday school if they want to. That's where it belongs.
>And why do you care so
>much that some people regard the universe as designed? I don't care how many
>people believe random mutation and natural selection is the explanation of
>macro evolution.
>I merely urge that people be allowed to express alternative views.
you are expressing alternative views. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody *can*
stop you. However, don't expect to express those views unchallenged.
Challenging someone's view is not the same as suppression.
>>Susan:
>>>you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>>>doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
>>>to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
>>>Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>>>about conducting science without that assumption.
>>
>Bertvan:
>Again, I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism"
>is not required. One does science under the same rules, whether working
>under the assumption that nature is the result of rational design -- or
>assuming it to be the result of random processes. As long as everyone does
>science by the same rules, why do you get so exorcised about their
>philosophical assumptions?
There are all kinds of scientists (we are talking biologists here) how
adhere to all kinds of religious views, including none at all. They must
lay those views aside when they do science. They can't say "AIDS is caused
solely by the Will of Allah" and not try to find a natural cause. They can
*believe* that AIDS is ultimately the Will of Allah, but when they do
research they must focus on the natural world.
>Susan;
>>again, I ask: exactly how would you conduct science with the assumption of
>>design? What would such a science look like? What does
>>immaterialistic-supernatural science look like?
>
>Bertvan:
>Again,I answer: ID science looks like any other science, except they might
>try to answer some "why" questions.
religion answers the "big" why questions. Science aswers the "natural" why
questions.
>If you don't like the answers, you don't
>have to accept them.
If the answers can be demonstrated by science over and over again I *must*
accept them. The religious answers to the why questions I *don't* have to
accept.
>Most people mounting this protest over ID seem
>paranoid about religion. (I'm sure that isn't true of you.)
It's utterly true of me. I'm very fond of the 1st Amendment. We all should
be. It protects us from many kinds of oppression, including religious
oppression.
>I doubt most
>actual scientists fear religion that much. I suspect many of them already do
>science under an assumption that nature is the result of a rational design.
the religious ones probably do, but *not* when they sit down to do science.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 05 2000 - 12:10:49 EDT