The relevence of Biblical claims to science

This is intended as a continuation of an off-topic conversation in the now-closed thread "Who is Held to Higher Standards at EvC?" In that thread, Maestro232 made a strong claim that science and scientists were deliberately rejecting the spiritual aspects of the world in their attempts to understand it - hence missing out on "higher truths".Since this is a similar claim to that of mike-the-wiz, and to a lesser extent dshortt in another thread, I feel that it is important to continue that discussion. A reprise of the relevant posts follows: After some toing-and-froing, Maestro's final reply appears to deny his initial stance: There indeed may be "additional important things to discover about life" as Maestro states. However, that was not the nature of the challenge. The questions I posed are totally relevant to Maestro's original contention: scientists are missing truth by rejecting the spiritual. A response to these questions will go a long way to convincing me that spirituality has some relevance. In addition, these are the types of questions that scientists - evolutionary scientists - routinely address using only the methodological naturalism of science. The challenge of course is open to any who wish to reply.I would add that if it is NOT possible to answer my six questions using recourse to the Bible or spirit, then the contention that the supernatural has relevance to science is rendered moot.Added by edit: Eliminated extraneous commentary, and added a few sentences to give the topic more relevance.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-20-2004 03:33 PM

I would tend to agree with Maestro. His topic is quite clearly related to the origins discussion. I would like mine to focus on the practical aspects of his original claim: that science is missing a bet when not considering the spiritual in its conclusions and methodology.edited to add: However, AdminIRH has convinced me that consolidating the two topics may be a worthwhile endeavor. We'll see.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-20-2004 04:22 PM

I'd say you're on target with my intent. It is certainly the practical aspects of the question that I'd like to explore. And I'm quite willing to let the general question of "spirituality" subside in deference to Maestro's desire to discuss the Bible as it relates to the physical world. The challenge in my OP remains unchanged regardless of whether we speak of spirituality in a general sense or more narrowly in a Biblical Christian sense.

Well, my problem is that "Biblical claims on creation: irrelevent spirituality or physical relevence?" is not the area of my topic. I posited very specific cases for discussion. A general discussion of origins is NOT my intent.

Well, we can try it I guess. After all, what's in a name?

Well, it might make a good subject, but a GD is not in the cards for me at this moment. I have about three more days of playing on the computer, then I'm off-line for at least a week. Hopefully, as Ned mentioned, there'll be other people than Maestro and I who want to get involved in the thread.

I'd like to start out by stipulating to some of your premises for the sake of discussion.1. God exists. Moreover, this deity is the Christian God.2. The Christian Bible represents a reasonable facsimile of the Word of God. Close enough so that there are passages within the text that can be used as a guideline for a practical epistemology in regards to the natural world.3. This deity has in the past intervened in the development of life (you'll have to let me know if you're a progressive or single-event creationist).4. Scientists - specifically life scientists - collectively and individually have rejected and/or ignored the actions of this deity as they impact the natural world, thus making minor to grievous errors in their interpretations.To explore the implications of the existence and activity of the [divine; supernatural; insert-word-here], it should be possible to show how real-life questions in the biological sciences have BETTER answers when using recourse to this entity than are available to the "spirit-rejecting" biologist, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, paleobiolgist, ecologist, paleoecologist, paleobotanist, etc. Alternatively, it should be possible to show how the existing answers are incorrect because they failed to account for the actions of the deity.I am granting you full and unrestricted use of your paradigm to answer any (or preferably all) of the six questions posed in the OP - which should also have the salutory effect of silencing the double-standard complaint. These are practical questions, referring to actual living organisms and the current state of the natural world. Please note: all but one of these questions has been adequately answered under the evolutionary paradigm. The one that has not been adequately answered may, in fact, not have an answer - or at least may be beyond our ability to address at this time. To defend your premises, you MUST show either one of the two possibilities I mentioned: show how your paradigm provides a better answer, or show how the answer derived from evolutionary theory is incorrect or inadequate. Failing this, your contention that Biblical claims are relevant to science stands falsified.That is the debate. Those are the parameters of the discussion. I eagerly await your reply.

