Re: random observations on science and the supernatural

Denis Lamoureux (dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:27:46 -0600 (MDT)

Hello Bill,

On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Bill Hamilton wrote:

> I just finished reading Brian Harper's latest contribution to the "Is it
> soup yet..." thread and noted that he and Steve have again touched on some
> issues I frequently ponder:
>
> 1. Why is it that the people who want science to include the supernatural
> in its investigations are mostly nonscientists?

Very telling question. You know this kind of mentality reminds me of
the time I was involved in a debate over whether we should put flouride in
the water in my town. Why was it that it was people with little to next
to no training in the clinical sciences that were making the greatest
noise against flouride?

> 2. If science is ever going to investigate the supernatural, it must have
> a blueprint or map which defines _how_ to do it. If the Phil Johnsons
> of the world are going to continue arguing for theistic realism and
> never show how to conduct scientific investigations under the assumptions
> of theistic realism, and the rest of us are going to continue to assert
> that science can't investigate the supernatural, this impasse will
> remain. It does no good for Phil to say, "I don't _have_ to offer
> an alternative."

Even more telling. This is one of my great frustrations with these
amateurs. Methodologically, their approach is sort of like "intellectual
drive by shooting." It is easy to criticize evolution, but it's another
thing to be insightful enough to offer an alternate theory. The reason
Phil can't offer another theory is that he doesn't know enough biology
to synthesize one (and I believe he is smart enough to know he'd be
wasted in the public eye if he tried).

In a way it all boils down to information, and whether the amateurs
(both scientific and theological) are going to have the humility to
acknowledge they are making assertions well beyond the limits of their
knowledge and expertise. And I know what I am talking about--I use to be a
Stephen Jones--for that matter, I entered a PhD in biology with the
Stephen Jones view of origins.

Regards,
Denis

----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA

Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000

E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."

------------------------------------------------------------