RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Pim makes the statement
"Not at all. Science does not reject the magical, the supernatural, nor
does it accept it, because it adds nothing to our scientific
understanding. Science in other words is consistent with Naturalism,
Physicalism and Religion as it remains neutral on these matters."

On the other hand, well-known scientists offer the following:
Richard Lewontin (well-known evolutionary biologist) –
New York Review of Books (Jan 9, 1997, p. 31):
"... we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer,
 such an hypothesis is excluded from science because
 it is not naturalistic.”
(Scott C. Todd, “A view from Kansas on that
evolution debate,” Nature: Vol 401:423 (Sept. 30, 1999).)

"At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York,
a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an
unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe
in God?" Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel
laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A.
Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his
work on the structure of crystals. Belief in the supernatural,
especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good
science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is
damaging to the well-being of the human race.“
New York Times, August 23, 2005

The definitions of science offered by NAS and AAAS emphasize that only natural explanations are accepted - the supernatural is excluded.
Doesn't sound very neutral to me.

And then there are the recent statements by Coyne who says that religious and science cannot exist together. He goes on to advocate that religion
be abolished since it is incompatible with science.

Now, who are we to believe?

Don

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of PvM [pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:38 AM
To: Collin R Brendemuehl
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Collin R Brendemuehl
<collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
>
> Naturalism's philosophical failures are many.

Any in particular?

> Mayr's toleration of a paradox as something to be appreciated is one of my
> favorites:
> * Many authors seem to have a problem in comprehending the virtually
> simultaneous
> * actions of two seemingly opposing causations, chance and necessity.
> * But this is precisely the power of the Darwinian process.

Perhaps the simple answer is that it is at best a strawman. Where does
Mayr makes his claims and what does he say. Vague assertions without
detail do not further the conversation. I have asked you for
references before and all I got was a book. Perhaps you could outline
what exactly Mayr claims? As to the simultaneous actions of two
seemingly opposing causations of chance and necessity, this may cause
some confusion to some authors however they are neither opposing nor
problematic. The 'power' of the Darwinian process are the combination
of two processes namely variation (which is observed and quite well
understood) and selection (which is observed and reasonably well
understood). The two forces are not opposing but combining. Thing of
course are far from that simple and when adding additional components
and factors such as neutrality, one comes to understand why evolution
has been so successful.

> Rosenhouse's "lawlike" certainty is another favorite.

Again, you present a statement but lack an argument. Rosenhouse
exposes the mathematical problems in the Intelligent Design claims and
provide a much needed introduction to Hardy Weinberg's theorem and
Natural Selection. Of course these are theoretical concepts based on
logic, reason and found to be quite useful in understanding how
variation spreads through the population under selection. Such is the
power of reason and logic and the combination of probability
distributions and selection.

> And I pointed out two of the similar problems in Chrisitian theology.
>
> A good return question is: What is "science"? Hence my early post.
> If you include the Received View along with falsifiability then you add a
> great deal of metaphysical baggage -- as much as any religious view.

How is falsifiability a religious view?

> Does that make it "non-science" because it is no longer physicalism?

Nope, remember that physicalism is a metaphysical application of
science rather than a methodological application of science.

> It raises some serious questions. Or if you want to include the
> theoretical sciences, even within natural studies, you've got a great
> deal of non-physical testing and reporting going on, and much of it
> merely mathematical (e.g., tachyons and quantum theory) and not
> at all physical-world testable.

Science does start with a lot of speculations and hypotheses that
follow from said speculations which can then be tested. When it comes
to ID, they somehow refuse to follow a similar path and develop a
positive hypothesis of design, and instead focus on disproving
Darwinism under the flawed concept that this somehow should present us
evidence in favor of ID.

> What is "science" at this point should not reject external causality.

Of course not, it's just that science may never be able to prove or
disprove the kind of external causality imagined by IDers

> If it does, then to be consistent it must return to the old physicalism.

Not at all. Science does not reject the magical, the supernatural, nor
does it accept it, because it adds nothing to our scientific
understanding. Science in other words is consistent with Naturalism,
Physicalism and Religion as it remains neutral on these matters.

> At 01:22 AM 6/2/2008, PvM wrote:
>
>
> How could ID or special creation be proven false as it lies outside
> the realm of science? I do not see naturalism as having a horrible
> grasp of reality, certainly as Christians we can believe in God, but
> that does not give us a privileged position over those who hold to
> naturalism.
>
>> philosophical difficulties which some tolerate are often quite humorous.)
>
> Such philisophical difficulties however are not unique to naturalism
> and include Christianity as well.
>
>> We have the same problem in theology. Some of the
>> persuasion known as "Arminian" make the mistake of becoming quite
>> Pelagian.
>> And some Calvinists end up as Determinists. Not all theorists/theologians
>> are consistent or "orthodox".
>
>> WRT Brayton's material, I will grant the clarification regarding
>> percentages, but not the proposed witch hunt.
>
> The 'with hunt' is merely a call to identify those who are violating
> their duties as educators as well as the constitution of this country
> and give them a choice. Why should we allow creationism to be taught
> as if it were science? I for one fully support the effort to keep
> creationism out of the classrooms and if, as the data show, quite a
> few teachers violate the trust relationship by teaching creationism,
> then something needs to happen.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
> <collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
>> Murray,
>>
>
>> What's your opinion on evolutionary development of all of human agencys
>> wrt
>> the scope of the claim.
>> More specifically ...
>> If all of the positives are attributable to evolutionary development, are
>> not also the evils?
>
> It's hard to speak of good and evil and claim that evolutionary
> development only involves positives. This is illogical as evolutionary
> development has nothing to say about positive or negative, which
> relies more on a moral judgement on our parts. So yes, depending on
> one's views on morality, positives and evils can be part of
> 'evolutionary development'. Of course, evolutionary theory and
> evolution do not really 'care' about good or evil as it is an
> unrelated topic. Good and evil are best left to realm of morality and
> in the case of Christianity to God and our faith. As such, good and
> evil do become problematic issues but that's what happens in
> philosophical positions.
>
>> --Any idea why there would be a tendency to avoid claiming the evil things
>> that have evolved?
>
> I see no tendency. In fact, one wonders why ID insists that the
> flagellum which likely relates to the Type III secretory system, is
> designed when it causes so much evil. That I find a much more
> problematic position. As a scientist, we can interpret things as
> 'good' or 'evil' but nature has no judgment.
>
>
>> Have you observed, among evolutionists, a regular appeal to a Kantian
>> source
>> for morality?
>
> Evolutionists I assume have a large variety of resources they can
> appeal to for morality. From Christian morality, to evolved morality
> these concepts all tend to be found amongst evolutionists. In fact,
> since evolution is such a well supported fact and theory, I find your
> question somewhat puzzling.
>
> No, evolution is not going to help us decide what is 'good' and what
> is 'evil' although evolution can help us explain how altruism and
> reciprocal altruism evolved and played a role in establishing
> morality, where morality is in most cases a very subjective and local
> set of rules based on nature and nurture.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Collin Brendemuehl
> http://www.brendemuehl.net
>
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
> -- Jim Elliott

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 Mon Jun 2 12:55:21 2008