>SB>why on earth do you think Christian scientists are not loyal to the data?
Stephen:
>I am not necessarily saying that they aren't. My point was that if the "data"
>is pointing in one direction and "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" is
>pointing in another, their loyalty should be to the data, not the philosophy.
agreed. What makes you think they are disloyal to the data?
>It is obvious when the loyalty is to the philosophy when rules of reasoning
>are enforced that rule out apriori data that may be accepted and if it is
>accepted a forced interpretation is imposed on it.
>
>An example is the evidence for design, which is so strong that scientific
>materialists like Francis Crick have to keep reminding themselves that what
>they are seeing is not designed (see tagline).
appearances are deceiving. We still customarily refer to the earth as
flat even if we don't believe it because it *looks* flat. Also we
refer to stars as "up there" instead of "out there" because it
*looks* like "up."
>SB>This chemist's opinion is not data. It is his opinion. I read his talk and
>>I couldn't see him offer any supporting evidence for his opinion other than
>>a lack of imagination and information.
>
>An address does not have footnotes to it! Since it was to an audience of his
>peers of analytical chemists, one can assume they all knew the basis of what
>he was saying, even if laypersons like Susan doesn't.
he needn't have hit the audience with figures and charts but "based
upon my own research" or "from what I have read in the field" or
*something*. He presents nothing but his on incredulity.
>
>SB>If he is going to talk about things >outside his field he really needs to
>be more informed about it.
>
>I presume that biochemistry and molecular biology *are* Hirsch's field.
you mention in passing in the paragraph above this one that his
peers are analytical chemists. I did a web search on him. Big
surprise. He's an analytical chemist.
> >SJ>But I can think of *no* excuse for a scientist who claims to be
>a Christian
>>>to persist with to persist with a "loyalty" to a "materialistic-naturalistic
>>>philosophy" rather than to the "data".
>>>
>>>That of course does not mean that there *is* no excuse. It is just that I
>>>personally cannot think of one. Mind you it would be interesting to see if
>>>any "Christian evolutionist" on this List would supply an excuse why they
>>>should have a loyalty to a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" rather
>>>than to the "data".
>
>SB>If I were one of them I would be deeply insulted by this remark.
>
>Since Susan is an atheist who has "a loyalty to a `materialistic-naturalistic
>philosophy'" it is not surprising that she would feel "insulted" at any
>suggestion that there could a divided "loyalty" between a "materialistic-
>naturalistic philosophy" and the "data".
No. I would be insulted to be told that I would ignore
data--especially if I were a scientist.
>But if a "Christian evolutionist" is really a Christian, at some point he/she
>must reject a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" in their private life.
the "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" thing is your bugbear
(and Johnson's) and is a strawman. You can't assume miracles when you
do science. You have to assume that it is possible to understand what
you are researching. That is the underlying assumption that is
required for science to commence. Christians believe that God
created everything. Scientists who are Christians must believe that
God created everything *and doesn't screw around with it*. That God
probably wouldn't create something that needed further fixing,
tinkering or intervention to make it all come out right. If God
touched off the Big Bang He created us in that instant because he
knew it would end up with us.
Why am I a better Christian theologian than you are? I don't even
believe this stuff.
>Therefore asking a "Christian evolutionist" to reconsider whether their
>"loyalty" in science is to "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" or "to the
>`data'" is reasonable, to say the least.
Christian evolutionists are such because they refuse to ignore the
data--and wish to remain Christians.
>SB>The >scientific method is a way of getting at the truth of things.
>
>Agreed. But the history of science shows that human philosophy can get in
>the way when it assumes in advance what is "the truth of things".
That's what peer review is for. It will eventually shake out the
truth from the advance assumptions. Peer review is what the ID
theorists have such a big problem with. They get peer reviewed like
any other scientific hypothesis and all of a sudden IDists start
whining "rules, insults, threats and intimidation . . . prevent [us
from] presenting [our] "data" "
>SB>It intends to
>>eliminate wishful thinking and magical thinking.
>
>Agreed. "Materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" is an example of such
>"wishful thinking and magical thinking".
