Reflectorites
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:45:40 -0500, Susan Cogan wrote:
Now that Susan is dropping the "Brassfield" I will start using the initials
"SC". I hope Steve Clark doesn't join in! :-)
Before Susan answers this, she should note my final paragraph.
>>SC>why on earth do you think Christian scientists are not loyal to the data?
>SJ>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.
SC>agreed. What makes you think they are disloyal to the data?
See above.
>SJ>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).
SC>appearances are deceiving.
So are philosophies!
SC>We still customarily refer to the earth as
>flat even if we don't believe it because it *looks* flat.
Actually "the earth" doesn't look flat (from a hill it looks curved) and I
have never heard anyone "customarily refer to the earth as flat"
This is just the `flat-Earth' myth (like the `dark ages') that our modern
scientific materialist `priesthood' propagates to emphasise how clever they
are and how stupid everyone who came before them was. The amazing
thing is how gullible their modern day followers are who believe it!
SC>Also we
>refer to stars as "up there" instead of "out there" because it
>*looks* like "up."
Stars *are* "up there" as well as "out there".
But even assuming that Susan's `flat Earth' example is right, we can show
that the Earth's appearance of being flat is not really so by observing
empirically that it isn't.
But in the case of design, atheists like Susan and Francis Crick cannot
observe empirically that design is not real. They have chosen a
*philosophy* that *assumes* that design is not real.
In the case of the flatness of the Earth or whether "up there" is really "out
there" we never give it moment's thought. But Crick says that biologists
must "constantly" keep reminding themselves that "what they see was not
designed".
>>SC>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.
>SJ>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.
SC>he needn't have hit the audience with figures and charts but "based
>upon my own research" or "from what I have read in the field" or
>*something*. He presents nothing but his on incredulity.
See my post of Hirsch's position at DoE. And apparently his full talk had
more data. I am checking with him on this. [Stop press: I now have this
and am thinking about how to post it].
>>SC>If he is going to talk about things outside his field he really needs to
>>be more informed about it.
See my post to Huxter about *Susan's* "field".
>SJ>I presume that biochemistry and molecular biology *are* Hirsch's field.
SC>you mention in passing in the paragraph above this one that his
>peers are analytical chemists. I did a web search on him. Big
>surprise. He's an analytical chemist.
And? Analytical chemists design machines (like gene sequencers) for
"biochemistry and molecular biology". Thus they would have to be
thoroughly grounded in *both* fields.
[...]
>>SC>If I were one of them I would be deeply insulted by this remark.
>SJ>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".
SC>No. I would be insulted to be told that I would ignore
>data--especially if I were a scientist.
Insulted or not, the history of science is *rife* with scientists ignoring data.
It's *really* easy to see only that data which one wants to see and hard to
see data one doesn't wants to see.
In fact that is what *science* is supposed to be all about. We wouldn't
need double-blind, repeatable experiments if scientists did not ignore data!
>SJ>But if a "Christian evolutionist" is really a Christian, at some point he/she
>>must reject a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" in their private life.
SC>the "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" thing is your bugbear
>(and Johnson's) and is a strawman. You can't assume miracles when you
>do science.
And if you rule them out in the case of *origins* then it is "naturalistic" (if
not "materialistic") *philosophy*. It is not loyalty to the *data*. It is
loyalty to a *philosophy*.
SC>You have to assume that it is possible to understand what
>you are researching. That is the underlying assumption that is
>required for science to commence.
There is no requirement that in science your must *completely*
"understand what you are researching." There is probably *nothing* that
science completely understands. I have read somewhere that no-one
*understands* quantum physics at all. It works, but no one really
understands it.
SC>Christians believe that God
>created everything. Scientists who are Christians must believe that
>God created everything *and doesn't screw around with it*.
Why is God progressively creating necessarily to "screw around with it"?
See my recent post to Howard how that progressively intervening is the
*better* way of creating than trying to build it all in at the beginning.
