Reflectorites
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:24:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[continued]
CH>I will give the proponents of intelligent design credit for having a
>well-thought out, perfectly logical hypothesis that the universe and the
>living things in it are too specifically complex to have arisen by random
>chance alone.
This is really an *amazing* admission by Hamrick.
CH>I agree with the premise of this hypothesis and that has
>bolstered my faith in a divine power.
So is this. But how can it have "bolstered" Hamrick's "faith in a divine
power" if he thinks that that "divine power" didn't work the way that
Dembski maintains?
CH>However, it is not scientific until
>some means of testing that hypothesis can be shown.
Dembski has laid the theoretical framework for ID and Mike Behe has
proposed some tests which Darwinists have tried to falsify. So on
Hamrick's own criteria, ID is "scientific".
Indeed, as Behe has shown, it is the *Darwinists* who are being
unscientific:
"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the
point clear. In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the
bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required
deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the
flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random
mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim,
a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species
lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility,
say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum -or
any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my
claims would be neatly disproven. ...Let's turn the tables and ask,
how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was
produced by Darwinian processes? ... If a scientist went into the
laboratory and grew a flagellum-less bacterial species under
selective pressure for many generations and nothing much
happened, would Darwinists be convinced that natural selection is
incapable of producing a flagellum? I doubt it. It could always be
claimed that the selective pressure wasn't the right one, or that we
started with the wrong bacterial species, and so on. Even if the
experiment were repeated many times under different conditions
and always gave a negative result, I suspect many Darwinists would
not conclude that the claim of its Darwinian evolution was falsified.
Of complex biochemical systems Coyne himself writes "we may
forever be unable to envisage the first protopathways. It is not
valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine
such pathways, they could not have existed." (Coyne 1996) If a
person accepts Darwinian paths which are not only unseen, but
which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively
impossible to make him think he is wrong." (Behe M.J.,
"Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to
Critics," Discovery Institute July 31, 2000.
http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=445)
CH>I have never seen,
>though Dembski and cohorts profess to possess, any viable means of testing
>this hypothesis.
Hamrick has either not looked, or more likely doesn't want to. Besides, if
Hamrick believes that "intelligent design" is "a well-thought out, perfectly
logical hypothesis that the universe and the living things in it are too
specifically complex to have arisen by random chance alone" then why
doesn't *he* himself test it?
CH>Dembski makes claims of a mathematical model based on
>probability statistics that can sort out designed objects from undesigned
>ones. However, I have never seen any articles that enumerate and explain
>this model so that scientists can review it for it's scientific merit.
Dembski has done just this in a monograph "The Design Inference" that
was published by Cambridge University Press.
If Hamrick's claim is that Dembski hasn't published in mainstream peer-
reviewed scientific journals like SCIENCE or NATURE, as Mike Behe's
experience shows, it would be rejected out of hand by the scientific
materialists who control science.
CH>Dr. Dembski also is quite free with his use of the word 'theory'. As
>someone who considers one of his areas of specialization as the philosophy
>of science, Dr. Dembski should understand that a theory, in the scientific
>sense, is a broad idea with implications reaching into many areas of
>science and is based on a long list of scientific research supported by
>data.
This sounds like Hamrick's own special definition of "theory". The
Webster's Dictionary (which Hamrick had cited earlier) defines "theory" as:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory ...
theory ... 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one
another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or
abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music
theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as
the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all
children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts,
principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in
theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible
or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light> 6 a : a
hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an
unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems
presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of
equations> synonym see HYPOTHESIS ...
If having to be "based on a long list of scientific research" is a criterion for
a scientific "theory" then it would be difficult, if not impossible for a
radically new theory to even get started!
Which is no doubt exactly what Hamrick and other Darwinists want!
CH>Considering that one of the purposes of his work is "the promotion
>and advancement of research involving the development and application of
>mathematical tools from probability, complexity, information, stochastic
>process and recursion theory. These tools will be used to analyze various
>cosmological, physical, chemical and biological structures and processes,
>with a view toward the empirical detection of design, if it is there to be
>found", I have to say that the research on how to test the hypothesis has
>yet to begin. So how can an untested hypothesis suddenly become a theory?
