Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1 of 67 (35415)
03-27-2003 7:48 AM


I wanted to open this thread for a continuation of the fascinating (although off-topic) discussion between Joralex, Schraf and John from The Bible - 2003 edition thread in Biblical Accuracy. The thread is, of course, open to any participant.
In that thread Joralex began laying a foundation (in response to other posters) for the claim that evolutionary science is in fact a metaphysic based on philosophical naturalism.
For example,
in post 50, Joralex writes:
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean God did it.
But why must it mean that God didn't do it?
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?
The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.
Later in the same post, Joralex writes:
When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence. This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science". When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".
Further:
in post 57, Joralex writes:
'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently. What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.
To me, the first quoted section contradicts the latter two. In the first, Joralex is apparently taking science to task for an unbending, dogmatic, a priori unwillingness to accept new ideas, and in the latter, s/he is taking science to task for its tentativity - the ability to be modified in the light of new observations or ideas. It is this apparent contradiction that I would like to explore in this thread.
I would like to begin by setting out the parameters of what methodological naturalism (science) IS, then invite Joralex to provide both a counterargument AND the equivalent parameters for creationism.
For the science side, I have found few better explanations than that used by Michael Ruse (and quoted by Overton in McClean vs Arkansas):
1. It is guided by natural law.
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
3. It is testable against the empirical world.
4. Its conclusions are tentative — that is, not necessarily the final word.
5. It is falsifiable.
What is natural law (points one and 2)? In essence, these are regularities in nature that have been observed and tested. Regularity in this context means that someone can make an observation through use of a particular device (for example), and someone else in the same conditions using the same device will achieve the same observation. Your microscope won't arbitrarily show something completely different each time you use it. Point 3 requires that observational testing be able to be employed to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. This can be done either through direct observation, experimental control of variables, or through showing that the consequences or results that would be expected if a hypothesis were true do in fact obtain. Point number 5 (I'll come back to 4) deals with the falsifiability of empirical theory. It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the hypothesis false. Although the concept sounds counterintuitive, this rule guarantees that if a hypothesis is false, then the evidence will prove it false, and if the hypothesis is true, then the evidence will not DISPROVE it. Consider: if nothing could ever disprove an idea (the invulnerable claim), then whatever evidence DOES exist wouldn't matter - it would be pointless to even look at the evidence because the conclusion is already known. Nonfalsifiable hypotheses simply describe the holder’s values or the way s/he feels about the world.
And finally, point 4. This seems to be one of the primary problems Joralex has with science (at least from his/her posts to date). Tentativity in science simply means that - based on current understanding - a particular explanation is the current best available. Since scientists are constantly trying to make new discoveries or to develop new concepts and theories, then the body of knowledge produced by science undergoes constant change. Such change is progress toward a better understanding of nature. It is achieved by constantly questioning whether our current ideas are correct.
For an outstanding essay on this point, see Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.
Which brings me to the last bit:
Of course science is wrong! It was rather wrong yesterday, and it is, admittedly, somewhat wrong today, and it will be ever-so-slightly wrong tomorrow! But it is continually becoming less wrong, and it is demonstrably closer to the truth about nature than any other form of knowledge. Now, kindly tell us, where is your religion wrong? (from Clay Farris, "Darwin vs God: A Report from Oz", Free Inquiry, Vol 21, No 2)
The gauntlet is down, Joralex. Looking forward to your reply.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 03-27-2003 1:01 PM Quetzal has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 67 (35446)
03-27-2003 11:03 AM


