Re: [asa] The Supernatural in Science - was public response

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would this be equivalent to
searching for the supernatural? What they have done is construct an
experiment that will, if the string theory is correct, will provide
indirect evidence for the existence of the fourth spatial dimension,
as predicted by the theory. Just because we can't see it doesn't make
it supernatural, if its existence has measurable consequences in the
three spatial dimensions that we do observe.

To be supernatural it must be unpredictable. Supernatural miracles of
healing, for example, don't occur under repeatable sets of conditions
in a lab. Presumably the LHC experiment will be repeatable, and
therefore fall into the class of "natural" rather than "supernatural".

Iain.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:18 PM, RC Metcalf <rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us> wrote:
> Dear Bill et al,
>
> Based upon the tenets of string (brane) theory, physicists have designed
> experiments for use with the Large Hadron Collider that seek to reveal the
> existence of a fourth large spatial dimension. Such a dimension would lie in
> a direction perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions we experience, yet
> be empirically undetectable due to the limitations of our physiology. For
> example, the loss of energy during proton collisions, along with the
> production of the decay products of the Kaluza-Klein superpartners of the
> graviton, will indicate the loss of gravitons during the collision process.
> Such a result is expected in string theory if closed loop gravitons are lost
> into a fourth spatial dimension. Other experiments are also planned.
>
> If such a result is forthcoming, wouldn't most of us be willing to concede
> that a fourth large spatial dimension would be comparable to what
> theologians have all along thought of as the supernatural? While this may
> sound far-fetched to those outside of the field of string theory, we don't
> make a practice of endowing our Harvard, MIT and Princeton physicists with
> funds and equipment merely to study myth, now do we? A fourth large spatial
> dimension will be able to be "investigated and verified by all parties."
> I'm not sure what definition of the supernatural excludes experimental
> verification, but I would question such a definition in light of this
> new direction many of our best physicists are heading in their research.
>
> Best,
> RC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Hamilton
> To: Donald F Calbreath ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] public response
> Don
>
> The problem with including the supernatural in science is that our human
> investigative capabilities are limited. Science limits itself to what can be
> investigated and verified by all parties. In a sense science is poorer for
> this, but it's unavoidable if science is to be capable of developing
> repeatable results. By definition the supernatural is known by revelation.
> We know God because He has revealed Himself to us. And we are richer for
> that. It seems to me that the right response of Christians to evolution is
> to conclude and teach that God is far more subtle than we had once believed.
> It's likely we will never be able to have anything but an argument with
> folks like Richard Dawkins (although he sent me a very polite response to an
> email I once sent him) and Sam Harris, but it should be possible to have a
> civilized faith/science dialog with most scientists. But this depends on
> Christians recognizing that revelation can't be included in scientific
> investigations and scientists recognizing that science is not the sum total
> of all knowledge.
>
> William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
> Want to help a child?:
> http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Donald F Calbreath <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:36:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] public response
>
> Randy:
>
> I would have to disagree with your statement about how science deals with
> doubts about evolution. One of the major problems for Christians is the
> fact that any supernatural explanations is, by definition, ruled out.
> Examples:
> National Science Teachers Association 2003 statement:
> "Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes that
> anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific
> investigation. Science also assumes that the universe operates according to
> regularities that can be discovered and understood through scientific
> investigations. The testing of various explanations of natural phenomena for
> their consistency with empirical data is an essential part of the
> methodology of science. Explanations that are not consistent with empirical
> evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science. As a
> result, explanations of natural phenomena that are not based on evidence but
> on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, and superstitions are not
> scientific. Furthermore, because science is limited to explaining natural
> phenomena through the use of empirical evidence, it cannot provide religious
> or ultimate explanations. "
>
> National Academies of Science (2008)
> "The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin
> with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter — that supernatural
> forces have shaped biological or Earth systems — rejecting the basic
> requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable
> natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected
> by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science."
>
> AAAS 2006 resolution
> "Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena.
> Scientists ask questions about the natural world, formulate hypotheses to
> answer the questions, and collect evidence or data with which to evaluate
> the hypotheses. Scientific theories are unified explanations of these
> phenomena supported by extensive testing and evidence."
>
> A common theme involves natural explanations of natural phenomena. Any
> mention of the supernatural is excluded from consideration. If we were
> really honest, all the discussion on this listserv that makes any mention of
> God in any type of involvement in the process of evolution would be
> considered non-scientific. I have often wondered how the scientists here
> reconcile their concepts of God acting through evolution with the
> definitions offered by three influential science groups.
>
> Please note: I am not arguing for any specific process that may or may not
> have occurred. And , yes, the way some folks approach the issue really
> turns me off. I am simply saying that I do not believe you can make an
> argument that the scientific establishment is open to any real expression of
> doubt about evolution.
>
> Don Calbreath (ASA member)
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Randy Isaac [randyisaac@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:10 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] public response
>
> Rich,
> It looks as if at least one person wants to continue an "open and honest
> debate." I think portions of Jeff's review would be quite relevant here.
> http://deltackett.com/
>
> How can we convey the point that it is not that doubts about evolution, per
> se, are not acceptable but that it is the quality and method in which those
> doubts are brought forward. The scientific community would be extremely
> interested in any data that would alter our understanding in any way. But
> those skepticisms and questions must go through the same rigor of scientific
> review and methodology as anything else. And until they do, the doubts are
> just that, and not legitimate scientific results. Most of all, any attempt
> to insert such claims that bypasses the normal process is bound to gather
> pushback.
>
> Randy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.