Why not? Those are very representative questions of the type that are answered or at least investigated on a daily basis by evolutionary biologists. The particular questions are unimportant in and of themselves. After all, I can come up with ten dozen questions of similar nature. IF your epistemology is valid - IOW, if your assertions concerning the Bible, God, etc provide a better method of understanding nature - then you should be able to use that methodology and show where the scientists are wrong.If you don't like those, try these:1. Parasitism by Striga hermonthica causes an estimated 8 billion dollars annually through destroying vital cereal crops in Africa. Biologists, using evolutionary theory, are researching geographic variability of Striga populations in an effort to determine selection effects by variously resistant strains of Sorghum asiatica with an eye toward developing long-term resistance stability. How would adding the supernatural aid or increase the effectiveness of this research?2. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa. It's an introduced species - and the introduction brought a parasite with it (the cassava mealy bug Phenacoccus manihoti). The parasite caused upwards of 80% losses in every effected field threatening starvation for millions. How would recourse to the Bible, God or the supernatural address this problem?3. The European green crab (Carcinus maenas), another introduced species, is threatening the US Pacific coast crab fisheries through predation (among other problems). Explain in detail how a theistic epistemology would address this issue.I will not accept "generic" philosophical arguments. Metaphysics is unable to solve real-world problems. You have stated that scientists are wrong for leaving God out of the equation. Here's your opportunity to show how including the supernatural would provide better or even equivalent answers to the problems we face today. Anything else is begging the question.

Then please explain the value of an epistemology that - what, randomly? - that is only applicable in certain cases. How are these cases differentiated from others - IOW, how do we know when to use spirit (or whatever)? If my simple questions in the OP are unanswerable using "spirit", then what questions ARE answerable? And of what value to science is this? Worse yet, you now seem to have made "spiritual truth" to be subjective making it even more useless as a means of understanding nature. Well, I'll certainly grant you that 1.a.1 is not addressable by science, since the phenomena you reference is nonexistent. Or perhaps you have some replicated examples? As to the second, behavior is quite amenable to scientific inquiry. After all, we can see the exact same types of behavior in other animals, and especially in other primates. You're better off asking why occasionally people behave unselfishly or altruistically - something that apparently isn't that common in other organisms. I certainly agree that miracles are unaddressable except in the context of the Bible or other religious texts. After all, these phenomena don't have any objective existence, correct? Only subjective experience filtered by reference to the particular religion gives miracles any "reality" (and I use the term advisedly). Incorrect. SOME scientists accept a spiritual realm. However, it has no place in their science. This is one of the premises I stipulated to, so I won't argue against it. This premise is invalid. You have not established that the spiritual realm effects the physical. You have not even logically established the existence of the spiritual realm in the first place. However, this again was a premise I stipulated, therefore simply be aware that you are engaging in a logical fallacy. This claim is ambiguous, as you have undefined terminology. How, specifically, is the physical realm concerned with the spiritual realm? You are borderline on an undeclared claim - another logical fallacy. For this premise to be accepted, you're going to have to flesh out exactly what you mean by "being concerned with", as well as define "spirtual realm". However, you have yet to logically establish there is any connection between a physical realm and the so-called spirtual realm - or as I noted, even what the latter is. Thus, your "conclusion" doesn't follow from the premises. However, you have neither addressed my main question, nor provided anything remotely resembling a specific claim. You have made a number of un-evidenced assertions without support, and your logical construction is both invalid and unsound. Please expand on what physical truth you are describing as a start. You are conflating two different useages of "why". Creationists INVARIABLY do this. In fact, this was sooo predictable I had a side bet with my 13-year-old daughter that you would do it. She now owes me $.25.In a scientific context (i.e., the context in which I used it), "why" equates to "what is the cause of..." or "what is the explanation for...". Creationists insist on using "why" to mean "what is the purpose of..." - which is an utterly non-scientific question. Purpose is a subjective valuation that has no place in science. It is not a question that science addresses because it has no meaning for an understanding of the natural world. It actually says more about the worldview of the individual asking the question than it does about truth, hence is useless. Except for the fact that the phenomenon you are attempting to use as support for your claim doesn't exist. Therefore, your claim 2.a is invalidated UNLESS you can provide another objective example.You'd have been better off trying your hand at either of my sets of questions. You might have actually been able to advance a coherent epistemology that included the spiritual - especially in response to the second set, which were designed to allow you to actually apply an epistemology rather than simply answering factual questions. Want to try again?