For Joralex.....
quote:
What 'evolution' are you talking about?
There really is only one ToE...
quote:
Yes, there is "gobs of evidence" for variation (changes) in organisms.
... and that is it!
quote:
But evidence for the earth's entire biota having a common, goo-like ancestor?
One step at a time. Start with a population of animals and note that with each generation the genes of the individuals vary slightly. Then note that more distantly related individuals have more variation between their genes. This gives you a mechanism by which you can determine the relationships between organisms even if you haven't observed them actually banging their various gongs. Couple this with timelines established via observations of mutation rates and you have a timeline of life on earth. Now, take the indisputable ( I hope ) observation that genes effect the way the body-- most notably for our purposes, the skeleton-- looks and you have a means of corroborating and expanding the above timeline and relationship chart.
quote:
Seems to me like this "new character" has been around for a long time.
All but the last bit is not evolution. Only creationists insist on calling this whole sequence the "evolutionary paradigm." When you accept the idea of gravity, as I assume you do, do you also accept the "gravitational paradigm" which includes relativity which in turn implies the Big Bang? This tactic does nothing but muddy the water. It is diversionary.
quote:
Not a materialist?
Yes, and neither is any modern physicist unless you redefine "materialism" to account for the weird happening of quantum physics and matter/energy equivalencies. But this redefinition would be preposterous to the folks who traditionally went by the title of materialist.
quote:
So, are you a theistic evolutionist, a progressive evolutionist, or some other?
I just happen to think evolution fits the data best.
quote:
Typical - ridicule that which is not understood.
Typical-- cry foul and avoid the issue. Does one need an intellectually defensible position against an absurd idea?
quote:
There are many intelligent, well educated individuals
Appeal to authority.
quote:
that not only defend creationism intellectually
... attempt to defend creationism intellectually.
quote:
They say creationism is defensible. You say it isn't. Now what?
Where is that defense? I've been looking for it for quite some time.
quote:
BTW, the answer to "why does God allow suffering?" is available to anyone that wants to listen.
So you avoid the issue by stating that there is a answer but you aren't going to share it?
The point, btw, is that there does not have to be an answer to every question. That is, we don't have everything figured out. This doesn't invalidate what we do have, tentatively, figured out.
quote:
Dear John, it is thee that has missed the point.We can only go by what we do have - I totally agree. But then it becomes necessary to fill in whatever gaps we have in our knowledge.quote]
This is where we part. You appear content to just make up something to shove into those gaps. I am not so content. I'd like to have some REASON to place one item rather than another into the various gaps.
quote:
Now, just how is it that these gaps are filled?
With inferences from evidence, not with whatever-you-want-to-make-up.
quote:
Aside from fanciful/wishful theories and unrealistic experiments (e.g., Stanley Miller), there is nothing that tells us how evolution could have gotten its start.
Discounting experiment does not help your case.
Abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzled. We don't know in detail how a lot of things work. That is why there are scientists. Does, in other arenas, an unanswered question throw doubt on the whole field?
quote:
And so people like yourself are forced to say, "Well, we don't know how it got started but it did."
This isn't science, it's metaphysics.

Metaphysics????? It is common sense. It obviously did get started or we wouldn't be here. Or do you deny that animals reproduce and pass along altered DNA each time?
The difference is that you want to say that God started it, and this without evidence-- so far at least. I would rather wait for some REASON to believe one story over another. And in the meantime, restrict myself to reasoning from the evidence we have.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-27-2003 12:09 PM John has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 67 (35463)
03-27-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
03-27-2003 11:03 AM