Hamrick is splitting hairs. I am sure that Dembski and other IDers would
not particular care if ID is termed a "hypothesis" at this stage. But the fact
is that the same Webster's dictionary which Hamrick cited earlier defines
"theory" as a whole range of things:
http://m-w.com/cgi- bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
... hypothesis ... 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the
sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or
condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption
made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical
consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula
derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle
operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to
provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining
the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range
of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of
evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature
that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the
law of gravitation>. ...
most of which ID would probably be happy with at this stage.
CH>Dr. Dembski does not write scientific articles. In order for scientists
>to gain acceptance of their research, they must publish their research in
>peer reviewed journals.
Which are totally controlled by philosophical materialist-naturalists!
Witness what happened to Behe's attempts to have his ID theories
published in leading scientific journals:
"Much of the material shown posted as "responses to critics" on
this website was originally submitted to several science journals for
consideration for publication. In every case it was turned down.
Below I have included the correspondence between the journals and
myself. Names of journals and individuals have been omitted. The
take-home lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal
editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of
publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the
editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails. Admittedly the
conclusion is based on a small number of experiences, yet years go
by while the experiences accumulate." (Behe M.J.,
"Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to critics
concerning peer-review," Discovery Institute, August 2, 2000.
http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450).
CH>By the time a paper has been published in refereed
>journal, a number of researchers and editors have read over the article and
>determined its validity and integrity as scientific research. Also, in a
>way, the organization that publishes the journal has declared that this is
>the kind of research they wish to support and represent. In an interesting
>study by George Gilchrist at the University of Washington in Seattle, he
>performed a literature search in five computerized databases (BIOSIS,
>Expanded Academic Index, Life Sciences Collection, Medline, and Science
>Citation Index) that catalog scientific periodicals, books, and reports
>from 1982-1997 using the keywords "intelligent design".
CH>He found that "This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports
>published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
>biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's
>diversity". I will take this one step further. I doubt that Dr. Dembski
>or any proponent of intelligent design has ever even submitted an article
>explaining intelligent design to any scientific journal. If they had, then
>it would certainly be rejected for publication due to a lack of real
>scientific merit.
See above. Since "lack of real scientific merit" is defined by materialist-
naturalists as not according to materialist-naturalist philosophy, of course
ID theories must always be rejected for "lack of real scientific merit"!
If materialist-naturalists continue to block ID's access to leading scientific
journals, then the IDers will have no alternative but to go over and around
them.
It is my *personal* view (not necessarily that of the ID movement) that if
the materialist-naturalists continue to be intransigent in blocking ID's
access scientific journals, then they risk a split in science, similar to the split
in Western Christianity that occurred in the Reformation:
"It seems to be not farfetched to compare the current state of
science (and more generally that of academe) to the situation of the
Church at the time of the Reformation, which has been described in
the following way by De Lamar Jensen:
`Until the middle years...the actual number of clergy [read
scientists] increased, but then a decline set in. Even before the
outbreak of the...revolt, their prestige and influence were already
waning. Whether justified or not, the general population's growing
disrespect for the clergy [read scientists], especially the monks
[read researcher-scholars], tended to weaken some of the bonds of
the Christian [read scientific] community and make the church [read
scientific institutions] as a whole more vulnerable to criticism and
attack. It had not been above criticism in earlier ages, but now it
was becoming the practice rather than the exception to blame the
institution as a whole, along with individual members of it, for
infractions...of law and...ethics. As...abuses increased, the
recognition and condemnation of those abuses mounted
proportionally. To compensate for their declining prestige, many
clergymen [read scientists] became even more avaricious [asking
for ever lower teaching loads, higher salaries, freedom to consult
and to found business enterprises; ignoring conflicts of interest],
and the growing chasm between the priesthood [read scientists] and
the laity, and between the higher and lower clergy [read
administrators and practicing scientists], widened.' (Jensen D.L.,
"Reformation Europe: Age of Reform and Revolution," Heath:
Lexington MA, 1981, p.14)
(Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago
IL., 1994, pp.83-84. Words in square brackets in original.)