This is a valid question. Why DO my questions fit under the rubric of science? I would say primarily because they are based on fact - undeniable, unimpeachable, easily replicated facts. For example:"1. Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?" is based on the fact that there AREN'T any predators on the island. There are thriving populations on the nearby mainland - with almost identical habitats. So the question asks: what is the explanation for this fact? It doesn't attempt to draw any strange correlations between non-existent phenomena and the customs of a primitive tribe. Even if there were a vit K spike as in your example, and it was limited to males, and occured only at the time you postulate (none of which are true), the correlation between custom and fact may have many alternative explanations. In science, either the alternative explanations must be eliminated through additional observation, OR the alternative explanations must be considered within and included with the answer to the question. THAT is the difference. And THAT, (to paraphrase Yoda), is why you fail.

Hi Maestro. Man, this thread expands at an exponential rate. Hopefully my response won't get too buried. Thank Percy for the "reply to specific post" feature of the board... I guess it does in many ways depend on what you consider "important". However, in the first place you are moving the goalposts quite significantly. After all, your original contention was that scientists (for future reference, I'm focusing on life scientists in particular when I say "scientists") in general fail in their approach to "truth" (and I think at some point we may need to define this term a bit better) by rejecting or at least not taking into consideration the spiritual (or divine, or whatever other term you want to use), and specifically by not taking into consideration the Bible. You are now introducing the concept of "relative importance" with the implication that the Bible only addresses "important" questions, leaving the rest of science alone - a significant shift in emphasis.I'm actually willing to allow you that shift. After all, I consider biodiversity conservation to be THE critical question our species needs to address in both the long term and near term sense. All six questions in the OP were related to that issue, albeit related to the small details rather than grand schemes. However, even if you don't consider biodiversity all that important, that doesn't get you out of addressing the second set of questions. I would certainly think that the threatened starvation of literally millions of people (question #2), the loss of both food and financial resources in an area which can ill afford it (question #1), and the threat to commercial livelihoods of a segment of the US population dependent on fisheries (question #3) represent fairly "important" issues by any definition. Moreover, the second set allows you to posit a theoretical approach to researching the answers (without necessarily having to address the specifics of each case) that in fact provides a BETTER approach than the methodological naturalism the actual scientists working on the cases have used. On the contrary, "macroevolution" HAS been observed in the lab. Lenski's 10,000-generation experiments with bacteria, the colonialization experiments on Chlorella, Okada et al's nylon digesting flavobacterium, etc. Obviously, what we can observe is related only to those organisms with short generation times that we can observe directly. We can also observe speciation events "in real time" (note: unless you are using some non-standard definition of macroevolution, I am going with the usual macroevolution = speciation) in the field. Quite a few plants, for example, have been shown to produce hybrids through various means including gene doubling where the hybrids are able to reproduce with other hybrids, but not with either parent species - instant speciation. Another case of observed speciation is the splitting of Rhagoletis genus into two species after the late 19th Century introduction of apple trees into North America. Etc.However, once again you are changing the game - in this case by attempting to shift the burden of proof. Another standard creationist tactic. You are the one who made the claim that we are examining: that a theistic approach provides a better methodology than a naturalist approach. Another thread or another time for an examination of evolution's claims. Please try again. I agree completely with the first part (up to the bold). However, in the second bit concerning miracles you are once again attempting to shift the burden of proof. YOU have made the claim that miracles exist, and that the Bible is an accurate historical record of these things. It is incumbent upon YOU to show the reality of miracles, etc. I don't have to refute something for which there is no objective evidence. If there IS evidence, then you need to present it. And present it in such a fashion that alternative explanations, if any, are taken into account. Welcome to science. You can certainly claim whatever you wish. I can claim that I was the unwilling subject of weird alien medical experiments on an undisclosed moon of Jupiter. It's unlikely that anyone will accept my claim without some pretty substantive evidence. Therefore, if you want someone to accept your claim, you need to support it with something that can be independently checked and confirmed. You need to start, as I noted previously, with defining your terms in a concrete fashion. Your continued insistence on using undefined terminology renders your statement meaningless. It is equivalent to all those fake psychics claiming crystal channeling can restore balance to spiritual energy. What is spiritual energy? How do you know when it is unbalanced? Or "restored" for that matter?Get the picture? However, in an objective sense, the entire concept of "purpose" and even what constitutes a "valuable question" is meaningless. Scientists seek to establish objective truths about the natural world. You have stated that you have a better approach than methodological naturalism. I have offered you the opportunity on this thread to demonstrate your claim. So far, I'd say your studied avoidance of doing so is a strong indication that your claim is spurious. Again with the undefined terms. What is "sinful nature"? Without referent to what you are attempting to prove (i.e., avoiding the "affirming the consequent" fallacy), define "sin" and "not sin" objectively. Afterwards, you can examine in detail how the existence of death is correlated with the existence of the now-objective concept of sin. Of course, once again, to be taken seriously, you'll need to provide some kind of evidence or at least coherent logic in support of your claim.