Re: For Joralex.....
quote:
Really? So, when was the last time that you observed abiogenesis?
I am talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
The evidence, however, which suggests that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, is observable to everyone. No scientist would say that abiogenesis theory is anywhere near as well-supported as the theory of evolution, which explains what has happened to life once it appeared. How that life first appeared is much, mush less understood.
Your objection is a false one. Just because no one has produced life from non life doesn't mean it won't be. To point at a gap in our knowledge and claim that God is responsible has been tried throughout the history of science.
quote:
quote:The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument.
I agree that it is ridiculous.
However, you seem to be saying that the very nature of science, by definition, promotes philosophical materialism because it ignores God or the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted.
What you are suggesting, then, is that science SHOULD include God and the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted.
quote:
quote: That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.
Exactly. So, are you now reversing your contention that science requires scientists to be materialistic naturalists?
quote:
quote: In an earlier post I had asked a simple question : are you promoting only that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations or are you promoting the complete naturalistic package?
Even if life started by way of abiogenesis, who are you to say that God didn't have a hand in it?
quote:
quote: If, as I suspect, you are promoting the complete package then it is YOU that brought up the start of life from non-life - or hadn't you noticed?
Naturalists are those who believe that nature is all there is. It is not required of scientists that one hold to the philosophy of natualism in order to do good science. As evidence I will remind you that there are thousands of religious scientists (I can think of at least 6 in my husband's Neuroscience graduate department alone) who do excellent science.
quote:
quote: S: For years, the leading creationists refused to accept speciation. It was only after years of ridicule that many decided to change their tune.
quote:
quote:Yet another of those frequently parroted myths!
'Change' is a fact of life and for as long as I've known about creationism change has been considered a part of the natural and theological world.
Except that there are still Creationists who claim that change only happens within "kinds" (whatever that means), and that those "kinds" are fixed and unchangeable.
quote:
quote:'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently.
Yes. Why is this a problem?
quote:
quote: What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.
Your simplistic definition, "Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring," is only one definition of several, it's true.
Nature is messy. Nature is complicated. That is why simplistic explanations of concepts such as "speciation" often end up needing to be expanded and clarified. Do you fault Physics for having several definitions of "energy" depending upon the situation? So, why do you fault Biology for expanding upon the concept of speciation as we learn more about it?
quote:
quote:Ah, some of the truth finally rears its head - how nice of you.
I have never hidden this from anyone. You are new here.
quote:
quote:I would respond to your accusation
"Accusation?" It is a fact, actually, that Christian fundamentalists have been trying to get their religion taught in science classrooms for a long time.
quote:
quote: by saying that the issue is that ONE religion (namely, materialistic naturalism) is being forced on our children while the only other possible metaphysic (this being that naturalism is NOT a sufficient explanation for the universe) is purposely kept from our kids.
Philosophic naturalism is not required to be held by any scientist to do good science, so I fail to understand how you can say that science is religious in the least. Science ignores the supernatural because scince deals with the natural.
quote:
quote:Education means that all possibilities are presented... indoctrination means that only one view is presented.
If you have a scienctific alternative to evolution to put forth, let's hear it. It must be falsifiable, and have positive evidence to support it, and be better supported by the evidence than evolution. I can't wait to see it!
quote:
quoteur kids aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated into materialistic naturalism.
Please provide evidence from science textbooks that supports this assertion, please.
Do you believe that, along with teaching mainstream Physics and Gravitational Theory, we should teach children that invisible fairies pushing down on everything causes gravity?
quote:
quote: The only reason that people such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this is because materialistic naturalism is your religion and you are quite happy that your children are being indoctri... er... educated in that faith.
I think it is a simple thing to understand that science deals with nature and what we can detect about nature with our five senses. Religion and philosophy deal with other things. They are seperate.
quote:
quote:S: "But would you, in theory, be willing to change your beliefs in the light of evidence?"
quote:
quote: I can answer that truthfully - YES, I would. Here's why : one characteristic of God is truth - truth above all. To oppose any truth is, in essence, to oppose God.
