Re: [asa] ID question?

When did anyone measure the temperature in the middle of any star or the
reactions going on there? When were the collapse of a dust cloud and the
formation of a star actually measured? If only actual measurements count,
I have to conclude that astronomy is not really a science.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:25:12 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> Are we not studying events in the past when we go over the
> astronomical measurements of Tycho Brahe? Of course, we are!
>
> One can study the past with the aid of the knowledge provided to us
> by the experimental sciences. Forensic scientists do that everyday.
> Of course, the history of the earth and the life in it can be so
> studied. This can be done in an honest and professional way.
> However, one must be careful of the prior information one uses to
> analyze the data. This prior information must be clearly and
> explicitly indicated. It seems to me that it is in this area of
> prior information, and not necessarily in the data, where all the
> fights reside.
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:41 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; dfsiemensjr; john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Where we are disagreeing is about your attempt to argue that
> studying events
> of the past - & therefore biological evolution - isn't science.
>
> Iit would be helpful you'd just make some straightforward statements
> about
> your position on biological evolution. Do you think that it's good
> science
> to say that biological evolution ("macroevolution" if you will,
> "descent
> with modification") has taken place & explains (at least
> penultimately) the
> forms of life that exist on earth today?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "dfsiemensjr"
> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
> There is no argument that data collecting is done in time. However,
> the
> generalization of such data, which are recorded as historical
> propositions,
> constitutes our laws of Nature. Of course, without such unique
> historical
> events, no data can be collected. I do not see where we are
> disagreeing.
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:21 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; dfsiemensjr; john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> So when we say, on the basis of the equations of celestial mechanics
> (which
> are invariant under time translation) that a solar eclipse occurred
> at time
> t1 in the past, is the statement scientific? Of course it is.
>
> & your definition of science is far too stringent even for the
> natural
> sciences. Sometimes the experimental scientists want to find out
> what has
> happened on particular occasions. When a physicist studies a
> photographic
> emulsion exposed to cosmic rays his/her first goal is to find out
> what
> happened in the events recorded there. Of course a longer-term goal
> is to
> develop general laws that describe such reactions but it would be
> very
> strange to say that the answer to the intermediate question (i.e.,
> what
> happened in those particular events?) wasn't science.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "dfsiemensjr"
> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
> We all exist in time and so there is nothing outside history—no one
> can run
> away from it. However, the aim of experimental science is to arrive
> at
> results that are invariant under time translation. Surely, that is
> not the
> aim of evolutionary theory.
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:31 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; dfsiemensjr; john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Therewith assuming that history & science are disjoint. How long do
> we have
> to keep on with this sort of thing?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "dfsiemensjr" <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:46 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
> >A simple way to state your findings is that evolution has to do a
> lot more
> >with history than with science—something many of us have been
> saying for a
> >long time.
> > Moorad
> > ________________________________
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of
> > dfsiemensjr [dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 5:26 PM
> > To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> > Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
> >
> > Imagine that four guys sit down at a table with a pack of cards.
> One picks
> > the pack up and begins to deal them. At the fifth round, one of
> the guys
> > says, "There's something fishy. Every card I've gotten is a
> heart." One of
> > the others says, "Yeah, all I've gotten is clubs." The third chap
> says,
> > "Mine are spades." The dealer picks up his cards and reports, "I
> have
> > nothing but diamonds." It seems obvious that somebody gimmicked
> the deck.
> > But can the guys at the table determine whether it was deliberate
> or just
> > an unusual outcome of an honest deal? It seems to me that they
> cannot
> > decide without tracing the deck back and determining the bona
> fides of
> > everyone who had access to the deck. Just observing the outcome
> won't do
> > it, and perhaps all the information they can gather does not lead
> to a
> > definitive conclusion.
