On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:43:42 -0500 (CDT), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>>Chris is here just setting up a special definition of science to protect his
>>materialist-naturalist philosoiphy. There is no reason why science should
>>not study the natural world to see if they reveal the *effect* of an
>>Intelligent Designer.
SB>He is using science in the sense of definition 3b in Webster's 3rd "such
>knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : Natural
>science."
Modern day dictionaries' definition of science simply reflect today's dominant
materialistic-naturalistic worldview.
SB>Fairies and gods are not part of the natural, physical world and
>therefore are outside of science. Even scientists who believe in fairies and
>gods don't consider those things to be part of science, but outside the
>perview of science.
I am not arguing for "fairies and gods." I am arguing for *God* the Creator!
It is Susan's materialistic-naturalistic prejudice which lumps God into the
same categories as "fairies and gods."
SB>Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. You should keep
>that in mind.
What has that got to do with it? Is Susan now arguing that science is a
special way of thinking that only scientists can understand?
In anyevent, Johnson is not just a lawyer. He is a senior Professor of
Law at one of the major universities in the USA, "with a specialty in
analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that
lie behind those arguments" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p13). Analysing the arguments of Darwinists is right up his alley:
"CJ: So, your outside perspective coming at the problem from a
background in law has been a real benefit to you, while you've also had to
deal with the criticism you've taken for not being a scientist?
Phil: That's right. It's really within my field. Biologists who spend their
lifetimes studying biology will be legitimate authorities, obviously, on the
details of what they've learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't
really challenge that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe in not
because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of what they know as
biologists. It's a philosophical movement based on materialism. And they
say, "Well, materialism--that's science and that's our philosophy, and you
should believe it because we believe it." At this point, you know, they're
not entitled to any particular respect because they are not telling you what
they know as biological specialists. They're telling you the prejudice that
dominates the their field. So, that's a thinking issue, and it's really more
within my discipline than it's within theirs."
(Lawrence J. "Communique, Interview: Phillip E. Johnson," Communique: A
Quarterly Journal, Spring, 1999. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/commsp99.htm)
SB>1. How would you guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer?
>2. If you could guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer, what would it
>get you? How would it affect the work of science?
The first thing for science is to admit that there *could* in principle,
be evidence of the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world.
[...]
>SJ>Again this is just materialist philosophical dogmatism. There is no reason
>>why the scientific method is not applicable to the work of an Intelligent
>>Designer.
SB>give me a example of applying the scientific method to the work of an
>Intelligent Designer. You should also be aware that scientific philosophy
>and science are not the same thing.
The second step is to redefine "the scientific method" so that it does not
rule out in advance evidence for "the work of an Intelligent Designer."
>SJ>The scientific method is applicable to the work of human
>>intelligent designers (eg. archaeology, forensic science) and even alien
>>intelligent designers (eg. SETI).
SB>we know there are humans, because *we* are humans. We know there are other
>life forms, because *we* are life forms. If there are gods among us (I
>happen to know there are fairies among us, but they are not *that* kind of
>fairies.) they are being mighty quiet.
We don't "know there are other life forms." We know that we could in principle
recognise alien intelligent design because we are intelligent designers.
Similarly, we can, in principle, recognise supernatural Intelligent Design.
>SJ>"Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed.,
>>"The Creation Hypothesis," 1994, pp100,102)
SB>ROFL!!
Again thanks to Susan proving my point. She thinks it is a laughing matter
that there could be a "a Scientific `Theory of Creation'. It would therefore
be a waste of time to provide evidence for Intelligent Design to her for
consideration until she is willing to admit that in principle there could be
scientific evidence for ID.
>SJ>Not really. Christians believe the Bible is true, but that does not mean that
>>they do not question what it means. The fact that there at least four
>>possible interpretations of the above passage in Joshua demonstrates that.
SB>I find it astonishing that this applies to every book of the bible except
>Genesis.
Again Susan shows her prejudice. She seems to think that creationism entails
taking the early chapters of Genesis literally. I am a creationist and I made
the point in my first message that: "...I regard Genesis 1-11 as real history
expressed in symbolic form."
There are in fact several possible interpretations of Genesis 1 (for example),
ranging from fuly literal to fully symbolic. Blocher lists *four* main systems
of interpretation of Genesis 1: 1) "literal interpretation"; 2) "reconstruction
theory"; 3) "concordist theory"; and 4) "literary...framework".