>It wishes there was no God and believes that the universe just popped into
>existence of its own accord.
"philosophy" can't wish something.
>SB>The truth of things is
>>supposed to be extremely important to Christians.
>
>Agreed.
>
>SB>If God exists and
>>Christianity is true, they exist in the same reality as science and
>>evolution.
>
>The point is that "If God exists and Christianity is true" then
>"materialistic-
>naturalistic philosophy" is *false*.
no it's not. You just don't get that. Evolution is true. If
Christianity is true (and not wishful thinking) then it is true
*also*. They don't--can't--cancel each other out. That's why Behe's
argument fails and why a lot of ID-ists' and creationists' arguments
fail. They think if they can find a "problem" or two with evolution,
then Christianity is true. They could *both* be wrong, but I've never
run across a Christian in a debate that would admit such a thing.
They are so locked into the idea that Christianity is right and
*therefore* evolution is wrong that they can never seem to wrap their
minds around the idea that if *evolution* is right, it does not
necessarily mean that Christianity is wrong. It really just means
that they need to learn more about their own religion.
>SB>If ID exists and the hand of God has been tinkering with the
>>history of life for the last 3.5 billion years, that tinkering should leave
>>behind traces that can be detected using the scientific method.
>
>This is in fact what the ID movement claims, namely that "the hand of
>God" (i.e. an intelligent designer) has left "behind traces that can be
>detected using the scientific method"!
and has been crashingly unsuccessful at demonstrating such. Oh, you
can write a popular best seller, for the folks in the pews, but you
can't get around that pesky peer review thing. All novel, new
scientific ideas have to be put up so that tomatoes can be thrown at
them. The only way to survive is to throw data back. So far all
ID-ists have done is bitch about how unfair and just plain bad
manners it is to have tomatoes thrown at them like they were the very
first and only ones to ever have that happen. (They should talk to
both the cold fusion guys *and* the continental drift guy.)
>I would add that the ID movement does not have to "produce any of these
>traces". Materialistic-naturalistic science is doing the job of detecting
>design for them. Read any molecular biological journal. It is all now in the
>language of design!
as metaphor, nothing else!
>But nevertheless, as it was with me in the health industry, so it must be
>with my Christian evolutionist brothers in science. If they claim to be
>Christians their duty as is clear. They *must* not allow a "materialistic-
>naturalistic philosophy" to control their thinking to the extent
>that it denies
>in advance the data which might be revealing "traces that can be detected
>using the scientific method" of "the hand of God".
>
>Now it may be that in the end God did in fact create 100% through a
>natural evolutionary processes and so most Christians are wrong and the
>atheists are right. I think that is highly unlikely, but it is
>possible that He
>could have and who am I to tell God how he should create?
>
>But in that case, what have these "Christian evolutionists" got to worry
>about? The "data" should show that fact without having to erect elaborate
>rules, which guarantee that only a 100% naturalistic evolutionary
>conclusion is acceptable. Why all their efforts, alongside the
>atheists, trying
>to prevent IDers making their case? If they think their 100% naturalistic
>evolutionary position is right they should welcome IDers to the debate
>knowing that in the end the IDers *must* lose.
The "elaborate rules" you speak of is called "the scientific method."
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/science/scimeth1.htm
Science must adhere to it and so must ID if it is to be considered
science. ID does not get special treatment. Why should it? Nobody is
trying to "prevent" IDers from making their case. How would they? In
fact scientists are trying to push IDers *into* making some kind of
case. There is a significant movement--including myself--that wishes
ID not to be taught in public schools *as science*. But serious
scientific research does not get done in the 11th grade.
>Deep down those who advocate a 100% naturalistic evolutionary process
>(Christians and non-Christians), and who refuse to *welcome* ID to the
>debate, but instead use rules, insults, threats and intimidation to prevent
>them presenting their "data" *must* know their position is shaky. There is
>simply no other reasonable explanation for their behaviour:
Putting "data" in quotes is a black lace Freudian slip. The fact that
ID isn't science and has no supporting "data" isn't a possibility for
scientific annoyance with it, I suppose.
Susan
-- ----------I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 17:46:34 EDT