> >
> > Looks to me as though our observations of a sequence of
> evolutionary
> > events, as closely as we can now determine them, does not tell us
> whether
> > the changes were determined by intelligent forces from without or
> internal
> > natural changes. The changes, so far as empirical observations
> can
> > determine the source, are equally compatible with direct divine
> > intervention, constant divine supervision, and a series of purely
> natural
> > events. One has to call in extra-empirical assumptions to bolster
> whatever
> > claim one makes. All the empirical can tell is is the nature of
> the
> > natural changes, whether an insertion or deletion occurred, etc.
> ID
> > insists that they know it was intervention, at least some times.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) John Walley
> > <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> writes:
> > This is the impasse between ID and TE. To the extent that this is
> in
> > error, TE's tend to err on the side of upholding the integrity of
> science.
> > It appears to me that ID tends to err on the side of upholding a
> > philosophical or theological ideal. I don't disagree with that
> ideal but
> > as I have said before I don't believe it is scientific so I don't
> see how
> > we can make such an issue out of a subjective belief. Further, I
> don't
> > think there is any conflict between these two positions so I
> reject the
> > positioning of them as being mutually exclusive as Behe does
> here.
> >
> > His personal beliefs aside, Darwin was at least partially right in
> the
> > fact that randomness does contribute to evolution. While it may
> not
> > explain all of evolution you have to at least concede that much to
> be
> > allowed to sit at the table of science and to have your views
> taken
> > seriously. And Eugenie Scott and NCSE serve a valid purpose in
> policing
> > this. Behe and ID need to at least acknowledge this much about
> Darwinian
> > evolution to ever regain the public trust that they are not just
> > theocratic science deniers.
> >
> > John
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 11:24:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
> >
> > Heya John,
> >
> > Personally, I'm coming to Behe's defense because the claim that
> Behe is
> > 'anti-evolution' is simply unfounded. It seems like some people
> are
> > sensitive on this topic to the point where any criticism of
> evolution -
> > even if it's specified as Darwinian evolution, even if it's based
> on
> > interpretations of data and research, even if it's admitted these
> are
> > (strong) inferences rather than logical proofs - must be balanced
> out, in
> > the next breath, by a public declaration of faith in at least some
> kind of
> > evolution. Otherwise, suspicions start to mount. That, I think, is
> an
> > exaggerated response.
> >
> > In other words, I just don't share your impression. I also don't
> share
> > what I take to be this feeling that it's very, very important for
> Behe to
> > balance out his criticisms of darwinian evolution by praising
> evolution in
> > the broad sense. Then again, I think that this obsession with
> evolution
> > (by many, spanning various views and faiths) needs to come to an
> end
> > anyway.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM, John Walley
> > <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > This is exactly right. Behe does make claims against Darwinian
> evolution.
> > I asked the same question before, is there another form of
> evolution that
> > Behe is more comfortable with? If so, he didn't mention it in the
> video
> > that I recall.
> >
> > I know he has spoken and written other things in other places
> about
> > evolution but in this video he does come across as being against
> > evolution. Its not like it was heavily edited either and made to
> look a
> > certain way nor was he responding to a strict set of questions. He
> could
> > have said anything he wanted and made any point he wanted and left
> any
> > impression he wanted but this is what he chose. Why is everyone
> then
> > apologizing for Behe and saying this is a mischaracterization of
> him?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> > To: asa <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> > Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:06:11 AM
> > Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
> >
> > Hi Cameron-
> >
> > " Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he
> says
> > that he is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing
> and
> > publically
> > withdraw your comments."
> >
> > If you watch the video- he said repeatedly that "Darwinian
> evolution"
> > couldn't do such and such. What other kind of evolution is there?
> Is he
> > saying there's another kind of evolution that he accepts? If so,
> what does
> > he call it?
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> >
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> On
> > Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> > To: asa
> > Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
> >
> > Bernie:
> >
> > Your remarks about Behe are incorrect. They are not only
> unsupported by
> > any
> > references to his works; they show an almost complete
> misunderstanding of
> > his position. It is not Behe who is in a "muddle".