I don't think you quite understand.
Would you be willing to give up your belief in God, or that the Bible is the word of God, if the evidence warranted?
quote:
quote:This having been said the question of 'evidence' needs to be understood. Allow me a simple example :
I tell you that I've been to Australia and as evidence of this I hand you some photos of the Great Barrier Reef (that I say to you I took while I was there). So, you have tangible evidence - do you "believe" my claim?
It depends on how sure I want to be. If I was a detective, I would want lots of corroborating evidence, such as flight records, picures of you in front of the Opera House, other people's eyewitness accounts, a video tape would be good, phone records from when you called from your Australian hotel, rental receipts, etc.
Why do you ask?
quote:
quote:You shouldn't confuse an "instance" with the "totality" - 'observable phenomena' with an 'interpretative paradigm'.
Thousands and thousands of similar "instances" (observations and inferences) come together into a picture, which is what we call the Theory of Evolution.
All of science consists of "interpretive paradigms". All data is interpreted in the light of past and current research.
Every time we find a new fossil, for example, and it bears out a prediction of the theory, that is a test that the theory has survived. This has been repeated thousands and thousands of times, making the ToE one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence.
quote:
quote: You do keep forgetting that F = ma does not in any way oppose a metaphysic (e.g., Christianity) while "our ancestors were primates" clashes directly with other metaphysics.
AHA! Now the truth comes out. You could care less about scientific evidence. You have decided that Evolution MUST be wrong because it contradicts your religion, regardless of the evidence.
Sorry, science does not operate or progress according to how it's findings clash or contradict a particular religious sect's doctrine.
That your religion can't deal with the findings of science is not science's problem. At least you Christians don't get to burn us "heretics" at the stake anymore, or arrest us for blasphemy and throw us in the stocks.
quote:
quote:Think what you want.
Hey, you made the insinuation, not me.
quote:
quote: If evolution bites the dust, tell me, with what does materialistic naturalism replace it with?It is clear that evolution must be retained at all cost since the alternative is simply and completely unacceptable to the faithful naturalists.
OK, let me get this straight.
It's BAD that science CHANGES, as when the ToE was altered with Punk Eek, right? It ISN'T GOOD that science changes in the light of new evidence and corrects it's mistakes, right?
Is this what you are saying?
quote:
quote: S: "Science changes in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, we would have rejected Einstein. Do you suggest that it was wrong of us to have accepted his Relativity Theory?"
quote:
quotef course not
Good.
quote:
quote:and you're creating a strawman here.
No, I am not.
You said that it is highly suspect that the ToE ever changed (like with Punk Eek).
I pointed out that Physics changed a great deal when Newton's laws were shown to be incorrect in certain cases, and Einstein's Relativity was adopted.
To remain consistent, you would have to be reject every advancement in science simply because it is new, because this is what you are doing with evolution/the Modern Synthesis.
quote:
quote: You're missing a huge part of the picture. While revelation is part of Christianity, any all all aspects of natural science must support this revelation - God cannot be a deceiver with His creation and a revealer with His revelation.
That's why Creation science isn't science. You ignore or twist evidence which contradicts your religion.
From the AiG Statement of Faith:
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis
"1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
* By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
According to these statments, revelation is of primary importance, NOT evidence. This, by definition, means that any evidence which contradicts revelation may be ignored.
This is not science. It is deeply anti-science.
quote:
quote: But then there's 'interpretation (there's that word again). If the observations are interpreted under a materialistic paradigm then these interpretations will undoubtedly support naturalism (and they do). But this is the ol' GIGO - hardly compelling.
I don't care how religions interpret scientific findings, as long as they do not try to call what they do "science".
If you are "interpreting" through the filter of what you are "supposed" to find because you looked in the Bible before you ever looked at the evidence, then you cannot possibly be doing science.
quote:
quote: F = ma applies equally whether you're dealing with ping-pong balls, locomotives, or the moon around the earth. Different realms doesn't imply that the "laws" must be different.
Please explain how F=ma applies to your faith.
quote:
quote: Likewise, fairness and scholarship dictates that if creationists modify certain positions as things are learned, that they be accorded the same flexibility as naturalists insist on having. Claiming that the latter are doing 'science' and that the former are engaged in 'fanatic goalpost moving' is... baloney.
What "certain positions" are you talking about? Please give examples.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 03-27-2003 11:03 AM John has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 67 (35464)
03-27-2003 12:24 PM


