RE: [asa] public response

What can I say, George, except... amen. And that was thirty years ago! An
interesting aside, since you mentioned science class... I did my graduate
work at American University under a man who routinely worked on Christmas
day, but took Darwin's birthday off. Even though we vehemently disagreed,
he respected my position and never downgraded me for it.

Blessings,
RC

> Ouch, RC. That had to be a very trying experience, but probably one you
> are
> proud of and deservedly so; fire can add temper to most metals. At least
> it
> wasn't a science class. *wink* It sure speaks poorly, however, of a
> philosophy prof. who thinks faith in God is untenable, especially since
> some
> of the greatest philosophers of all time were believers.
>
> George C.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us [mailto:rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:10 PM
> To: George Cooper
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] public response
>
>> Hi RC,
>>
>> I did not know there is a 75% loss of Christian faith in secular
>> universities, though I feared it might be high. With three in college,
>> one
>> involved with missions and confused about the validity of evolution and
>> BBT,
>> my interest is stirred into this and is one reason for the questions I
>> raise.
>
> My oldest is only in 7th grade, but it won't be long before these issues
> come to the fore with him, too. I'd really like to see a greater openness
> to the Christian worldview in colleges and universities before then. I
> remember my first Philosophy class (PH101) in 1975 at the University of
> Maryland, a state school, mind you. The prof got up the first day and
> exclaimed that one of his goals for the course was to convince every
> student that the idea of God was completely untenable, and if they
> couldn't accept that they should drop the class immediately. I stuck it
> out, spoke up in class, handed in every paper, well-written and on time,
> and left the course with an F. I ended up graduating cum laude as opposed
> to magna cum laude, for want of a better grade in that one class.
>
>>
>> It seems very apparent the ID experience is at least producing an
>> awareness
>> as to what science is and is not, even if in the courtroom, but are
>> people
>> realizing it. Whether the trend, publicly, is a net positive
>> appreciation
>> for science and how it really works is my concern. Further, there seems
>> to
>> be other contributors to the murkiness such as the abuse of the term
>> "theory" and the obfuscation that is understandable due to today's level
>> of
>> sophistication within each field of science.
>>
>> Hi Randy,
>> [Randy said...There have often been theories that were considered
>> untestable
>> at the time they were presented but became testable many decades later.
>> One
>> must of course distinguish between untestable in principle or untestable
>> in
>> practice.]
>>
>> Yes. In some cases, e.g. Parallel Universe Theory, are both but seem to
>> go
>> without much criticism for usurping the theory term.
>>
>> Lately, I have been reading more on Galileo since I feel there is a
>> close
>> analogy between his time and experience with both science and the Church
>> and
>> our time with science and our Church. It is interesting to see how the
>> Aristotle framework was indifferent to testability. Galileo argued that
>> some of those views of nature were falsifiable, but teleological
>> entrenchment simply rejected such arguments from him.
>>
>> [Randy said...the understandable tendency of the media to highlight
>> dramatic
>> and early, often non-confirmed, publications which are later rejected is
>> a
>> big factor in generating distrust of science.]
>>
>> Yes, but is today somehow different than media hype of the past?
>>
>> [Randy said... I'm not sure that a new term is needed as much as better
>> education of and appreciation by the public of how the term "theory" is
>> used
>> by practitioners of science. The latter don't seem to be all that
>> confused.]
>>
>> The new term idea is suggested due to the abuse by the practitioners.
>> However, I am not saying the abuse warrants a change since I don't feel
>> qualified to make that assessment, but I mention it as an alternative
>> since
>> I see no term available for a very powerful idea that might have
>> tremendous
>> mathematical support but little or no testability even in principle.
>> Consider this just a seed as it would be no small task to promote a new
>> term
>> to replace "theory" especially for those who know they are stretching
>> its
>> meaning when they allow its use to be misapplied to their broad
>> collection
>> of hypothesis.
>>
>> [Thanks for the comments.]
>>
>> George Cooper
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us [mailto:rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:13 AM
>> To: George Cooper
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: 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.
>>
>
>
>
> 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 18:46:49 2008