> >
> > Such a high degree of misunderstanding suggests a lack of
> familiarity with
> > Behe's writing. And this reminds me that you still have not
> answered my
> > earlier question: which books and essays of Behe have you read
> entirely
> > through?
> >
> > Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he
> says that
> > he
> > is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and
> publically
> > withdraw your comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> > To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:39 AM
> > Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
> >
> >
> >> Hi Bill- you apparently see the ID debate as "guided vs.
> unguided
> >> evolution" but I see it as "evolution vs. special creation."
> ('Special
> >> creation' being creation by fiat.)
> >>
> >> This is what I think I'm starting to see in the current origin's
> debate
> >> culture: Because evolution has been proven by pseudogenes,
> people want
> >> to
> >> shift the argument from "did evolution happen" to now "is
> evolution
> >> guided." I think this is the current crisis for OEC's. But I
> think
> >> OEC's
> >> reject evolution, so if they want to now accept it, even as
> 'God-guided,'
> >> they still have to leave the camp and come over to TE. The OEC
> camp will
> >> always be there, and it is only for those who reject evolution,
> guided or
> >> not.
> >>
> >> I think some OEC's are attempting to make a switch from
> "evolution is
> >> false" to "evolution is maybe God-guided" and appeal to
> Intelligent
> >> Design
> >> to save face (like a ploy to straddle the fence of accepting both
> modern
> >> science and simultaneously rejecting/accepting evolution).
> >>
> >> Behe is a perfect example of this muddle, by apparently
> rejecting
> >> evolution (in some aspects) and accepting it for human common
> descent.
> >> Therefore, Behe is neither for or against evolution.
> Creationists
> >> generally like to separate evolution into micro and macro. When
> Behe
> >> says
> >> he accepts common descent for humans, that is macro evolution.
> So here
> >> we
> >> have Behe accepting micro/macro evolution yet still against
> evolution for
> >> other things. I guess he needs to define another category of
> evolution,
> >> so he can accept micro and macro, but reject this third
> thing/part of
> >> evolution.
> >>
> >> ...Bernie
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com<mailto:wjp@swcp.com>]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:14 PM
> >> To: Dehler, Bernie
> >> Cc: asa
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
> >>
> >> OK. I've got to say something about this.
> >>
> >> Bernie, you apparently believe something like:
> >>
> >> Intentional/Design theories fail because they have not been able
> to
> >> demonstrate that unguided evolution could not have done it.
> >>
> >> This is a rather strange way to do science, and only the kind of
> game
> >> that
> >> a bully would employ. Is there any kind of evidence that it
> could be
> >> said
> >> "unguided evolution" could not do that?
> >>
> >> What a more civilized approach would be is that evolutionary
> mechanisms
> >> were clearly defined so that what is likely and what is not might
> be
> >> become clear. This would entail, for example, temporal
> stochastic
> >> equations. Is the abrupt arisal of species a problem for
> unguided
> >> (whatever one means by that) evolution or not? It doesn't seem
> to me
> >> that
> >> evolutionary biology is prepared to even address the question
> >> intelligently.
> >>
> >> How can there be honest theory comparison when the theory is so
> vague?
> >>
> >> ID can also be required to be more explicit. It needs to
> describe in
> >> detail a story, which is nothing more than evolution offers. The
> story
> >> would describe, for example, what are the minimal capabilities
> and steps
> >> required for a Guide to act.
> >>
> >> Comparing an explicit evolutionary mechanism and a guided one
> could be
> >> fruitful. For one, the guided story is one that could be
> possibly
> >> employed by human agents. The process of putting it together
> permits
> >> dialog between the two. One supporting a guided mechanism might
> argue
> >> that such and such step was entirely unlikely given available
> resources.
> >> In ths same the unguided advocate might argue that such and such
> a step
> >> might be accomplished without guidance, and here's how.
> >>
> >> In developing explicit guided mechanisms and paths, perhaps new
> >> definitions and understanding of what is guided and what is not
> will
> >> arise. For now it is vague.
