RE: [asa] public response

That is a great question, George! I'm interested in others' responses,
too. From my perspective, the average person doesn't really recognize the
difference when respected scientists speak metaphysically. It seems they
regard such proclamations as science more often than not. This is
especially the case for those just entering college. The result is that
the big bang's support of their parents' Christianity is undermined in
their eyes. This has caused an unprecedented 75% of Christians entering
secular universities to leave them after 4 years devoid of faith.

Best,
RC

> 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 12:13:44 2008