This is a reply to Message 57 of the The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al thread.
Joralex writes:
Really? So, when was the last time that you observed abiogenesis?
Two points. First, when was the last time you observed an atomic particle? Never, right? Their existence is only implied. Does that make atomic particles a religion or metaphysic?
Second, we don't accept evolution because of abiogenesis. Rather, we hypothesize that abiogenesis happened because it's an inevitable implication as you trace the evolution of organisms back in time.
The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument. That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.
Newton did not believe "God did it" in causing apples to fall or the planets to orbit the sun, but that it was due to gravity, a property of an object's mass. Maxwell did not believe that God created the fields described by his equations, but that they were a result of moving charges. Newton and Maxwell, like many of us here, believed that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, but God played no role in their theories.
'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently. What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.
Science attempts to understand the real world. Because we know our understanding can never be complete, it is tentative, or as you say, malleable. It changes its views when new or better information becomes available. You're criticizing science for living up to its definition.
I would respond to your accusation by saying that the issue is that ONE religion (namely, materialistic naturalism) is being forced on our children while the only other possible metaphysic (this being that naturalism is NOT a sufficient explanation for the universe) is purposely kept from our kids.
I think Quetzal has already addressed this by providing the Ruse definition of science. How would *you* characterize what should be taught in science class? How do you justify calling materialistic naturalism (your term, by the way, and not one I would use) a religion, especially for those of us who already have a religion?
Education means that all possibilities are presented...
Science education in the K-12 grades focuses on presenting the current state of the art as represented by the preponderance of opinion. The leading edge of scientific advances are not typically taught, though naturally they'll be mentioned as part of "current events in science." I would agree with you about representing all possibilities, but only to the point of allowing possibilities with significant representation within the scientific community competent to have an opinion (ie, the opinions of cosmologists about biology don't count, and so forth).
This having been said the question of 'evidence' needs to be understood. Allow me a simple example :
I tell you that I've been to Australia and as evidence of this I hand you some photos of the Great Barrier Reef (that I say to you I took while I was there). So, you have tangible evidence - do you "believe" my claim?
Evidence or data is information apparent in some way to the five senses. The persuasiveness of evidence is a function of the nature of the evidence, how well it fits with existing evidence, and the presence of any countervailing evidence. So your photos qualify as evidence, but they're certainly not conclusive evidence. But your point emphasizing evidence is a very good one, because in order to promote the theory of creation described in Genesis you need to present evidence supporting it, not just call the theory of evolution a religion.
You do keep forgetting that F = ma does not in any way oppose a metaphysic (e.g., Christianity) while "our ancestors were primates" clashes directly with other metaphysics.
So science which doesn't oppose a metaphysic is okay, while science which opposes a metaphysic is wrong? How is this any different than saying any science which contradicts the views of fundamentalist Christians is wrong? Also, "the universe began with the Big Bang" contradicts your metaphysic. And "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" contradicts your metaphysic. Are they wrong too?
You're missing a huge part of the picture. While revelation is part of Christianity, any all aspects of natural science must support this revelation - God cannot be a deceiver with His creation and a revealer with His revelation.
This is an excellent point. So when God's word as written in the earth and stars contradicts God's word as recorded in Bible, which do you go with?
--Percy

