RE: [asa] public response

That was clearly pretty painful - pretty gross and unjustifiable
treatment. My experience was different, though not in a Philosophy
course (which regrettably I was not able to fit into my Physics major
schedule). In the early 60's, I was at Arizona State University. I took
Junior level course called Biogenetics of Man. It was my introduction to
evolution. The course was taught by an entemologist who also happened to
be an American Baptist pastor. I had met him earlier as a kid when he
was both pastor and professor in Flagstaff. Somehow, the issue of
action of God never came up in a class of perhaps 300 students (at least
during class time). As I have said before, my reaction at the time was
not one of tension or dismemberment of my faith system. Rather, I
distinctly recall thinking, "That's how he did/does it!" I was awed at a
fundamentally simple process that had the potential for profound
biological change over time. JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> 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 19:23:55 2008