Such a split into ID and anti-ID streams of science would be *disastrous*
for science, and will lead to a decimation of materialistic-naturalistic
scientists' careers as ID researchers rightfully gained access to their fair
share of publicly funded scientific resources. But if it happens (and the
lesson of history is that it probably will), then materialist-naturalists will
only have themselves to blame.
CH>This rejection of publication would lend credence to their belief in a vast
>naturalistic conspiracy against them in the scientific community.
No. It simply means that those who believe in philosophical or
epistemological materialism-naturalism, would all tend think the same
about an ID theory, without the need for any pre-arranged
"conspiracy".
CH>I have heard no one in the Intelligent Design movement cry 'foul' when
>their papers on intelligent design are rejected by peer review scientific
>journals. Finally, I would like to point out the hypocrisy in
>Dr. Dembski's point, "Most scientific theories these days are initially
>published in specialized journals or monographs, and are directed toward
>experts assumed to possess considerable technical background. Not so
>Darwin's theory. The locus classicus for Darwin's theory remains his
>*Origin of Species*. In it Darwin took his case to the public."
>Considering that Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, and Behe have all written books
>on intelligent design for the general public and nothing for the scientific
>community, isn't this a case, as we say in Texas, of 'the pot calling the
>kettle black'?
No. It is necessary in every major scientific revolution that
those proposing the major paradigm shift take their message
simultaneously to the general public. Darwin did it in order
to go over the heads of the scientific establishment of his day
and waited *20 years* as he built up support among young up-and-coming
leading scientists like Huxley and Hooker.
The ID leaders realise that it might take a generation for this
change to start becoming evident, but quite satisfactory progress is being
made. Already ID has been established in the national consciousness
as *the* official scientific opposition to scientific materialism.
We are witnessing the early stages of scientific revolution (or maybe
counter-revolution) in the making that will rival the Copernican and
Darwinian revolutions!
CH>I write this article not so much to disparage Dr. Dembski or other
>Intelligent Design Creationists, but to point out that in many of their
>writings they are attempting to pass off their ideas as real science
>without actually using the scientific method used by professional
>scientists around the world.
It never seems to occur to Hamrick that the vast majority of the
*leading* "professional scientists around the world" are *atheists*.
To expect that this would not have a decisive effect on *their*
"ideas" of what "real science" and "the scientific method" is
either hopelessly naive or disingenous.
If Hamrick is a Christian does he think that original sin somehow
stops at the Academy of Sciences' gates? Does he think that a
group of people comprised largely of atheists, is more likely
to have purer motives than a group of people comprised largely
of Christians? If he really does think that, then the logical
conclusion is that atheism is true, and Christianity false!
CH>It does not surprise me that Dembski spent so
>much of his article discussing the public perception of Darwinian evolution
>and intelligent design. The need to be perceived as legitimate,
>professional scientists is important to the Intelligent Design
>Creationists.
It is not so much that they "need to be perceived as legitimate,
professional scientists". They *are* "legitimate, professional
scientists"! What the IDers need to do is counter the propaganda
put out by the scientific establishment that they aren't.
CH>In 'What every theologian should know about creation,
>evolution and design', Dembski agrees with Johnson in that 'science is the
>only universally valid form of knowledge within our culture'.
This might give the impression that Dembski and Johnson agree that this is
how it *should* be. But in the article itself, and more clearly in another
article, Dembski made it clear that this view should be *challenged" as
"over-inflated":
"The over-inflated role of science within our society must not be
left unchallenged, and certainly not by Christian educators. Within
our society, science is advertised as the only universally valid form
of knowledge." (Dembski W.A., "Teaching intelligent design as
religion or science?" Reprinted from The Princeton Theological
Review, April 1996,
http://www.origins.org/offices/dembski/docs/bd-design.html)
CH>When you
>take a good look at the articles written by those in the intelligent design
>cause, you see that most of what they write is a lamentation of the
>dominant position of science in America. I have found few papers written
>by the leaders of the intelligent design movement that were not mostly, if
>not wholly, dedicated to this subject.
