>The key charge of bias by you, Steve, was that there was nothing of "hard
>evidence" in my post.
Nope, I simply commented on the bias behind Wallace's argument that you
chose to use to demonstrate Darwin's bias I made not claim about the
"evidence" offered in your post. Although that could be the subject of
another conversation.
>You state:
>
><<The lack of an acceptable naturalistic mechanism for the appearance of
>humans, does not automatically require one to invoke a supernatural
>explanation. This is a bias as large as what you accuse Glenn of having.>>
>
>I don't think so. In Glenn's case (and yours, I assume) the reasoning goes
>like this:
>
>Data, which cannot thus far be accounted for naturalistically (and, in fact,
>frustrates naturalistic predictions) MUST have a naturalistic answer...which
>we will patiently await even as we reject the non-naturalistic answer.
This is not my reasoning, its not close to what I said in my quote above. I
simply pointed out what one CANNOT assume from lack of naturalsitic evidence
and did not make any statement about what one MUST assume. My position is
that lack of a naturalistic explanation doesn't necessarily rule one out.
This seems to be what you wish to do, though. As I posted previously, the
logical progression you offered is as follows:
JB
>There is no naturalistic explanation for the sudden leap in modern man...
>Which leaves us an option Glenn fails to consider, and one Goodman proposes:
>the non-naturalistic explanation [Goodman prefers the term "interventionism"].
>Why does Glenn exclude this option? Not because the data compels him, but
>because his prevailing bias is Naturalism.
This option is not the only possibility.
>That last step, rejection, is not called for or compelled by your reasoning.
>It is an ELIMINATION of explanatory possibilities, but without basis.
>
>That is usually called bias. Phil Johnson calls it "Defining to Exclude" in
>chapter 5 of Reason in the Balance:
My question is whether you do this in reverse. Do you eliminate
naturalistic explanation for human origins?
>"Naturalistic rules require that theories employ only two kinds of
>forces--chance and necessity,
And supernaturalistic rules require that where science has not offered a
reasonable explanation for a phenomenon, the only other possible thing to
consider is a supernatural explanation. From his writings, I don't think
that Phil is necessarily guilty of this, but too many do not fully realize
what Phil's position really requires. If you want to claim that you have a
more realistic outlook of the world, then you need to be prepared to
consider naturalistic as well as supernaturalistic explanations. The fact
that you don't buy what Darwinists claim, does not mean that the logical
alternative is, therefore, a supernatural explanation. This position means
that your mind is closed to the possibility of any naturalistic explanation.
**The rules also
>provide that a theory retains its authority even in the teeth of a great deal
>of noncomforming evidence unless critics can provide a better theory**." [pp
>105-6]
Science has often operated this way, however. And fortunately so, I believe.
There are numerous examples of persisting scientific dogma in the absence of
convincing data. Sometimes the science has been proven wrong, which means
that the scientific process functions well. Sometimes, hindsight tells us
that such persistence was warranted because the dogma proved to be true.
Should Galileo have rejected the naturalistic model of geocentrism because
he could not offer convincing proof? Hindsight tells us no. His belief in
the geocentric model over the supernaturalistic heliocentric one, was not
based on convincing data. Rather, geocentrism seemed to be the better
explanation for the observed movement of the heavens. Should Leibniz have
rejected his supernaturalistic view of the impossibility of vacuum, in favor
of the more compelling naturalistic evidence for the possibility of vacuum?
Hindsight tells us yes. The truth of both are now known, and provide
opposite examples of how science proceeds toward the truth.
No one has a hard and fast rule which tells us when to give up on a model
and move to a new one. It is on this issue that I have great disagreeement
with Phil. I believe that he seriously misunderstands the scientific
process illuminated by the two examples above. On this issue, Phil was
taken to the woodshed by the philosopher, Keith Yandell, in a debate a
couple of years ago.
Shalom,
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________