RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...

And this line of thought was exactly the same as Phillip Johnson's and that
is what is started ID. I think they ran into some surprises in the
difference between how lawyers and scientists define proof but nevertheless
the initial premise was valid.

I am not defending ID or GG specifically, but if inferring a creator from
cosmology and having personal opinions about it is a thought crime then we
are all in trouble, particularly those of you in science.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:04 PM
To: PvM
Cc: John Walley; George Cooper; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...

People get convicted of murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on much thinner
evidence than this all the time. Circumstantial evidence is perfectly
acceptable in a courtroom. The CSI TV shows have made us all believe that
"proof" of a crime is much more solid than it usually is.

The problem here is that we're mixing standards of proof. In a civil trial,
for example, the standard of proof is pretty low -- a preponderance of the
evidence, meaning simply "more likely than not." OTOH, "Science" as we like
to demarcate it has different standards of "proof" than both criminal or
civil trials or than what the ordinary person probably means by "proof."

Perhaps the better proposition is that the anthropic principle is consistent
with, and in that sense supports, theism. If one had to "prove" God based
on a "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil trial, the anthropic
principle would undoubtedly be admissible as one bit of evidence. If the
standard were "proof with mathematical certainty," that's also a different
ballgame.

On Dec 7, 2007 11:44 AM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

<quote>
Williams' trial began on January 6, 1982. The prosecution's case
relied on an abundance of circumstantial evidence. During the
two-month trial, prosecutors matched 19 different sources of fibers
from Williams' environment: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes,
carpets, dog and an unusual tri-lobal carpet fiber to a number of
victims. There was also eyewitness testimony placing Williams with
different victims, blood stains from victims matching blood in
Williams' car, and testimony that he was a pedophile attracted to
young black boys. Williams himself took the stand, but alienated the
jury by becoming angry and combative during a single instance.
Williams never recovered from the single outburst, and on February 27,
the jury deliberated for 10 hours before finding him guilty of
murdering Cater and Payne. He was then sentenced to two consecutive
terms of life imprisonment.
</quote>

Seems that it was not just fiber evidence.

On Dec 7, 2007 8:31 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Matching the fibers can be objective but it is still circumstantial to
> deduce how they got on the victim's bodies.
>
>
>
> Likewise, the design evidences can be attributed to either God or aliens
but
> it is objective that they mean a designer or some intelligence. This is
what
> is valid about ID and shouldn't illegal.
>

It's not that ID is illegal, it's just scientifically infertile

>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> ] On
> Behalf Of George Cooper
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:11 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
> The carpet fiber is objective evidence. If the matching of carpet fibers
> can be shown objectively to constitute a direct connection to the
accused,
> then this evidence can serve in the way finger prints and DNA serve as
> evidence.
>
> This is not the same for ID which is a subjective based view, IMO. To
> believe that God is manipulating certain motorized bacterial formations
is
> a
> subjective, not objective.
>
> GeorgeA
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Walley" < john_walley@yahoo.com
<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com> >
> To: "'PvM'" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> Cc: "'_American Sci Affil'" < asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
> Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
>
>
> > Pim,
> >
> > You have to keep up. I am not going to spell it all out for you again.
> >
> > Bottom line, neither ID nor forensic carpet fiber evidence is 100%
> > conclusive in the scientific sense because both us and the carpet fiber

> > could have been planted by aliens, but we deduce Wayne Williams guilt
> from
> > one but deny GG his tenure for making the same rational deductions from
> > the
> > other.
> >
> > The obvious implications of the anthropic principle is that all these
> > coincidences proves that there is a Designer. There is no getting
around
> > that. That is not unscientific. It is just rational.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> ] On
> > Behalf Of PvM
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:25 AM
> > To: John Walley
> > Cc: _American Sci Affil
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny

> > Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
> >
> > Why? What is the equivalent of carpet fiber evidence which is matched
> > to a known carpet?
> >
> > Analogies have limited value indeed.
> >
> > What is the obvious implication of the anthropic principle?
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2007 9:03 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >>
> >> For GG to conclude a designer from all the just right characteristics
of
> > the
> >> universe is just as "scientific" as a jury finding Wayne Williams
guilty
> > of
> >> capital murder based on carpet fiber evidence.
> >>
> >> This is the hypocrisy of academia and those that deny the
overwhelmingly
> >> obvious implications of the anthropic principle (aka, design
inference)
> > in
> >> nature.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On
> >> Behalf Of PvM
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:07 PM
> >> To: John Walley
> >> Cc: _American Sci Affil
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to
Deny
> >> Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
> >>
> >>
> >> What I find so fascinating is how the media has mostly refused to
> >> accept the claims by the Discovery Institute and I have looked at some
> >> of this supposed evidence and found that the arguments are pretty weak
> >> at best.
> >>
> >> Sure, Gonzalez's involvement with Intelligent Design were a concern to
> >> the faculty but the Discovery Institute is making some assertions
> >> which I find poorly supported by the evidence. Some people have looked

> >> at the publication record of Gonzalez (and Behe) and found a
> >> remarkable trend.
> >>
> >> Also interesting is how Rosenberg was quoted and what the full quote
> >> revealed
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> "Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President
> >> Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU's Department of Physics and
> >> Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez's tenure dossier
> >> that Dr. Gonzalez's support for intelligent design 'disqualifies him
> >> from serving as a science educator.'"
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> The full context of that quotation is:
> >>
> >> <quote> "on numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that
> >> Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught
> >> in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on
> >> the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent

> >> Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of
> >> science. . But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly
> >> understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is
> >> not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes
> >> both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as
> >> a science educator."
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> Now the DI may be able to help Gonzalez by arguing that this was
> >> religious discrimination but that would involve accepting that ID is
> >> religious. Not a very palatable choice. Instead, the DI seems to have
> >> moved from tenure to viewpoint discrimination and hostile workplace.
> >> Again, not a very plausible argument either.
> >>
> >> The DI attempted to generate media interest in the Gonzalez case and
> >> failed, outside Iowa few noticed and within Iowa the reception was
> >> mixed.
> >> They lost in the scientific arena, they are losing in the media arena,

> >> and they are losing amongst conservatives.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
<mailto: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.
> >
> >
> > 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 15:20:47 2007