>How am I supposed to lurk when you guys keep pushing my hot buttons?
It's only because we enjoy your presence, Paul.
But you're right, sometimes it's like trying to say "Goodbye"
on the phone.
>Tim Ikeda wrote:
>
>>WRT the Biola Origins conference: I've never been to a scientific
>>conference that ended with a Sunday worship service.
>
>Meaning?
This is more along the lines of "political advice" (politics of
science?) than personal rebuke.
>Some possibilities:
>
>1. Kiss objectivity and good science goodbye. Those people, or some
>of them, are actually going to PRAY and SING together. That cannot be
>consistent with science.
It certainly can be consistent, particularly if it's a conference
of/for Christians.
>2. Worry about objectivity, if not actually kiss it goodbye.
>After all, when people walk through the doors of a church...
In truth, I've worried about option #2. But I hope for option #3.
However, I wouldn't take #2 quite so negatively. I don't think
that people check their brains at the doors of a church. But
I do know that one's preferred interpretation of the Bible can
colors one's approach to the origins questions. This is not
inherently bad but I feel that it could potentially limit the
types of model developed (The same has been said for preferring
methodological materialism). Fortunately, Christian views
of origins run the range from YEC to TE which covers a lot
of territory. However, there are many, many other creationist
scenarios that are possible. Hopefully participants will not
view the goal of the conference as being to separate materialist
philosophy from empirical science in order to replace it with a
theistic position more in line with one's own interpretation
of Genesis. This, I feel would limit the search.
I wonder what the history of science and its interaction with
Christianity would have been had Genesis been written differently.
For example, what if it read, "And God created the world for life
to arise out of it. Life arose, and God said 'Good.' And kind
was created out of kind and there arose in one animal self-awareness
and reflective thought. And God said, 'Very good. This animal,
which is capable of thought and reflective intention is sentient
I will imbue with an immortal soul and give it my laws by which a
sentient being should live and prosper.' And it was so. etc...."
Had this happened, I think there would be far fewer supporters of
most current creationary schemes. Perhaps Fred Hoyle, Rupert
Sheldrake, and a few other scientists of different faiths
would remain.
>3. Let the conference speak for itself. Objectivity is as
>objectivity does, Sunday morning services notwithstanding. Those
>conferees who don't care about the service can sleep in on Sunday
>morning.
Well, they'd better not sleep through the services or they'll miss
Johnson's talk immediately afterwards.
>As I think highly of Tim, I'll assume he means (3).
I hope for #3. I really do understand that where a new idea or
theory comes from should ideally have no impact on how it is
judged or tested. Knowing you, Paul, I am sure that examples
of such objectivity will be found at the conference.
>That's the position consistent with the rest of his post, where
>he notes that religion is irrelevant to the merits of a scientific
>paper or proposal.
>
>Right, Tim?
To be honest, the idea of having worship services scheduled into a
scientific conference still feels awkward to me although I'll
try to be optimistic. Or perhaps I'm reading it wrong and the
conference really is about intergrating science with Biblical
interpretation. In any case, the data does fall where it falls.
However strategically (wrt - politics of science) and in terms of
gaining rapid acceptance, I think it could be a hindrance. Again,
this is political advice, not personal criticism.
I realize that this work is very preliminary and if group prayer
inspires people to think better then it wouldn't hurt to use it
(many conferences schedule around religious obligations rather
than schedule it into the conference). I hope that Thurday
morning's session, "Foundations for a theory of design" will be
stimulating and useful in formulating a theory of design.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)
PS - I am monitoring this list through Terry's Web site so
replies cc'd to me might reach me quicker.