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

I think there's a distinction to be made here.

The proposed LHC experiment would be a test of the predictions of a
theory that is expressed in terms of higher dimensions. One can
establish cause and effect in a pattern, and as a result be confident
that the theory is true (or falsified if there is a negative result).

However, to attribute the effects of supernatural events like angels
and demons to the idea that it could have originated by an interaction
with a universe parallel to our own is NOT scientific. The reason it
is not scientific is because such an explanation could be used to
explain ANYTHING that previously appeared supernatural.

By the same token we could "explain" away all miracles by appealing to
the "natural" explanation that it is down to the Many Worlds
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which we've discussed before on
this list. Walking on water? Not a problem - since the universe
splits every time a quantum event happens, there will be universes in
which such things happen. We're in one of them otherwise we wouldn't
be talking about it.

But it's clear that this is not a scientific explanation - you
couldn't replicate the conditions in which the person walked on water.

A thought experiment called the "Quantum Suicide" experiment was
proposed as a hypothetical test for the Many Worlds Interpretation.
However, examine my Blog entry "The Great Quantum Suicide Prayer
Experiment" to see why I think it's never going to be a scientific
experiment:

http://iainstrachan.blogspot.com/2007/09/great-quantum-suicideprayer-experiment.html

Iain

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:20 PM, <rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us> wrote:
> Iain,
>
> Granted, it actually WOULD be natural. However, if other 3-brane universes
> exist as little as 10 Planck lengths from ours along this extra dimension,
> there may be interaction between the two universes, beyond just graviton
> exchange. If so, this could be a source for what we have heretofore
> considered supernatural, even though still strictly natural. For example,
> the effects of angels and demons within our universe could be strictly
> natural interactions. God's acts of healing would, IMHO, be initiated from
> a location outside spacetime, hence not fall into this category.
>
> Best,
> RC
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>

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