RE: [asa] public response

I am curious as to the opinion of folks here regarding whether or not the
efficacy of science suffers diminishment in public perception given the
amount of metaphysical "theories" that are thrown upon the public? For
instance, does ID become more palatable if "theories" such as the
unobservable and untestable "Parallel Universe Theory" - presented by the
respected cosmologist, Max Tegmark -- is seen as legitimized by science?
Or am I overstating the case with my suggestion that the waters of science
today are made more murky by metaphysics?

Also, is there not a need for a new term for comprehensive theory-like
postulations that would minimize the abuse of the term "theory", given the
apparent reluctance of theorists to call their baby a mere conjecture or
hypothesis?

George Cooper

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:33 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] public response

Good points, Bill.

Don, I think I'm making a slightly different point but may not have stated
it very clearly. By its nature, the scientific establishment is
simultaneously eager to discover any new data or ideas that overturn
conventional thought and yet is highly skeptical of such. This is
necessarily so--our passion as scientists is to discover new ideas about how
the world works and yet we know we can be easily misled. Hence, our focus on
a rigorous methodology to ensure credibility.

In that context, my point was independent of natural vs supernatural (though
Bill correctly points out that the latter lacks the reproducibility and
testability features) but more focused on the need for doubts about
evolution to go through the testing of scientific methodology. Zillions of
ideas get proposed and never make it through. No one minds that. That's how
science works. What scientists do mind is when an idea fails to get through
the system and people try to circumvent the process and inject it into
classrooms or texts despite failure in the peer review system. Inevitably
the counter-plea is that the peer process is biased and part of a conspiracy
to avoid that idea. The spiral deepens from there and it becomes a tarbaby
where anyone connected with such an idea is tainted, rightly or wrongly.

One might also ask, what is being rejected? The supernatural explanation? or
the doubt about evolution? The two are often conflated. In general, I sense
the scientific mainstream has rejected both.

Randy

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Hamilton <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>

To: Donald <mailto:dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> F Calbreath ; asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:13 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=>
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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 21 11:51:13 2008