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 67 (35467)
03-27-2003 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
03-27-2003 7:48 AM


What are you driving at?
Quetzal:
I read your post (in a bit of a hurry) and couldn't really see what the essence of your conflict with me is. I suspect that it is multi-faceted but, nonetheless, that it stems from a basic, singular disagreement. I would also bet that this source is metaphysical in nature - your post provided me with many hints of this.
I couldn't help but notice the nature of the sources that you used as references (I'm talking about Ruse, Free Inquiry and Isaac Asimov). This by itself revealed to me a great deal about your mindset.
Although I am generally very reluctant to talk about myself, I think it necessary that you should know a little bit about me : Entered college at 16. Majored in physics, mathematics and philosophy (took me 6 years). U. S. Air Force for just over 7 years primarily in a research capacity (theoretical pattern recognition and AI; surveillance satellites and space weapons with DARPA; non-nuclear warhead development; nuclear weapons test monitoring). At age 25 was awarded the Air Force Scientific Achievement Award for (classified) work. After the USAF, worked with private industry including at Cape Canaveral, Florida doing guidance systems development for Poseidon Missiles. MS degree from Florida Institute of Technology. Began PhD - discontinued to pursue business interests. Said business interests are in developing measurement instrumentation for radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine and PET and have occupied me for the last 12 years up to the present.
Communication is best when at least something of the audience is known - so now you know.
It is tiresome for me to have to listen to the repeated parroting of the myth "creationists don't know/understand science". I've been at this webite for just a few weeks and, sure enough, I've already heard it in one way or another many times.
I've been privileged to know a large number of outstanding scientists that were also dedicated, faithful Christian creationists. I met many of these people in places such as Los Alamos, Sandia, DARPA, A/N/AF Weapons Laboratories, and basically all over. When are you people ever going to accept that one thing has very little to do with the other? The source of your conflict with us isn't scientific it is spiritual!
You cite Asimov... here's an excerpt :
Asimov : "The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts... "
This is Asimov, the same guy that was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto and regarded himself as a dedicated Humanist - a religious stance (by their own admission) that clashes head-on with Christianity.
Here Asimov is very clearly exposing part of his metaphysic - "there are no absolutes; right and wrong are fuzzy/relative." I am not surprised at all by this statement - I have a copy of all three Humanist Manifestos and Asimov is here merely promoting part of the Humanist religious doctrine.
Now, I openly admit that I promote my religion - Christianity. What the Atheist needs to come to terms with is that they are also deeply religious and promote a worldview that is just as religious as any other. The "we are not religious, we stand on evidence" is one of the biggest crocks yet devised.
Again, now you know a little more. Feel free to ignore any part of the above and plainly state what it is that you wish to argue for. Thanks.
BTW, I sincerely hope that my abbreviated biographical data isn't used for anything other than the sole purpose that I intended - to facilitate communication.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 03-27-2003 7:48 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2003 2:16 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 4:43 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 03-28-2003 4:11 AM Joralex has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 67 (35477)
03-27-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
03-27-2003 1:01 PM


Re: What are you driving at?
What the Atheist needs to come to terms with is that they are also deeply religious and promote a worldview that is just as religious as any other. The "we are not religious, we stand on evidence" is one of the biggest crocks yet devised.
The error you make here is to imagine that all the people you subsume under "atheist" think the same. I think that is possibly even less so than lumping all monotheistic people as "the same" - Shiites, Mormons, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Hasids, Southern Baptists..... It's not so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 03-27-2003 1:01 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 03-27-2003 2:25 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 10 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 7:21 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 67 (35480)
03-27-2003 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
03-27-2003 2:16 PM


Re: What are you driving at?
The error you make here is to imagine that all the people you subsume under "atheist" think the same. I think that is possibly even less so than lumping all monotheistic people as "the same" - Shiites, Mormons, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Hasids, Southern Baptists..... It's not so.
And the other error he makes is to subsume under "atheist" all who accept the theory of evolution. Many who accept evolution, including me, are not atheists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2003 2:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:24 AM Percy has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 8 of 67 (35499)
03-27-2003 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
03-27-2003 1:01 PM


quote:
Now, I openly admit that I promote my religion - Christianity. What the Atheist needs to come to terms with is that they are also deeply religious and promote a worldview that is just as religious as any other. The "we are not religious, we stand on evidence" is one of the biggest crocks yet devised.
The keyword here is religion - what do you mean by religion and religious in this context?
I hope you are not confusing the officially organised humanists (of say, the Council for Secular Humanism Home | Free Inquiry or the American Humanist Association AHA - American Humanist Association) with all atheists?
And please ensure you avoid confusing humanism with atheism - after all, there have been many great Christian humanists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 03-27-2003 1:01 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 67 (35543)
03-28-2003 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
03-27-2003 1:01 PM


