On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:12:13 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
>BH>One of us surely is. I hope to show it is you :). The point I
>think that you are evading is that science cannot address the
>supernatural.
>SJ>No. I am not evading that "science cannot address the supernatural".
>I already have responded to that (see below):
BH>But your response was an evasion. You did not specify how science
>could go about investigating the supernaturalistic origin of
>life.
>
>I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Supernaturalistic
>explanations are not ruled out a-priori they're ruled out for
>very good reasons. The methods of science cannot address the
>supernatural. Your responses in this thread have been ample
>evidence of this.
This is no reason. It is just defining to exclude. Johnson says:
"The Academy's brief went on to cite evidence for evolution, but
evidence was unnecessary. Creationists are disqualified from making a
positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism.
The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation
designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.
Creationism is thus out of court-and out of the classroom- before any
consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist
who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal
defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so
absurd a concept as `innocence.' " (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as
Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", Foundation for Thought and
Ethics, 1990, p9)
BH>But remember the key point. This places a limitation on science
>and not on reality. If Dawkins wants to say otherwise, then
>we'll nail him. What do you say? ;-)
Of course "science" is limited. It is a work of finite man, not of
God. But I disagree that it has to be *that* limited. There is no
reason why science needs to exclude the supernatural, unless it
somehow knows that the supernatural doesn't exist. In the case of
origins, this is just bad science:
"The domination of naturalistic philosophy in our intellectual
institutions has had disastrous consequences for Christian faith. It
has also led science itself astray. Some of the best examples of how
naturalism makes bad science are in the essay "Information and the
Origin of Life" by Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton. Scientific
naturalists have had to pretend that the "mystery of life's origins"
is well on the way to a solution, and to further that illusion they
have deceived themselves and filled their textbooks with misleading
information. In the stereotyped view of the evolution-creation
controversy it is the believers in creation who are supposed to pit
"faith" against "reason." Yet anyone who reads Bradley and Thaxton
with an open mind can see that it is the chemical evolutionists who
are blinded by their faith in naturalistic solutions and who cannot
see the meaning of the fact that is staring them in the face."
(Johnson P.E., in Moreland J.P. (ed.), "The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press:
Illinois, 1994, p7-8)
>--Wed, 13 Mar 96 06:13:54 EST -----------------------------
>BH>Are we in agreement that the supernaturalistic origins of life
>cannot be verified by scientific methods?
>SJ>No. It may be that "the supernaturalistic origins of life" *can
>be* "verified by scientific methods". But it is just ruled out of
>court apriori by materialist-naturalistic science. My point was that
>"scientific research into a naturalistic origin of life has been
>unsuccessful for 83 years" and "when does dogged persistence become
>obsessive folly?"....
BH>OK, you insist on an answer, here it is:
>
>First, though, I have to ask yet another question. What on earth
>gave you the idea that I have enough knowledge of the subject
>to even make a guess? It really is a silly question which I
>should answer "I don't know, do you?", but since you insist
>on an answer, here is my considered opinion:
>
>Scientific investigation into the origin of life has barely
>begun. Many new ideas are being generated all the time.
>These ideas should be followed up. Research should continue
>for as long as someone wants to try and can generate the
>funds required.
Thanks. :-)
When they got to a point when *no one* "wants to try" and *no one*
wants to "generate the funds required", does that then not mean that
no naturalistic solution to the origin of life will ever be found?
[...]
>SJ>Naturalism has a monopoly of the scientific resources of the
>State at its disposal and denies that there even "a
>supernaturalistic origins of life" can be a subject for "scientific
>research".
>BH>I also deny it yet I am not a Naturalist.
SJ>You presumably are not a metaphysical naturalist? Johnson would
>probably classify you as a "theistic naturalist":
BH>Perhaps, why should I care? I mentioned previously the debates
>that went on here before you signed on. Several people gave
>reasoned "pleas" with Phil that the "theistic naturalist"
>label distorts their view. Phil apparantly doesn't care.
>He wants to win by marginalizing his opponents with word
>games. Exactly what he "complains" about naturalists doing.
You are a theist who defends naturalism over against supernaturalism.
That sounds an apt description to me. What would you call yourself?
>SJ>So are you as a theist, who presumably believes that in fact God
>did create the first life, believe that it is OK if science goes on
>wasting taxpayers money for another "2000 years" trying to prove what
>you believe didn't happen?
BH>You claim the taxpayers money is being wasted. I'm sure you
>wouldn't claim this without some evidence. Why don't you share that
with us?
It is a deduction. *If* God created the first life, then taxpayers
money is being wasted trying to prove it arose spontaneously.
BH>a) please outline (roughly) the history of the scientific
>investigation into life's origin. What are the successes and
>failures? What has been learned?
I didn't say that it was a *total* waste. No doubt some good comes out
of even fruitfless scientific research.
BH>b) Give a rough figure on how much has been spent, total and
>current spending per year.
I did not mention an exact figure. I assume it is is many millions
of dollars.
>c) Roughly give a monetary equivalent on what has been learned. Be
>sure to include secondary benefits to biotechnology. [for example,
>what is Joyce's (and others) findings in directed molecular evolution
>worth to the pharmaceutical industry?]
See above.
BH>Really, Steve, this insinuation about wasting taxpayers money
>is ugly. It just further demonstrates how bankrupt your position
>is. All you have is logical fallacies, hints at coverups,
>compaints that you are ruled out of court _a-priori_, and
>thinly veiled political threats.
BH>What a nice apologetic.
This is not my "position" nor my "apologetic", Brian. You have just
cobbled together a collection of straw men, by putting the worst
possible construction on what I said. I had actuallu apologised for
the misunderstanding re the date of Yockey's publication of Loeb's
priority. I find it most interesting that you apparently need to try
to discredit my "position" by such tactics. The nastiness that is
creeping into your messages does make me wonder if I should continue
debating with you.