"If we put aside suggestions that are too marginal or lightweight, like that
of the days of visions, there remain four rival theories in the arena. These
four interpretations which enjoy considerable support amongst the
Christian public (if not amongst the specialists) vary sufficiently from one
another to necessitate a choice between them. Were we to classify these
four positions in order of decreasing tension between them and the
conclusions of geology and paleontology, we should have to start with the
literal interpretation which takes the days as 24-hour days, for it leads to a
total rejection of the usual dating of the cosmos and its associated theories.
The reconstruction theory would come next; that takes the days as days in
which God restored the earth after it had been ruined by the fall of the
devil. So it allows the original creation (Gn. 1:1 only) all the time anyone
wants. But the plan corresponds poorly with the scientific reconstruction of
the past. Third would come the concordist theory which sees the days as
ages or geological eras. It agrees more closely with the views of the
scientists, which is precisely its aim. As for the fourth, it takes its place
without any difficulty, since it views the framework of the days as a logical
and literary device; the point of conflict disappears." (Blocher H., "In The
Beginning," 1984, pp40-41).
Personally I hold the Literary Framework interpretation as being the correct
interpretation of Genesis 1, based on its internal textual evidence.
>>>CC>You mean, aside from the fact that it's unbelievably stupid?
>SJ>This is just materialist prejudice. If the Bible *is* God's message to man,
>>then it is *wisdom* to believe it, and "unbelievably stupid" not to.
SB>Indeed! but it remains to be proven that it *is* some god's message to man.
>In fact it's not amenable to proof. It must be believed or not.
I made no claim that I could *prove* the Bible was God's message to man. But
I would point out that it is problematic whether even scientific theories
are "not amenable to proof". With the Bible, like a pudding, the proof is
in the `eating'. I certainly could not prove the Bible was God's message
to man to people like Susan who don't even believe there is a God!
[...]
>SJ>This is just a myth. Scientists when they start studying science as students
>>in school accept the whole corpus of science on faith. It is only many years
>>later, if at all, that they subject it to criticism in any fundamental way. If
>>scientists were to work from the bottom up, as Chris suggested, they
>>probably would not even pass science subjects at school and so would
>>never get to be scientists!
SB>It *is* best not to have every generation re-invent the wheel. Howevewr,
>scientists don't take what they see on faith for long. Some observations can
>be repeated and some can't. The ones that can't are going to get talked
>about. That's how Ph.D.s are born.
Ph.D's are *specialists* in their own area of expertise, so they must rely on
the authority of other scientists in other fields. Even in their own field, they
can't possibly check everything personally, so they must rely on the
authority of other scientists there as well. As Johnson points out:
"Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist
outside his field of expertise is just another layman." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial," 1993, p13)
>SJ>The opposite principle of believing everything is false, until it is proved
>true, like Hume tried to do, even the atheist Russell says is bankrupt:
SB>You're a fan of Russell? Me too! :-)
So presumably Susan accepts that Russell is right that "the...principle of believing
everything is false, until it is proved true...is bankrupt"?
>SJ>"In a sense, his scepticism is insincere, since he cannot maintain it in
>practice. It has, however, this awkward consequence, that it paralyses
>every effort to prove one line of action better than another." (Russell
>B., "History of Western Philosophy," 1993, pp645- 646)
SB>you need to re-read this passage. I think Russell is not supporting your
>point. I think he's castigating Hume for not being skeptical enough.
For a "fan of Russell" Susan doesn't understand him at this point, which is
that it was *impossible* for Hume to consistently carry through his
principle of scepticism. That's why Russell says "Hume's philosophy...
represents the bankruptcy of eighteenth-century reasonableness" and
"Hume, by his consistency, showed that empiricism, carried to its logical
conclusion, led to results which few human beings could bring themselves
to accept, and abolished, over the whole field of science, the distinction
between rational belief and credulity. " (Russell B., "History of Western
Philosophy," 1993, pp645,676)
>SJ>"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who
>>comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who
>>earnestly seek him."
SB>:-) that explains why the big tornado that swept through OKC last May jumped
>over all the Christian churches.
Attempted change of subject noted!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate
fashion to the experimental method of science itself...It is surely one of the
curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to
do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be
rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that
assumption." (Eiseley L., "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who
Discovered It," [1958], Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY,
1961, reprint, p62)
--------------------------------------------------------------------