Re: What are you driving at?
Thanks for your reply.
Joralex writes:
I read your post (in a bit of a hurry) and couldn't really see what the essence of your conflict with me is. I suspect that it is multi-faceted but, nonetheless, that it stems from a basic, singular disagreement. I would also bet that this source is metaphysical in nature - your post provided me with many hints of this.
I thought it was obvious. Sorry for not being more clear. In essence the disagreement (as I see it) boils down to:
Joralex: Evolution is dogmatic metaphysical naturalism. It is not science.
Quetzal: Is not. Is too.
So to move the conversation a bit further than that, I posted a definition of science that I feel represents the methodological naturalism employed by science and scientists - regardless of field - as a starting point. Starting from the back end, if you will. Let us agree on a common definition of science, THEN we can discuss whether evolution fits that definition.
You are of course free to disagree with that definition, argue with any of the premises or conditions, postulate your own, etc. But until we can get past that, I'm not sure how we can argue whether or not evolution is science. Okay?
As to the rest of your post:
I couldn't help but notice the nature of the sources that you used as references (I'm talking about Ruse, Free Inquiry and Isaac Asimov). This by itself revealed to me a great deal about your mindset.
I should think my mindset (do you mean philosophy?) would be fairly obvious from the many posts I've made in this forum. However, I was not arguing for the irrefutable validity of my sources. Merely posting them as "additional" material for what I actually wrote. My OP should stand (or fall) on its own. The reality is I just grabbed the first sources that came to hand. Feel free to ignore them - they aren't critical to my points.
Although I am generally very reluctant to talk about myself, I think it necessary that you should know a little bit about me:...
Interesting career. However, I am unclear as to why you felt it necessary to post it? Do your arguments rest on the basis of your work or experience? Is your bio relevant to this discussion?
As to relevance of MY bio, the only bit that pertains anywhere on this forum (IMO) is an undergrad degree in ecology, and four years experience working conservation biology/management and environmental consulting in Central America. Others who know more of my background can disagree (if they wish) as to the pertinence of other parts of a quite lengthy bio.
It is tiresome for me to have to listen to the repeated parroting of the myth "creationists don't know/understand science". I've been at this webite for just a few weeks and, sure enough, I've already heard it in one way or another many times.
I would imagine it would be tiresome. However, this has nothing to do with my OP, as I never made any reference to anyone's lack of knowledge/understanding, as I pointed out above. My posting of a working epistemology/ontology of science was to establish a framework for discussion, as noted.
This is Asimov, the same guy that was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto and regarded himself as a dedicated Humanist - a religious stance (by their own admission) that clashes head-on with Christianity.
Here Asimov is very clearly exposing part of his metaphysic - "there are no absolutes; right and wrong are fuzzy/relative." I am not surprised at all by this statement - I have a copy of all three Humanist Manifestos and Asimov is here merely promoting part of the Humanist religious doctrine.
What does this have to do with anything other than your disagreement with Asimov? Again, you are free to ignore the references I provided, as they really aren't important. Alternatively, you can address (as part of your overall response to me) upon what you're basing your disagreement with him wrt his contention concerning the lack of absolute right and wrong, and how he's incorrect in his essay concerning the tentativity of science. His worldview shouldn't matter to this discussion. I am aware he's very much a secular humanist. What does that have to do with the tentative nature of scientific inquiry?
Now, I openly admit that I promote my religion - Christianity. What the Atheist needs to come to terms with is that they are also deeply religious and promote a worldview that is just as religious as any other. The "we are not religious, we stand on evidence" is one of the biggest crocks yet devised.
Whether or not an atheist needs to agree that they are religious or not is utterly irrelevant to the central question of this thread - is evolution metaphysics or science?
Please attempt to address the actual topic. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 03-27-2003 1:01 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:32 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 67 (35562)
03-28-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
03-27-2003 2:16 PM


Not at all...
"The error you make here is to imagine that all the people you subsume under "atheist" think the same. I think that is possibly even less so than lumping all monotheistic people as "the same" - Shiites, Mormons, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Hasids, Southern Baptists..... It's not so."
I wouldn't dream of saying that all Atheists "think the same" - you have clearly misunderstood my meaning. No two communists think the same; no two capitalists think the same; no two Christians think the same... etc.
However, to belong to a group - be it Atheist, Christian, or whatever - then certain doctrine/beliefs must be shared. A Christian that did not believe in Jesus Christ but rather in Buddha is not truly a Christian though he may promote himself as one. In the sense of having this basic requirement, all Christians "are alike" (by definition). Beyond this, differences rule.
I hope this clears up my meaning.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2003 2:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 67 (35575)
03-28-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
03-27-2003 2:25 PM