[...]
>BH>Let's discuss the argument from the false alternative a little.
>First let me submit the following definition that I dug up:
>>
>> Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives:
>> The error of insisting without full inquiry or evidence that
>> the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted
>> and/or are mutually exclusive.
>
>SH>No. We can discuss this point when you have *first* answered my
>original question:
BH>OK, your turn.
I think my original point was that if all plausible naturalistic
explanations failed, that is good evidence for a supernaturalistic
explanation. Hodge says:
"3. Can a Miracle be known as such?
This is denied on various grounds.
1. It is said, if a miracle be an event which transcends the
efficiency of second causes we must have a perfect knowledge of the
power of such causes, before we can decide that a particular event is
miraculous. But as such perfect knowledge is impossible, it must be
impossible for us to decide whether it is a miracle or not. It must
be admitted that in many cases the mere nature of an event does not
afford a certain criterion of its character as natural or
supernatural. To savages many effects which to us are easily
accountable as the product of natural causes, appear to be miraculous.
An adept in the arts of legerdemain, or a man of science, may do many
things entirely unaccountable by the uninitiated, which they therefore
cannot distinguish from miracles by anything in the mere nature of the
effects themselves. But this objection applies only to a certain
class of miracles. There are some events which so evidently transcend
the power of nature that there can be no rational doubt as to their
supernatural origin. No creature can create or originate life, or
work without the intervention of means. A large class of the miracles
recorded in Scripture imply the exercise of a power which can belong
to God alone. The multiplying a few loaves and fishes so as to
satisfy the hunger of thousands of men, raising the dead, and giving
sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, not by the appliances of
art, but by a command, are clearly effects which imply the exercise of
almighty power. Besides, it is to be considered that the nature of
the event is not the only criterion by which we are to determine its
character. To prove an event in the external world to be miraculous,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
we have only to prove that it is not the effect of any natural cause,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and that it is to be referred to the immediate agency of God. To
produce this conviction moral evidence is quite as effective as any
other. Such an event may be, as far as we can see, supernatural,
either in its nature or in the mode of its occurrence, but that alone
would not justify us in referring it to God. Much depends on the
character of the agent and the design for which the wonder is wrought.
If these be evidently bad, we cannot be convinced that God has wrought
a miracle. But if both the character of the agent and the design of
his work are good, then we are easily and rationally convinced that
the wonder is leally a miracle." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology",
Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co: London, 1960 reprint, pp629-630)
>SJ>The point is that "theistic science" will *never* get an article
>in Nature until naturalists change their philosphy that nature is all
>there is.
>BH>But Polkinghorne published an article in _Nature_ attacking the
>philosophy that nature is all there is.
SJ>Before I comment, could I have the reference to the article please?
BH>John Polkinghorne, "Scientism Disguised", Nature 360:378, 1992.
Thanks. I will obtain it and get back to you. It might takle a week or
two, since I am going to Singapore for a week, and it might take a
bit longer to get to a library.
>[...]
>BH>The point was that the orbit of the earth is determined by law and
>not by chance. The origin of life may be deterministic rather than
>stochastic or it may involve a combination of deterministic and
>stochastic elements or it may involve something no one even has a
>clue of or it may be undecidable.
>SJ No doubt. But this is a red-herring. I repeat:
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>The "orbit of the earth" is not a unique, historical event, life
>the origin of life was. You are confusing *origins* with
>*operations*! :-)
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Brian, we are never going to get anywhere if you don't deal with
>what I say, but slide off on tangents! :-)
BH>Good grief Steve. You are the one trying to slip out of a noose.
>You claimed that there were only two alternatives, chance and
>intelligent design. You forgot about physical law. If you
>don't like my example, so what, its just an example. The point
>is that I have shown your claim to be false.
I am not trying to "slip out of a noose". I still maintain that
"there were only two alternatives, chance and intelligent design".
Physical law does not apply to unique events, such as the origin of
life. And even if it did, it would be part of "intelligent design"
SJ>Experience on fidonet has
>taught me that this is a black hole, so I will insist on you answering
>my points before we go on to discuss yours. If you insist on me
>answering your counter-questions before you answer my original
>questions, then our discussion will end on that topic. :-)
BH>I have stayed right on topic. Your hand is empty.
See above.
>BH>Sorry if I misrepresent your views but you sure do talk a lot about
>cover-ups for someone who is not making a charge of there being a
>cover-up.
SJ>Unfortunately, you do seem to "misrepresent" my "views", Brian!
>:-) You are trying to show that I am claiming that there definitely
>*was* a "cover-up". I emphatically do *not* assert that there *was* a
>cover up! I do "talk a lot about cover-ups" because you keep
>challenging me on it, so I have to keep repeating what I said with
>the words "cover up" included! :-)
BH>I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about cover-ups
>or conspiracies?
I have *never ever* said anything about "conspiracies". This is your
own word which perhaps reflects your own jaundiced view of me. And my
"cover-up" remark was on a spectrum from "paradigm blindness" to
"cover up" as a worst-case scenario. Moreover, it was based on a
misunderstanding, for which I have apologised.
But I will not totally rule out the possibility of cover-ups, because
there have been cover-ups in science in the past. I do find it hard
to believe that a German OOL researcher never noticed Loeb's actual
words, but it is possible. However, I will suspend judgement to see
if in a reasonable period of time (eg. a year?), Loeb will be given
his rightful priority (assuming Yockey is right).
God bless.
Steve
PS: I will be unsubscribing after this message for a week, so send any
reply cc. me personally. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------