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

Dave S. said: * If somebody can figure out how to make the requisite
measurements, we have a new scientific discipline*.

Ok, but would you say that truth claims can only be justified by empirical
measurements? Do you mean to say there's no way to "disprove materialism" *
empirically*?

I think Roy Clouser (*Knowing With the Heart*), Donald Bloesch (*The Ground
of Certainty*) and others in the tradition of Reformed epistemology make a
good case that beliefs based on certain sorts of religious experiences and
presuppositions are justifiable. And I think John Milbank makes a good case
in favor of the independence of Christian theology as against positivism and
empiricism and that Alister McGrath (*A Scientific Theology: Reality*) also
establishes theology as a source of real knowledge that isn't reducible to
measurements of the material.
On Dec 7, 2007 4:55 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> 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 17:19:51 2007