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

As I understand demarcation, there is no basis to arbitrarily restrict
what science may consider. The historical fact is that science
essentially began with gravitation, whether we attribute this to Galileo
or to Newton. The basis was that the rate of fall was measurable, and
then could be applied to planets and their satellites. Later, it was
discovered that there were thermodynamic measurements, then chemical
relationships, atomic structure, nuclear structure, quanta--all as
someone figured out how to make the required measurements and provide the
math. More recently, various persons figured out how to make measurements
in psychology and sociology, along with related areas of investigation.
But there is no way to draw a line and say that a certain empirical
matter cannot be subject to scientific investigation. If somebody can
figure out how to make the requisite measurements, we have a new
scientific discipline.

In principle, Johnson's claim has a basis, but he has not proposed a
technique that measures God's involvement. Philosophically, I say that
it's impossible in principle. But that is based on what I hold to be an
appropriate definition of deity. There are notions of deity that may be
subject to measurement, pagan or process deities come to mind. If the
deity is of one of these sorts, we nay catch it or them. But I reject
such notions because of the Incarnation, agreeing with George Murphy's
approach. But this will not convince all. There is no way to disprove
materialism, for example, apart from starting with premises that
materialists will not accept and Christians cannot prove apart from
fundamental assumptions.
Dave(ASA)

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:41:37 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
John said: And this line of thought was exactly the same as Phillip
Johnson's and that is what is started ID.

I don't think I've said exactly the same thing as Johnson. My point is
simply that the demarcation game shouldn't be used to define what is
"true" in an ultimate sense, or to define what beliefs are generally
epistemically justified. I think most TE's would agree with this, in
opposition to scient ism.

Most TE's argue that there are nevertheless pragmatic reasons to restrict
"science" as a limited sphere of endeavor to MN. Johnson and other
"strong" ID advocates would disagree with that pragmatic stance and would
argue that design is a "scientific" inference. This is a meaningful
distinction politically and culturally, because it relates to what can be
taught in school classrooms and what our culture views as authoritative.
But I wasn't discussing that distinction.

On Dec 7, 2007 3:20 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

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]
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>
> To: "'PvM'" < pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> Cc: "'_American Sci Affil'" < 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] 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 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 17:01:50 2007