From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 15:36:44 EDT
Josh Bembenek wrote:
>
> Glenn-
>
> You wrote: "Josh, have you ever noticed how you seem quite often to think
> others don't think critically?"
>
> -I think this is the first time I ever used this term, and also would point
> out that I did not accuse anyone specifically of this crime. I do, however,
> cringe when I see debate tactics being employed as truth statemtents, and so
> I have no problem shooting off my own debate rhetoric from time to time.
> (Howard's comments imply strongly that ID is way off base in their
> criticisms. This, by the way is the issue I specifically responded to, not
> the credibility of this claim. If I disagreed with the claim, I may have
> actually offered some reasons for it.)
>
> "Have you ever noticed that you almost always oppose scientific
> explanations?"
>
> -I wish you could be more specific. I look up Pubmed articles related to my
> field on a daily basis, rarely do I "oppose" them. By the way, are you
> equating "interpretation" with "explanation"? If so, then I have a lot of
> problems with many interpretations I see that do not seem reasonable. For
> example, Micheal Ruse spoke at my university and I had the opportunity of
> chatting with him over lunch. During his lecture he cited many examples of
> evolution in action, yet when probed to consider scenarios based upon actual
> facts from science, he was quite lacking. He specifically claimed that
> genome size cripples organisms to support a conclusion that he was drawing.
> I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with his conclusions based on his
> inaccurate depiction of science, and the lack of mechanism or detail. My
> colleague agreed with me, and also disagreed with his explanations and
> conclusions, despite being an atheistic evolutionist. I think it should be
> quite obvious that an explanation lacking detail or mechanism is much more
> prone to error than one complete with it. Suggesting that those who remain
> skeptical of explanations wanting in detail or mechanism are only motivated
> by some other personal problem appears to be a way of discounting them
> rather than dealing with their criticisms.
>
> "Have you ever noticed the logical deduction that this requires that you are
> the most critically thinking individual on earth?"
>
> -Perhaps you are uncomfortable that I remain critical of Darwinian
> evolution? Perhaps if I had posted an email consisting of an equally strong
> statement supporting evolution, you would have told me how right I was. I
> guess if you construe my participation on this forum the way you have, I
> would agree that you have made a logical, although not the only possible,
> deduction. I however, think that it is poorly represented for a journal of
> professional Christian scientists to consistently portray on its' email
> listserve that all scientists accept evolutionary scenarios with high
> confidence, and only the silly little IDers (who, of course, are actually
> politicians and followers of Reverend Moon -can we say Ad Hominem- rather
> than scientists) or uneducated bible literalists disagree. Maybe Howard,
> despite is Anti-ID campain, should quit belittling the criticism that ID has
> generated, regardless of their agenda or motivations.
>
> "Have you ever noticed that this logically requires that you be one of the
> few people with the true knowledge on the face of the earth, i.e., that the
> vast majority of others are wrong?"
>
> -Tsk, tsk, aren't we taking our theory a bit personal? Given your
> assumptions and subsequent deduction, this wouldn't be too bad I guess.
>
> "Have you considered how this might look a bit egotistical to those
> observing you?"
>
> -And how would Howard's comments appear to those still open/interested in
> the claims from those nasty "Iders?" I'll explicitly state that I'm not
> calling him egotistical, simply dogmatic. I'd prefer to challenge the fact
> that he dogmatically adhers to opposing ID at every possibility, and if that
> appears to be egotistical to you, my apologies. (By the way, are those who
> author pro-ID papers in the PCSF also so egotistically inclined in your
> careful estimation?) In the end, I am a Christian scientist, and I do not
> agree with every evolutionary scenario that comes my way. However you
> perceive the opinion I have of myself when I speak critical comments
> concerning evolution theories is up to you. But my ego is certaintly not
> the issue of science that I'm interested in discussing here. I don't see
> how airing this on the listserve is constructive or beneficial to anyone,
> unless you have deeper intentions than looking out for my personal growth
> and maturation with insightful questions.
>
> "I only mention this because when I was an anti-evolutionist, I was plagued
> with these problems as well."
>
> -Well, I certaintly don't label myself as an anti-evolutionist. But I
> choose not to be a dogmatist either. But I do know that seeking for highly
> detailed causal explanations regarding the mechanisms for deriving
> biological features is not laughing matter, nor a criticism to be viewed
> simply as irrelevant. (Another side note: I did not generate the criticism
> that ID came up with, I simply happen to find validity in it. Suggesting
> that I have an inflated ego for finding validity in some of the criticisms
> from the ID camp is a little bizarre to me.)
>
> "I could never be happy about a scientific discovery because I had to
> disagree with it, had to explain it away and comment on how ridiculous it
> was for people to believe that stuff."
>
> I'm really having a hard time finding the "scientific discovery" hidden in
> the article in question, which basically laid out a disputable hypothesis.
> But I don't care at all about the details of this particular hypothesis, I
> care more about the rhetoric suggesting that the ID criticism asking for
> detailed mechanistic information is irrelevant or simply misguided. If
> you'd believe me, I never have said that it is ridiculous for anyone to
> believe evolution. In fact before I really cared about this whole debate,
> prior to say 2-3 years ago, I simply accepted evolution without a hiccup and
> believed that whatever "apparent" inconsistencies were created with the
> bible could be solved through various interpretations. Only after I read
> Richard Dawkins did I become quite hostile to the confidence and veracity of
> evolutionary "explanations." I do believe that some could hold to the
> theory with less dogmatic perserverance (clarification: I am not
> specifically citing anyone.) In fact I find Howard's discussions about his
> views being a carefully placed wager refreshing. His continual opposition
> to the followers of Rev. Moon is a little more suspect.
>
> "It meant that I thought I knew better than all those others, when in fact,
> I was merely being egotistical."
>
> -Would you accept the possibility that I do not hold my opinion as better
> than others, and that I am not being egotistical? People of different
> opinions can disagree without one side being egotistical. Was it
> egotistical in Germany during WWII for Jews to disagree with the majority
> Nazi regime? A majority vote doesn't indicate who is/is not egotistical
> (and I am NOT implying that evolutionists are like the Nazi regime.) In
> fact, I know nothing of "old seashells," rock formations, hydrocarbon
> deposits, fossils, and many other topics, from which I have completely
> withheld any comment. Case in point, Dr. Campbell has engaged in discussing
> the details of this hypothesis, and I have made no comments regarding his
> statements, because I have nothing to offer. If I have something to say, I
> try to reserve it for those things on which I have a comment and an opinion
> that is based upon something more than my ego. But I think that is enough
> defending myself for one night.
Josh -
I think you make a valid point that offering plausible scenarios of natural
selection do not prove that that's how things actually happened. Nor is it necessary
for someone (like myself) committed to methodological naturalism to hold that natural
selection is the only mechanism operative in evolution - though it is certainly an
important & probably indispensable part of the process.
& it's a worthwhile contribution to point out things about the evolutionary
process that known natural processes - including natural selection - have not explained
adequately. The problem here with ID is that it doesn't offer any mechanism to explain
those things &, to the extent that it rejects methodological naturalism, _can't_ offer a
mechanism. The Intelligent Designer is supposed to introduce complex specified
information &/or irreducible complexity directly, without any mechanism - i.e., without
secondary causation. A person is, of course, free to make that claim. But besides the
fact that it violates a /de facto/ guideline of scientific procedure, methodological
naturalism, it gets one into a rather problematic theological position.
BTW, why the emphasis above on Moon? Aside from the fact that Wells is one of
his followers, what's the connection?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 15:35:46 EDT