Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

> Surely PZ Meyers and other materialists would beg to disagree?   And
> wouldnt they say they do this on scientific grounds?  Why would they
> be wrong merely because some theologians say they are wrong?  What
> sort of belief system is dualism?  Is it a secular idea?  Or  something reserved for church?<

The reason this particular claim is wrong is that it is not only
circular but self-contradictory. The circularity comes in the claim
that because the only real things are those amenable to scientific
study, therefore anything outside of science is not real. For
example, a number of claims to provide "scientific explanations" of
phenomena related to morals, spirituality, etc. merely describe those
aspects amenable to study by the particular techniques and do not give
much explanation at all. However, because the scientific part of the
question has been, at least in part, addressed, a full explanation is
claimed because of course no part but the scientific part is of any
interest or importance.

It is self-contradictory because science itself rests on several
assumptions that cannot be derived from science. These include the
premise that the universe really exists, the premise that it behaves
in regular ways, the premise that we can meaningfully study it, the
premise that we ought to be honest in reporting on our studies, etc.
Because science assumes these, it cannot investigate them; they are
also largely unamenable to physical testing. Thus, rejecting all
non-science involves rejecting the premises on which science is based
and thus rejection of science as well.

Note that such scientism is not the only possible version of
materialism. In reality, probably no one holds such a position,
though plenty of philosophically incompetent people like the "new
atheists" profess such a position. In particular, everyone has
definite ideas about right or wrong treatment of themselves, yet moral
right and wrong are not science.

> Thinking just a bit out of the box for a moment, let me ask this:  Could this imparted spiritual nature have been given to Chimpanzees or some other species rather than homo sapiens? Or  did homo sapiens have some supporting resources that other species didn't possess?<

This depends a good deal on the answer to the question of whether the
spiritual nature is an all or nothing situation or whether there are
grades.

> Think of it as software. One wouldnt be very successful trying to run
> a higher level desktop operating system (such as Vista or  RedHat
> Enterprise Linux)  on a linkysys wireless-G   router because the 200
> MHz ARM processor is too slow  and there just are not enough resources there in the box.  So homo sapiens may possibly be the physical prerequisite of the  human mind or race. Doesn't genetics have a lot to do with that?  Genetics might not be the cause but it might be the
> prerequisite to the "imparting"  of special cognitive abilities.

Abraham was trying to load Vista onto his 486. Isaac said "Father, I
see the monitor and cables, but where is the memory?" Abraham replied
"Do not worry, my son. God will supply the RAM."

> The invocation of the supernatural is widely claimed as being the kiss
> of death to any idea that otherwise may possibly be addressed by
> science.

I would argue that it is not the invocation of the supernatural, but
rather what is being claimed. If the supernatural supposedly behaves
in a regular, controllable manner (basically magic), then science can
check on it. If you have something like God, being omnipotent, not to
be put to the test, etc., then science is not going to be very
competent at studying that.

For example, it's quite easy to check whether newspaper horoscopes or
psychic hotlines are any better at predictions than average bored
undergrads. In contrast, there's the Journal of Irreproducible
Results paper that claims to compare angels against rats as lab
subjects. The angels went through the walls of the maze, weren't
interested in chow, and generally were not amenable to
experimentation.

However, the real scientific problem with creation science, ID, etc.,
is not that they invoke the supernatural but that they almost
inevitably invoke false scientific claims. Whether you allow
supernatural causes or not does not change the fact that a particular
claim is untrue.

> I would be happier with someone trying to propose a "mathematical
> proof"  of the impossibility of a design detection algorithm. That at
> least would be a rational approach!    Instead, invoking the
> supernatural to explain the human mind's abilities seems to me to be
> sort of brushing it under the rug to get rid of it.  Very easy for a
> religionist to do. Its the last thing  I would expect a scientist to
> do.  I've been waiting for members to reject the notion and they
> haven't (AFAIK).

It is impossible to make a design detection algorithm unless design is
clearly and consistently defined in a manner suitable for algorithmic
analyses.

If "design" is defined as "involving an intelligent agent deliberately
acting to fashion it", we have good ways to detect human agency versus
animal/weather/etc. agency. Do we know of any way for the object to
form "naturally"? Is it something we might expect humans to make?
These are rather different from the "design detection algorithm"
generated when "design" is defined as "a property I'm sure complex
biochemical systems have".

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.