SC>That God
>probably wouldn't create something that needed further fixing,
>tinkering or intervention to make it all come out right.
See above. Susan uses pejorative words such as "tinkering" like Howard
does to beg the question. This is not surprising since they are both
adherents to a naturalistic philosophy (although Susan's is an atheistic, and
Howard's a theistic, naturalism).
SC>If God
>touched off the Big Bang He created us in that instant because he
>knew it would end up with us.
Susan does not *know* that God did do it that way or even *could* do it
that way, given the kind of universe we have.
SC>Why am I a better Christian theologian than you are? I don't even
>believe this stuff.
I am not a "Christian theologian" at all. But the fact that Susan sounds like
some modern "Christian theologian[s]" is that many of them have accepted
the same naturalistic *philosophy* as Susan.
It is not "Christian" the view that God built everything into the "Big Bang"
and no further intervention was needed. That is *Deism*.
>SJ>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.
SC>Christian evolutionists are such because they refuse to ignore the
>data--and wish to remain Christians.
I sympathise with this and I am sure that these "Christian evolutionist[s]"
are sincere. But they have gone from one extreme to the other. Just
because *some* simplistic versions of creationism "ignore the data" does
not mean that evolution is the right answer. There are plenty of Christians
who also "refuse to ignore the data" and do not become "Christian
evolutionist[s]".
And if the reason they became "Christian evolutionist[s]" is because they
"refuse to ignore the data", then why are they now ignoring the *new*
data?
>>SC>The scientific method is a way of getting at the truth of things.
>SJ>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".
SC>That's what peer review is for. It will eventually shake out the
>truth from the advance assumptions.
Not if all the peers have the same wrong "advance assumptions", like a
materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
SJ>Peer review is what the ID
>theorists have such a big problem with.
Any new paradigm in science has had a problem with "Peer review". What
has to happen is build up a new generation of peers!
SC>They get peer reviewed like
>any other scientific hypothesis and all of a sudden IDists start
>whining "rules, insults, threats and intimidation . . . prevent [us
>from] presenting [our] "data" "
It's not "whining". It is a *fact*. But ID will overcome this problem
in time.
>>SC>It intends to
>>>eliminate wishful thinking and magical thinking.
>SJ>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.
SC>"philosophy" can't wish something.
I just gave examples of where "Materialistic-naturalistic philosophy"
*does* "wish something"!
>>SC>The truth of things is
>>>supposed to be extremely important to Christians.
>SJ>Agreed.
>>SC>If God exists and
>>>Christianity is true, they exist in the same reality as science and
>>>evolution.
>SJ>The point is that "If God exists and Christianity is true" then
>>"materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" is *false*.
SC>no it's not. You just don't get that. Evolution is true.
It is *Susan* who doesn't get it. If God exists and Christianity is true" then
and "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy' is *false*", then any theory of
"Evolution" that is based on that philosophy is also false.
The problem with Susan is that she (like *all* evolutionists) has multiple
meanings for the word " Evolution". She flip-flops from a trivial meaning
of "Evolution" being "any change in gene frequencies of a population" to
the whole grand "materialistic-naturalistic" creation story.
SC>If
>Christianity is true (and not wishful thinking) then it is true
>*also*. They don't--can't--cancel each other out.
Agreed. But then if "Christianity is true" God has intervened in human
history many times to inject new information and direction into the system
from outside it. This means that any theory of evolution that depends
absolutely on the assumption there has been no new information and
direction added into the history of life from outside it is *dubious* to say
the least.
That is why so many Biology texts start their section on evolution with a
caricatured debunking of the Christian doctrine of creation. Presumably
they know at some level that they *have* to.
SC>That's why Behe's
>argument fails and why a lot of ID-ists' and creationists' arguments
>fail.