Not a bad approach as far as it goes. The only real difficulty I see is that to demonstrate "b", you're going to have to propose a clear methodology - an epistemology - and demonstrate how this methodology provides a better explanation for (or arrives at a more accurate "truth" about) some aspect of the natural world. I would say that simply picking up on a gap in current scientific concensus is unlikely to yield the result you and I are looking for. I'm a very concrete person. I don't operate well in a philosophical realm - in fact I tend to break out in hives and start drooling when someone starts in on metaphysics. For my purposes, then, you'll need to pick a question relating to actual fact or observation from nature, ask a question (for example, for a cause or explanation) and trace in detail how your epistemology answers (or would answer) the question in a more comprehensive fashion than strict methodological naturalism. You're free to approach this any way you desire. If it were me, I'd probably compare and contrast the approaches and show how my approach gets a better result, but that's just the way I'd do it.I'll reserve judgement on your approach until I see it. At least the discussion appears to be moving forward.

I think you may be too narrow in your definition of epistemology. Certainly the way I used it may be incorrect, but I used the term in the sense of a methodology that allows us to determine the relative validity of an approach to knowledge. As such, an epistemology would be a way of representing reality that permits effective problem solving. We essentially have two approaches to knowledge represented on this thread: a fairly undefined theistic approach and methodological naturalism. The fundamental question is which one presents an adequate approach.Of course, I could be wrong, as usual.

Well, it's certainly not the order science has determined. In fact, it's not even remotely equivalent. So, for your next trick, you need to justify accepting YOUR model over the scientific model. Since there is no possibility of reconciliation between the two accounts - they're just too diametrically opposed - we need to resort to additional relevant data to determine which one provides the most accurate model.What concrete observations from nature support the Biblical account over the scientific account?

I think that might be an interesting thread all on its own. I think I could even make a case that your recipe is dependent on a particular approach to knowledge (cooking). Does your recipe derive from the "cordon bleu" epistemology or the "burn it 'till it screams" approach? However, I think we should let it go for now, and focus on the methodology used by Maestro. He's got enough problems with his first example, it appears.