This is simply not so. Most of ID articles are against the *philosophy* of
materialism-naturalism in *science*. But no doubt because Hamrick equates
materialism-naturalism *with* science, it seems to him that ID is attacking
science itself.
CH>Unfortunately, for a vocal few who cannot live with the idea of Darwinian
>evolution, the Intelligent Design Creationists have given them a seemingly
>valid scientific alternative that is really a hollow philosophical exercise.
Hamrick should read a few opinion polls. 80%+ of the *general public*
(not just Christians) and 40% of *scientists* "cannot live with the idea of
Darwinian evolution". It is only a tiny minority of less than 10% of the
general public and slightly more than half (55%) of scientists who can "live
with the ] idea of Darwinian evolution". Indeed, it is debatable whether
*anyone* including Hamrick and even Dawkins, can *really* "live with the
idea of Darwinian evolution".
CH>Finally, I would like to state that as an instructor in the Biology
>department at Baylor University, I teach that all living things evolve,
>that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is our best explanation for how
>things evolve, that there are flaws in his theory that need to be
>addressed,
Indeed, but these "flaws" are not allowed to be pointed out to school
students:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000725_xnfoj_evolution_.shtml
WorldNetDaily.com ... JULY 25 ... BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Evolution
critic censored Teacher punished for pointing out flaws in Darwin's theory
... A high school science teacher in Minneapolis, Minn., filed an appeal in
state court yesterday, seeking reinstatement as a biology teacher after he
was banned from teaching the course due to his criticism of Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution. The American Center for Law and Justice, an
international public interest law firm, has represented Rod LeVake since his
initial lawsuit in June 1999 against Faribault High School. Accused by the
school's curriculum director of having a deep conflict between his religious
beliefs and the teaching of evolution, LeVake sued the school, denying that
such a conflict exists and demanding to be allowed to teach biology again.
According to the ACLJ, the teacher repeatedly has assured school officials
that he could and would teach the theory of evolution. The lawsuit
contends that LeVake, who holds a masters degree in biology education,
told his superiors he is not interested in teaching creationism in biology
class, but simply wants his students to be aware that not all scientists
accept evolution as an unquestionable fact. He wants to present "an honest
look at some of the scientific weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution,"
said the ACLJ in a statement. ... "This is a case about academic freedom
and a desire to present information about the origins of life," said Francis J.
Manion, senior regional counsel of ACLJ-Midwest, who is representing the
biology teacher. "Teachers must be able to tell students information they
need to make up their minds about issues such as evolution. In this case,
our client wants to be able to look closely at the theory of evolution and
point out flaws concerning Darwin's evolutionary theory -- flaws that are
often articulated by other evolutionists. Unfortunately, it appears the
school district is determined to censor this teacher because they do not
agree with his message," he said. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CH>and that it is possible to be a good Christian and a good
>scientist, despite the Intelligent Design Creationists' attempts to
>polarize the two ways of living.
Interesting how Hamrick puts it - "possible"!
But Hamrick simply ignores the fact that the leading *Darwinists* have
polarized "the two ways of living", from Darwin who wrote "I can indeed
hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true" (Grene M.,
"The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.48), to
Dawkins today who claims that religious "faith is one of the world's great
evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." (Dawkins
R., "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist (vol. 57, Jan/Feb 1997), p. 26).
Why doesn't Hamrick publicly criticise also his atheist Darwinist colleagues
rather than exclusively criticising his Christian brothers? After all, the
Darwinists are actually in *power* whereas Dembski and Johnson are not.
[...]
>Copyright 2000 iiNet Limited (ACN 068 628 937, ABN 48 068 628 937). All Rights
Reserved.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 16:54:30 EDT