Actually it is the other way around. Behe's arguments have not failed and
nor have "ID-ists' ... arguments. They are simply being dismissed on
materialistic-naturalistic *philosophy* grounds.
SC>They think if they can find a "problem" or two with evolution,
>then Christianity is true.
No. Behe for example is a Roman Catholic and who had no problem with
both "Christianity" and "evolution" being "true". But because Behe
believed that "Christianity is true" he did not *need* to believe that
"evolution" is "true". So he started noticing *scientific* problems with
"evolution" in his discipline, molecular biology.
SC>They could *both* be wrong, but I've never
>run across a Christian in a debate that would admit such a thing.
What about me? As I have posted before: 1) I will freely admit that
Christianity could be wrong; and 2) Even St Paul admitted that Christianity
would be wrong "if Christ has not been raised":
"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has
been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is
useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be
false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he
raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the
dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has
not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith
is futile; you are still in your sins." (1Cor 15:13-17).
SC>They are so locked into the idea that Christianity is right and
>*therefore* evolution is wrong that they can never seem to wrap their
>minds around the idea that if *evolution* is right, it does not
>necessarily mean that Christianity is wrong.
What evolutionists like Susan "never seem to wrap their minds around the
idea that if "Christianity is right" then the materialistic-naturalistic
*philosophy* which underpins "evolution" is wrong.
Then what remains of "evolution" can be subsumed under the historic
Christian doctrine of *creation* which is far broader and more
sophisticated than their stereotypical caricature of it.
SC>It really just means
>that they need to learn more about their own religion.
That is indeed one of the main problems. Most Christians, including the
"Christian evolutionist" scientists that Susan mentioned, embraced
evolution without really understanding "their own religion" well enough.
>>SC>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.
>SJ>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"!
SC>and has been crashingly unsuccessful at demonstrating such.
To those like Susan who outrightly deny it *could* be possible, and
therefore refuse to seriously consider the evidence, ID will always be
"crashingly unsuccessful at demonstrating" design!
SC>Oh, you
>can write a popular best seller, for the folks in the pews, but you
>can't get around that pesky peer review thing.
Not while the "peer[s]" who are doing the "review thing" are mostly
atheists like Susan. But that can be (and will be) changed over time.
As I have said before, IMHO the philosophical materialists are courting
*disaster*. If they continue to reject design apriori, based on their
philosophical preference, then they risk a split in science analogous to the
Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity in the 16th century.
Most people believe in design and a large number of scientists do to. The
minority of materialist-naturalists are not going to be able to (like the
communist party did in the USSR) divide-and-conquer and rule by force
like they have done in the past.
SC>All novel, new
>scientific ideas have to be put up so that tomatoes can be thrown at
>them. The only way to survive is to throw data back.
Agreed. But it is not just the "data". It is the philosophical mindset of
materialism and naturalism that denies the "data" for design.
SC>So far all
>ID-ists have done is bitch about how unfair and just plain bad
>manners it is to have tomatoes thrown at them like they were the very
>first and only ones to ever have that happen.
Actually IDers are not complaining much. This resistance by philosophical
materialists is only to be expected and will be overcome.
SC>(They should talk to
>both the cold fusion guys *and* the continental drift guy.)
Actually, as Gould points out "continental drift" is a good example of how
a whole body of scientists can reject "data" that is true, and how a few
committed outsiders can change this:
"AS THE NEW Darwinian orthodoxy swept through Europe, its
most brilliant opponent, the aging embryologist Karl Ernst von
Baer, remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory
passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is
rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and
each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth. I first
met the theory of continental drift when it labored under the
inquisition of stage two. Kenneth Caster, the only major American
paleontologist who dared to support it openly, came to lecture at
my alma mater, Antioch College. We were scarcely known as a
bastion of entrenched conservatism, but most of us dismissed his
thoughts as just this side of sane. (Since I am now in von Baer's
third stage, I have the distinct memory that Caster sowed
substantial seeds of doubt in my own mind.) A few years later, as a
graduate student at Columbia University, I remember the a priori
derision of my distinguished stratigraphy professor toward a visiting
Australian drifter. He nearly orchestrated the chorus of Bronx
cheers from a sycophantic crowd of loyal students. (Again, from my
vantage point in the third stage, I recall this episode as amusing, but
distasteful.) As a tribute to my professor, I must record that he
experienced a rapid conversion just two years later and spent his
remaining years joyously redoing his life's work." (Gould S.J., "The
Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin," 1991,
p.160)
SJ>>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!