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell there is no good evidence available to
> distinguish
> >> guided from unguided evolution. I don't see why "pseudogenes"
> are any
> >> better off in this regard. They appear to adopt a position that
> you
> >> oppose: an argument form ingnorance. Just because we know of no
> "reason"
> >> that a "pseudogene" would exist does not imply that some "reason"
> might
> >> be
> >> later found. So all that can be said is that no "reason" is
> known YET.
> >> Sound familiar? What is more, unless you know God or all
> putative
> >> designers better than I do, I don't see how you (or anyone) can
> say that
> >> "pseudogenes" were not intentional.
> >>
> >> The argument begins to look like Antony Flew's Invisible
> Gardener. One
> >> might ask what is the difference between and invisible Gardener
> and no
> >> Gardener at all, or what is the difference between an invisible
> designer
> >> (guided evolution) and no designer at all (unguided evolution).
> But I
> >> take from Flew's argument something different from what he
> intended. All
> >> his argument suggests to me is that given the evidence provided I
> have no
> >> reason to prefer a Gardener or none at all.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I think, if one must proceed along these lines, that
> the
> >> evidence
> >> better supports a guided universe. The only argument offered in
> Flew's
> >> case to prefer no Gardener at all is Occam's Razor. But I take
> this to
> >> be
> >> an epistemological criterion, and see no reason for it to bind
> ontology.
> >> Indeed, if it did, it would argue for a Gardener.
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> >>
> >>> William Paley used the 'watchmaker analogy' to demonstrate the
> idea of
> >>> intelligent design. We can just tell, by looking at nature,
> that things
> >>> are obviously designed by God by fiat, such as man, because of
> their
> >>> complexity.
> >>>
> >>> Darwin creates a stir with an alternate hypothesis of man's
> creation via
> >>> biological evolution instead. It is a competing hypothesis.
> Evolution
> >>> has now won, for explaining the biological creation of man,
> because of
> >>> DNA evidence like pseudogenes.
> >>>
> >>> So my question: Isn't Behe's 'moustrap' irreducible complexity
> the same
> >>> EXACT situation? It is basically saying since we don't know how
> it could
> >>> have evolved, therefore it was intelligently designed (by God
> or
> >>> aliens).
> >>> The only difference is that Behe goes into great detail trying
> to
> >>> explain
> >>> how it can't be done by known "Darwinistic evolutionist"
> mechanisms, but
> >>> Paley could have (and maybe did?) done the same thing
> (explaining
> >>> why/how
> >>> known science of his day could not explain evolution for
> humans).
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know what is so different about Behe, compared
> to Paley.
> >>> Paley has a 'complexity' argument with the watch, and Behe
> introduces
> >>> irreducible complexity, but both are proposing ID because known
> science
> >>> can't explain it... yet.
> >>>
> >>> It is interesting to me that Paley's argument for the
> biological
> >>> creation
> >>> of man is not discarded because it is wrong with the idea of
> complexity,
> >>> but because the evolutionary process has evidence "beyond a
> reasonable
> >>> doubt." So complexity may still be a valid way to detect ID,
> yet in
> >>> this
> >>> case, it turned out wrong as science accumulated more facts. It
> could
> >>> be
> >>> the same with irreducible complexity. A valid way to detect ID,
> yet
> >>> disproven in the future when more facts become available.
> >>>
> >>> But what is the evidence to prove irreducible complexity? It
> seems like
> >>> the only evidence is "evolution can't do it or explain it...
> yet."
> >>>
> >>> ...Bernie
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Best Weight Loss Program - Click
> >
>
Here!<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbJIGGVvhB4N4p
Rois01alcOlXrsNLcHdIyNmyDSyDKwlJ1fNW/>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYduaWAxCyjwDvDI0pBWIufu8X0ZtfIQao9Co6AW0IM4LUYJEe0/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 19 14:20:15 2009