Reflectorites
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:47:33 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>>>SJ>I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed
>>>>the ID movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
>>>>evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
>>>>out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
>>>>loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
>>>materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
>>RK>Why should Christian evolutionists ("particularly"), jump on ID's rescue
>>>ship?
>SJ>All evolutionists' "loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
>>materialistic-naturalistic philosophy." But maybe it could be argued that for
>>non-Christians they have *some* excuse?
SB>why on earth do you think Christian scientists are not loyal to the data?
I am not necessarily saying that they aren't. My point was that if the "data"
is pointing in one direction and "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" is
pointing in another, their loyalty should be to the data, not the philosophy.
It is obvious when the loyalty is to the philosophy when rules of reasoning
are enforced that rule out apriori data that may be accepted and if it is
accepted a forced interpretation is imposed on it.
An example is the evidence for design, which is so strong that scientific
materialists like Francis Crick have to keep reminding themselves that what
they are seeing is not designed (see tagline).
SB>This chemist's opinion is not data. It is his opinion. I read his talk and
>I couldn't see him offer any supporting evidence for his opinion other than
>a lack of imagination and information.
An address does not have footnotes to it! Since it was to an audience of his
peers of analytical chemists, one can assume they all knew the basis of what
he was saying, even if laypersons like Susan doesn't.
SB>If he is going to talk about things >outside his field he really needs to
be more informed about it.
I presume that biochemistry and molecular biology *are* Hirsch's field.
>SJ>But I can think of *no* excuse for a scientist who claims to be a Christian
>>to persist with to persist with a "loyalty" to a "materialistic-naturalistic
>>philosophy" rather than to the "data".
>>
>>That of course does not mean that there *is* no excuse. It is just that I
>>personally cannot think of one. Mind you it would be interesting to see if
>>any "Christian evolutionist" on this List would supply an excuse why they
>>should have a loyalty to a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" rather
>>than to the "data".
SB>If I were one of them I would be deeply insulted by this remark.
Since Susan is an atheist who has "a loyalty to a `materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy'" it is not surprising that she would feel "insulted" at any
suggestion that there could a divided "loyalty" between a "materialistic-
naturalistic philosophy" and the "data".
But if a "Christian evolutionist" is really a Christian, at some point he/she
must reject a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" in their private life.
Therefore asking a "Christian evolutionist" to reconsider whether their
"loyalty" in science is to "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" or "to the
`data'" is reasonable, to say the least.
SB>The >scientific method is a way of getting at the truth of things.
Agreed. But the history of science shows that human philosophy can get in
the way when it assumes in advance what is "the truth of things".
SB>It intends to
>eliminate wishful thinking and magical thinking.
Agreed. "Materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" is an example of such
"wishful thinking and magical thinking".
It wishes there was no God and believes that the universe just popped into
existence of its own accord. Then to account for the design of the universe
it postulates an infinite number of unseen universes. All the "magical"
stories in the world can't beat that one!
SB>The truth of things is
>supposed to be extremely important to Christians.
Agreed.
SB>If God exists and
>Christianity is true, they exist in the same reality as science and
>evolution.
The point is that "If God exists and Christianity is true" then "materialistic-
naturalistic philosophy" is *false*.
SB>If ID exists and the hand of God has been tinkering with the
>history of life for the last 3.5 billion years, that tinkering should leave
>behind traces that can be detected using the scientific method.
This is in fact what the ID movement claims, namely that "the hand of
God" (i.e. an intelligent designer) has left "behind traces that can be
detected using the scientific method"!
But "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" resists that conclusion so it
denies that there even *could* be "traces that can be detected using the
scientific method" of "the hand of" an intelligent designer.
SB>So far ID
>has not been able to produce any of these traces with any reliability.
The ID movement *has* produced some "of these traces with" with as
much "reliability" as any claim can be in historical science.
The problem is that those who hold a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy"
deny these "traces" apriori (see Crick's quote above)
I would add that the ID movement does not have to "produce any of these
traces". Materialistic-naturalistic science is doing the job of detecting
design for them. Read any molecular biological journal. It is all now in the
language of design!
