Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

David--

Not wanting to be counted a "pompous ass", and recognizing both a friend and a wise counselor, I say: point taken, and thanks for taking the time. Mark surely said it better than I did (though his criticism was nearly as stark), and someday we can tackle that topic. My consternation is based on my frequent despair at the magnitude of the scandal, and maybe I'm not as encouraged as I ought to be by recent statements by various evangelical leaders. Don't give up on me, buddy!

Now, any responses to my other comments? The ones that were on the topic of "explanatory filter"? I've had my time out, now I want to play again. :-)

Steve

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 05/27/08 10:36 AM >>>
Steve M. said: Don't be too offended: I count myself as an evangelical.
 But evangelical use of the frontal cortex is startlingly rare. Providing
counterexamples is no more effective than showing a video of bat standing up
by itself.

I respond: Steve, I think you know I'm with you in lamenting what Mark Noll
called "the scandal of the evangelical mind." But "startlingly rare" is not
an accurate statement without more specification. "Startlingly rare" among
average parishioners -- maybe -- but then the same thing is true in the
general population in the U.S., isn't it (have you ever watched Oprah and
Dr. Phil)? "Startlingly rare" among the populist pundits -- absolutely --
but then the same thing is true of the punditry in the general population
(read the New York Post). "Startlingly rare" among thought leaders of the
movement -- no, definitely not, whether one agrees or disagrees with them --
but then the same thing is true of thought leaders in other social and
intellectual movements. Most of us actively involved in this discussion on
this list right now are university professors, business executives,
theological educators, and the like -- among the most highly educated people
who have ever lived on this planet. IMHO, we have to be careful not to let
that status turn us into cynics, boasters, and pompous asses. Our missional
service to the church and the world involves contextualization just like any
other mission.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> I didn't say impossible. I said improbable. Shall we run the numbers?
> I'm pretty sure I'd win.
>
> Don't be too offended: I count myself as an evangelical. But evangelical
> use of the frontal cortex is startlingly rare. Providing counterexamples is
> no more effective than showing a video of bat standing up by itself.
>
> But let's get to the more important point you raised in the previous post.
> You write: "The issue is what we can infer as *likely* from what we
> actually know." But then you extend the question into the past with regard
> to common descent, and you seem to imply that we're flying blind when
> considering probabilities and plausibilities with regard to evolutionary
> change. I thing you've overstated the case a bit, especially in the context
> of the magic bat, and I would add two comments which might help illustrate
> why I find ID claims in this area to be so disreputable.
>
> First, what we actually know is that biological evolution occurs, that it
> can occur with astonishing rapidity, and that the genetic diversity it
> surely requires is abundant and ubiquitous. Indeed, measurements of
> evolutionary rates in various well-known field experiments have concluded
> that these rates can vastly exceed the rates inferred by examination of the
> fossil record. We *know* that evolutionary change happens. To baseball:
> not only we do we know that bats *can* stand on end, we know how such an
> event can come about. Similarly, not only do we know that evolutionary
> processes *can* generate novelty, we know a fair amount about how such
> events can come about. This is why I think Randy's pointer to this
> wonderful little clip is a very cool object lesson.
>
> Second, I find both irony and dangerous folly in the quantification of
> ignorance. Dembski & Behe are banking on calculations that seem to me to be
> wholly based on ignorance. We don't actually know how likely it is that a
> particular mutation will come about. (In fact, the most recent estimates of
> beneficial mutation rates in bacteria indicate that they are 1000X more
> likely than previously inferred.) We don't actually know (yet) how likely a
> particular developmental transformation really is. The bat on end isn't
> interesting because it was videotaped; it's interesting because we have a
> fair idea of how likely the phenomenon is, and we could test it if we wanted
> to. When it comes to particular evolutionary transitions (at whatever
> level), we don't know which are more likely than others. We don't know
> which bats have a concave end, which are perfectly balanced, which might
> even have adhesive and weights added to make their standing as inevitable as
> a kid's toy weeble.*
>
> The bat thing is cool, because it helps us see how people's quick responses
> can be so very wrong, even when confidently delivered. I think Dick was
> probably misled more by his astonishment at a first-pass examination of the
> phenomenon than he was by an (apparent) ignorance of the basics of the
> broadcasting of baseball. The event was so plainly implausible to him that
> he concocted a story that we know to be wildly implausible, well-nigh
> impossible. I infer that he was completely certain, on a first examination,
> of the impossibility of the event, and so his story seemed better by
> comparison. I'll wager that now that he knows a bit more about the event
> (i.e., that the bat has a concavity in its end, and that the recording
> itself is unremarkable) he will completely alter his view, perhaps even
> *see* the video differently, and conclude that there is no human or demonic
> monkey business involved at all. That's the kind of fate I wish for ID
> apologetics: that people would be ab!
>
> le to see that a more careful examination of a scene can reveal aspects
> previously unnoticed, and overturn hastily-formed judgments that were
> sometimes planted by unscrupulous apologists.
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> *A weeble, for those under the age of 30 or so, was a toy doll for very
> young children that was shaped roughly like a bowling pin and weighted so
> that it could not fall over. "Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down."
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 05/26/08 10:42 PM >>>
> Steve said: Personally, I think it's just an improbable event, sort of
> like
> an evangelical employing critical thought
>
> I respond: Geesh -- I find gratitous comments like this so annoying. What
> "evangelicals" have you been reading? Is NT Wright "evangelical?" Anthony
> Thistleton? Roger Olson? Scot McKnight? Jamie Smith?
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > The batter was Martin Prado of the Atlanta Braves. The improbable event
> > occurred in a game with the Mets in September of 2007. Discussion at the
> > time centered on neither peculiar camera angles nor invisible strings,
> but
> > on whether Prado's bat was oddly weighted. Personally, I think it's just
> an
> > improbable event, sort of like an evangelical employing critical thought.
> > I've ruled out chicanery, at least because that really is Keith
> Hernandez'
> > voice.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Prado
> >
> > Steve Matheson
> >
> > >>> "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net> 05/25/08 10:13 PM >>>
> > How would we apply the explanatory filter to this video? Can we determine
> > by probabilities whether it was edited? Or designed?
> >
> > http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1775904
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.