Hi Adrian
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Teo [mailto:ateo@whitworth.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:55 AM
>
>Glenn,
>
>The photo you included is quite amazing! Yes, I do think that there is good
>reason for concluding that these may be religious arrangements, but I think
>your understanding of good scientific practice is quite different from mine
>(and mine has NEVER been to expect 100% certainty as you have ascribed to
>me). I will maintain that for good scientific practice, plausible and
>reasonable alternatives need to be examined seriously, (and of course, we
>should ignore the ridiculously far-out ones, like pixies), especially if
>these challenge our pet theories.
>
>I know you don't see this, but clearly to me in your posts, you
>demonstrated
>much defensiveness and bias to see the evidence in only one way to the
>exclusion of other plausible and reasonable alternatives. In all fairness,
>maybe it is because you have dealt with these concerns before to your
>satisfaction, and are frustrated that yet another person is bringing up the
>same questions.
You raise an interesting point. Bias or the perception of bias. Can I be
biased? Of course, can I be wrong? of course. And I have admitted that there
is always uncertainty in the anthropological realm as in many realms of
science. However, to charge bias is interesting when I began my adult life
as a YEC, and thus was philosophically biased to anti-evolutinism,
anti-fossil-men-are-us and now have changed to the sad state I now exist in
(that is a joke for those who can't tell)
I have heard many YECs claim that their views are not heard because the
scientists have lots and lots of bias. But the real fact is that their views
of geology and biology are rejected because they haven't done the study to
understand the subject they are criticising, or because THEIR bias for the
Bible gets in the way of them seeing certain facts. Bliss wrote:
"Evolution can never qualify as a
legitimate theme of science because of its philosophical stretch
beyond the reality of scientific exploration. Making evolution one
of the 'Big Ideas' of science could only be proposed by
philosophically biased scientists who have decided they want their
viewpoint to dominate, not because it has any value in science
education or proof in empirical science." ~ Richard B. Bliss
"Science Education - Its Methods and Purpose," Impact, April, 1989,
p. iii.
Who has bias the scientist of the YEC Bliss? Bliss's ideas are rejected
because they don't fit the facts, yet he screams bias alone is the reason
evolution has taken dominance. What does he think the role of facts are?
Why does he never look in a mirror?
Phil Johnson thinks medical science is biased towards a given explanation of
HIV. He doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS. He writes:
"An audit of the CDC statistics to remove HIV bias and thereby
allow unprejudiced testing of the critical epidemiological
evidence for the theory." ~ Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Kary B.
Mullis, and Phillip E. Johnson, "What Causes Aids? Reason, June
1994, p. 23
This 'scientific doubt' from a guy who has not studied or worked in the area
of retrovirus research seems to be mere doubt for the sake of having doubt.
And when we come to Phil's position on evolution, it is identical with that
he holds on AIDS.
"The points in dispute can only be settled by an unbiased
examination of the evidence. Those who have confidence in their
evidence and their logic do not appeal to prejudice, nor do they
insist upon imposing rules of discourse that allow only one
position to receive serious consideration, nor do they use vague
and shifting terminology to distract attention from genuine
points of difficulty. Still less do they heap abuse and ridicule
upon persons who want to raise questions about the evidence and
the philosophical assumptions that underly a theory. When an
educational establishment has to resort to tactics like that, you
can be sure that some people are getting desperate." ~ Phillip E.
Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," Rivista di Biologia-
Biology Forum, 87(2/3), 1994, pp. 297-319, p. 308
The guy who has never studied biology under a professor of biology beyond
maybe freshman bio and the guy who has never studied or worked in HIV
research feels perfectly happy about criticising those who spent their lives
working in the area. I find this incredibly arrogant on his part.
This is a perfect example of the bias on the part of the anti-evolutionist.
"It is important to understand that both evolution and
creation scientists have accumulated the same data. Both have
access to the same information. But the interpretation of the
results are biased by the outlook of each scientist.
Evolutionary scientists are presenting information as they see
it through their philosophical lenses, without respect for the
supernatural. Creation scientists are evaluating the same
information through the bias of their beliefs based in the
Bible, which of course implies supernatural intervention by the
Creator of the universe." ~ Caryl Matrisciana and Roger
Oakland, The Evolution Conspiracy, (Eugene: Harvest House
Publishers, 1991), p. 79
The reality is that they don't have the same data set as they won't listen
to anything that FACTUALLY contradicts their viewpoint.
Maybe that is why you insist that I should go study the
>evidence for myself, because you don't want to go through all the
>trouble of
>explaining the basics. If that is so, I understand.
Seriously, I have spent lots of time writing web pages, writing e-mails on
this and other lists. If you want to find out, go do a web search. Most of
the info is out there. Search on Religion Morton asa and the topic and you
will probably find more than you want. I have learned over the years that if
I spoon feed someone, they probably really arent interested. I may be wrong
in your case, but it has become my policy.
But there are better
>ways of communicating this without inferring less-than-honest motives and
>implying that people are irresponsible. You seem to expect that a person
>only has a right to raise a logical concern in this informal forum (which
>was what I did) in response to a post if they have read most of
>the research
>in the area. I would say that your expectation is unreasonable. Informal
>discussions are just that. Comparing my actions in this forum to what Hugh
>Ross did in publication is unfair.
Sorry you feel that way, but I see a similar methodology and that is what I
am trying to illustrate. Frankly too many Christians simply want to have
their ears tickled. I don't do that any more. The fact that Christians are
not willing to do the work of learning before they throw up doubts and then
act like those 'doubts' are worth listening to has driven me too many times
to the place where I have almost decided that Christianity can't be true
because of the Christians. There seems to be far too little truth or desire
for truth. Paul Seeley, bless his heart, helped me through one of those
very dark times. And the times have been dark the past two years. I too
rarely see apologists really seeking truth.
If you have borne the brunt of my problem, then I apologize, for it is my
problem. I don't have any animosity towards you--just the methodology I see
you using.
I know you said you would let it rest. If you want the last word, I won't
repsond further.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 16:13:38 EDT