SB>ID has no data to which to be loyal.
A good example of how the *philosophy* denies the data!
SB>In the above paragraph (and in other
>things you have written) you seem to suggest that a good Christian would
>ignore that fact and pretend that ID is scientific in the absence of
>scientific evidence.
If a scientist who is a Christian holds a "materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy" then to that extent, according to the words of Jesus and the
Apostle Paul, he/she would not be "a good Christian" in that area, even if
he/she was "a good Christian" in other areas, like his private life.
Jesus warned his followers not to "serve two masters" (Mt 6:24) and the
example he gave was mammon, the symbol (god of?) of material wealth:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=mammon Main
Entry: ... Etymology: Late Latin mammona, from Greek mamOna, from
Aramaic mAmOnA riches ...: material wealth or possessions especially as
having a debasing influence <you cannot serve God and mammon --
Matthew 6:24 (Revised Standard Version)>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would not be twisting this verse to see in this prohibition of serving
money a deeper prohibition of serving a materialist philosophy.
But in any case, the Apostle Paul also warned Christians about being taken
captive by a "hollow and deceptive philosophy":
Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow
and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition
and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
Now if there would be any "hollow and deceptive philosophy" from Paul's
point of view it would be a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy".
Materialism denies that God exists:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=materialism Main
Entry: materialism ... 1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or
fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be
explained as manifestations or results of matter b : a doctrine that the only
or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
furtherance of material progress c : a doctrine that economic or social
change is materially caused -- compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 2
: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or
spiritual things
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and naturalism denies that God could intervene in the world thus denying
that Christianity is true:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=naturalism Main Entry: naturalism ...
1 : action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance;
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all
phenomena 3 : realism in art or literature; specifically : a theory in literature
emphasizing scientific observation of life without idealization or the
avoidance of the ugly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to emphasise here that I am not sitting here like a Pharisee
with a `holier-than-thou' attitude towards my Christian brothers who are
evolutionists. Materialism and naturalism are the twin spirits of our
Western world and all Christians struggle against it, including me. :-(
Scientists who are Christian find themselves in a more difficult situation
than most, so I empathise with their situation. I well remember when I was
a hospital Administrator in a large secular hospital controlling a $12M
budget and 300 staff, how I adopted `theistic evolution' and looked down
with scorn at a fellow Christian in my church who was a science teacher
and a creation-scientist. I refused to even look at his evidence and all I
would say to him was: "creation-science is neither creation nor was it
science". The problem was that because it was the line of least resistance to
think materialistically and naturalistically in my secular job, I also had
started to think materialistically and naturalistically in my Christianity.
But nevertheless, as it was with me in the health industry, so it must be
with my Christian evolutionist brothers in science. If they claim to be
Christians their duty as is clear. They *must* not allow a "materialistic-
naturalistic philosophy" to control their thinking to the extent that it denies
in advance the data which might be revealing "traces that can be detected
using the scientific method" of "the hand of God".
Now it may be that in the end God did in fact create 100% through a
natural evolutionary processes and so most Christians are wrong and the
atheists are right. I think that is highly unlikely, but it is possible that He
could have and who am I to tell God how he should create?
But in that case, what have these "Christian evolutionists" got to worry
about? The "data" should show that fact without having to erect elaborate
rules, which guarantee that only a 100% naturalistic evolutionary
conclusion is acceptable. Why all their efforts, alongside the atheists, trying
to prevent IDers making their case? If they think their 100% naturalistic
evolutionary position is right they should welcome IDers to the debate
knowing that in the end the IDers *must* lose.
Deep down those who advocate a 100% naturalistic evolutionary process
(Christians and non-Christians), and who refuse to *welcome* ID to the
debate, but instead use rules, insults, threats and intimidation to prevent
them presenting their "data" *must* know their position is shaky. There is
simply no other reasonable explanation for their behaviour:
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the
way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on
enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official
story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on
the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The
Wedge of Truth, 2000, p.141)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 12 2000 - 20:17:04 EDT