Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

Jon,
I think your illustration is faulty. It uses the scientific method to
make its claim for the supernatural, paranormal, of whatever you label
it. But, noting Behe's testimony at Dover, ID wants to change the
scientific method so that astrology is a scientific discipline. This is
radically different than using the scientific method to test astrology
and find it wanting. But Augustine, a millennium earlier than the
development of science, showed it to be bunk. There's no reason to
resurrect it now.

One may want to challenge the motive behind the attack and the means
used, but the basis is bed rock, despite ID's attraction to some of the
brethren.
Dave

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:52:54 -0600 "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
writes:
> Let's take a different (hypothetical) example. If Gonzales had
> written a
> book on why he, as a scientist, believes that miraculous healing is
> real,
> and points to an Intelligent Healer. He gives evidence of real
> examples
> where (he believes) faith is the most likely and logical explanation
> for all
> sorts of documented healings, the fact that some scientific studies
> have
> shown prayer to increase the chances on faster recovery, etc. His
> book
> deals with scientific and medical fields, from an aspect of faith
> that these
> evidences support a theistic view, and his book is then used by
> "faith
> healing" religious groups to popularize their particular views.
>
> Then the professors of the medical college sign a petition drive
> stating
> their "concern with the negative impact of faith healing on the
> integrity of
> science and the medical college"; that they "reject all attempts to
> represent faith as having any bearing on the science of medicine";
> that such
> claims are "based on selection of arbitrary examples, unverifiable
> assertions of healings, and abandonment of good medical practice,
> which can
> be explained without reference to any supernatural being"; "claims
> of faith
> healing are within the realm of faith and not good medical
> practice"; "and
> we thus urge all faculty members [nudge, nudge!] to reject any
> efforts to
> portray faith as a component of medical healing"; and then circulate
> this
> statement to the "relevant media" for publication.
>
> They certainly have the academic freedom and 1st Amendment rights to
> circulate anything they desire to print. But what are they
> contending
> against? They are contending against the right of one professor to
> write on
> a subject expressing his faith which touches on areas of medicine
> but also a
> belief that God impacts our world in ways that are real and
> observable. For
> his_ exercise of 1st Amendment rights, he is slapped down by his
> employer
> and berated through the media and his colleagues, and told that you
> as a
> "faculty member" are encouraged not to share your faith in the
> context of
> medicine (or science) -- save that for Sunday morning church, but
> not
> publicly by writing a popular book which might make our university
> look bad.
> Regardless of his attempts to frame the argument in terms of a real
> medical
> (scientific) context, why do you not see this as a clear example of
> persecution over one's religious beliefs?
>
> It reminds me of 1Cor 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to
> them that
> perish, foolishness..." By the same token, he had to have known
> that his
> publication would infuriate some of his colleagues, so he probably
> could
> have known to expect some persecution over it.
>
> I don't know all the situation, and whether he was involved in
> teaching ID
> at the university, or whether it simply had to do with his
> publication. I
> agree there could certainly be abuses involved with promoting "faith
> healing" as a substitute for good medical practice. Some "faith
> healing"
> claims (or ID positions) may be non-scientific; they may be flat out
> wrong,
> or they may belong properly in the category of faith. But certainly
> there
> is also evidence out there which demands consideration of something
> beyond
> this material universe. What is the justification for a group of
> professors
> ganging up on another professor with a blanket denunciation, simply
> because
> he publishes a book which is about faith and science which they
> don't like?
>
> My example likened their "abandonment of methodological naturalism"
> with a
> hypothetical "abandonment of good medical practice". I think the
> comparison
> is fair. Methodological naturalism is seen as good scientific
> practice, and
> even most believing scientists agree. Why is an expression of faith
> necessarily damaging to or contradictory of good scientific
> practice? I
> thought ASA was all about promoting faith along with good science,
> not
> relegating them to separate corners where scientists aren't allowed
> to speak
> of faith. Yes, bad science in ID should be exposed in a loving and
> evidence-based manner, but how can others expose and expand on such
> arguments (in a faith promoting way) if they aren't allowed to
> express the
> beliefs publicly in the first place?
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:47 AM
> To: Ted Davis
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Janice Matchett; David Opderbeck
> Subject: Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics,
> and the
> Precautionary Principle
>
>
> So what you consider to be outrageous is that the petition was
> organized by
> an atheist or by someone who is a faculty advisor to a campus
> atheist
> organization? Remember that intelligent design is making the
> (erroneous)
> claim that it is scientific and that these scientific findings point
> to a
> 'designer' (wink wink). Many science organizations have rejected ID
> as
> scientifically relevant. So what if Avalos had been a Christian?
> Would that
> have made a difference to the petition? When atheists start a
> movement which
> insists that science can show the absence of a designer, it is time
> to
> object similarly to such an abuse of science. Privileged Planet has
> become
> an important marketing tool for the Intelligent Design movement,
> intent on
> 'teaching the controversy' which is mere code language. So what
> about
> Avalos's academic freedom to expose bad science?
>
>
> Gonzalez
>
> <quote>"I didn't expect this level of vitriol," he says after
> hanging up.
> "This level of intense hostility, just knee-jerk emotional response
> from
> people. People have strong convictions that you can't bring God into
> science. But I don't bring God into science. I've looked out at
> nature and
> discovered this pattern, based on empirical evidence. . . . It
> obviously
> calls for a different explanation."</quote>
>
> And Gonzalez claims that this explanation is 'God' based on the
> arguments of
> Intelligent Design. Or is that not obvious? So the question is: Are
> these
> arguments based on science and scientific arguments. Many scientists
> have
> come to the conclusion that these findings are vacuous and that
> intelligent
> design fails to be scientifically relevant. Combine this with the
> attempts
> by the Discovery Institute to promote this 'research' as evidence
> why
> intelligent design should be taught or could be taught in schools
> and one
> can either ignore this or take a stance. Many scientific
> organizations and
> even universities have done so.
>
> A witchhunt? I am not sure.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 27 13:36:42 2007