SC>as metaphor, nothing else!
Why would they use such a "metaphor" if it didn't express the deeper truth?
>SJ>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.
SC>The "elaborate rules" you speak of is called "the scientific method."
>http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/science/scimeth1.htm
I haven't got the time to read this, so if Susan wants to make a point from it
she should quote what it is.
But she should note that some scientists and philosophers are questioning
whether there *is* such a thing as "the scientific method" (not to mention
"science") which "can be defined rigorously and unambiguously":
"Perhaps the central fallacy is that there exists an entity called
"science" about which sweeping generalizations can validly be
made; for example, that science is characterized and defined by the
scientific method (which, it is widely supposed, can be defined
rigorously and unambiguously). In actuality, for most
generalizations about science their opposite also carries some truth.
Thus it is in a sense true and yet also a misconception that science
prizes originality: the most original scientists usually have a devil of
a time getting anyone to take their notions seriously when they first
put them forward. It is in a sense true and yet also a serious
misconception that scientists should publish all their data, all the
facts they have gathered: without selection, publications would be
meaningless or misleading. It is in a sense true and yet also a
misconception that successful predictions prove the predicting
theory to be right. It is in a sense true and yet also a misconception
that science is just common sense; that science is reliable; that
scientific goals can be attained more quickly as more resources are
deployed." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the
Scientific Method," 1994, pp.vii-viii).
SC>Science must adhere to it and so must ID if it is to be considered
>science.
ID has no problem adhering to a "scientific method" which is aimed at
discovering the *truth*, and not just a device to protect the materialistic-
naturalistic *personal philosophy* (not to mention power and prestige) of
an elite which has seized control of science!
SC>ID does not get special treatment. Why should it? Nobody is
>trying to "prevent" IDers from making their case.
Does Susan *really* believe this? See my highlight of Wells' report in this
same session:
"My debate partner objected that design is not scientific because it
is not published in peer-reviewed literature. I pointed out that Mike
Behe and others have attempted to publish articles on the subject,
but they have been rebuffed on the grounds that design is not
scientific. Catch-22: Design is not scientific because it's not
published in peer-reviewed journals, but it's not published in peer-
reviewed journals because it's not scientific." (Wells J.,
Report on tour of Arkansas, Kansas, Washington, October 2000)
SC>How would they? In
>fact scientists are trying to push IDers *into* making some kind of
>case.
See above on whether Susan really believes this. I guess that's why the
"scientists" at Baylor demoted Dembski?
SC>There is a significant movement--including myself--that wishes
>ID not to be taught in public schools *as science*. But serious
>scientific research does not get done in the 11th grade.
Susan contradicts herself. If macroevolution can be taught "in the 11th
grade" is she saying that is not "serious scientific research"?
>SJ>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:
SC>Putting "data" in quotes is a black lace Freudian slip. The fact that
>ID isn't science and has no supporting "data" isn't a possibility for
>scientific annoyance with it, I suppose.
Unfortunately I am getting to old to have "black lace Freudian slip[s]" but
they sound nice! :-)
But seriously no. Its a habit of mine to make sure I use precisely the words
my opponent used. But I admit I overdo it to the point it can be
misunderstood and I am going to try to break myself of it on egroups.
[...]
I am trying to wind down my threads on the Reflector so I probably won't
reply to any response to this.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 19:55:55 EDT