Poor conclusion
"And the other error he makes is to subsume under "atheist" all who accept the theory of evolution. Many who accept evolution, including me, are not atheists."
Where did I ever say "everyone that accepts evolution is an Atheist"? Show me...
I am well aware of the many groups of people that accept evolution and yet also believe in some other metaphysic. Progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and other groups come to mind.
Heck, any sufficiently knowledgeable creationist accepts evolution (I certainly do). 'Evolution' in the sense of change, variations, mutations, etc. is observable, testable science. To deny this would place a person into one of Dawkins' categories (ignorant, stupid, wicked...).
But what most people cannot seem to see / understand is that this is not what is actually being promoted. Even intelligent, educated and faithful Christians have been blinded to the big picture. This 'big picture' that I'm referring to is that the science of evolution is what is dangled but it is the metaphysic of materialistic naturalism that is actually being promoted. Huge difference!
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 03-27-2003 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:43 AM Joralex has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 67 (35578)
03-28-2003 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Joralex
03-28-2003 8:24 AM


Re: Poor conclusion
Joralex writes:
Where did I ever say "everyone that accepts evolution is an Atheist"? Show me...
You weren't equating those who accept materialistic naturalism with Atheism?
I am well aware of the many groups of people that accept evolution and yet also believe in some other metaphysic. Progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and other groups come to mind.
But people accept more than one worldview and switch between them as necessary. My science worldview holds that only that which is in some way apparent to one or more of the five senses is real. My religious worldview holds that there is a Creator who loves and cares for us. I do not confuse the two. In other words, there is no religion in my evolution, and I am not a theistic evolutionist.
This 'big picture' that I'm referring to is that the science of evolution is what is dangled but it is the metaphysic of materialistic naturalism that is actually being promoted. Huge difference!
I accept the theory of evolution because it best explains the evidence. I accept science as the best way to learn about the natural world because of its long and continuing record of success. It seems to me that all you're doing is pinning the "religion" label on evolution in the hopes that it will stick without having to argue the evidence, and simply because it contradicts your own religious views.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:24 AM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 12:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 67 (35627)
03-28-2003 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
03-28-2003 8:43 AM


Ah so...
Joralex writes:
Where did I ever say "everyone that accepts evolution is an Atheist"? Show me...
"You weren't equating those who accept materialistic naturalism with Atheism?"
Absolutely I was, and do. But that's not what you attributed to me. Read the above 'Joralex writes' as well as your own previous post. There are many people that accept evolution that are not Atheists. But anyone that fully accepts materialistic naturalism and thinks of himself as anything but an Atheist doesn't understand what materialistic naturalism is.
"But people accept more than one worldview and switch between them as necessary. My science worldview holds that only that which is in some way apparent to one or more of the five senses is real. My religious worldview holds that there is a Creator who loves and cares for us. I do not confuse the two. In other words, there is no religion in my evolution, and I am not a theistic evolutionist."
I respect your right to your views/position. However, I will suggest to you for your musing the possibility that such a position isn't really possible. A metaphysic is, by definition, all-encompassing. Those "Christians", for example, that hold that Christ is Lord in (only) certain segments of their lives but not in others are either ignorant (of the fact that He is either Lord of ALL or Lord of none) or lying hypocrites (knowing the truth but distorting this truth to accommodate their own preferences). There is no softer way to say this.
I have been professionally involved in science for over three decades and have never once had any conflict with my science and religious views. You seem to think that these two realms need to be compartmentalized - each with its own domain. I experience only one realm, all under His Lordship, fully integrated and consistent. Why you feel the need for segregation is beyond me.
As for your comment "there is no religion in my evolution" - I could interpret this in one way and fully agree with you; but if I interpret it another way I would have to disagree.
I see 'evolution' occur and realize that this was part of His overall plan. There is no conflict whatsoever with that 'evolution' and God. I am referring, of course, with the 'evolution' that involves studying the changes in allele frequencies in populations - this is science. The conflict arises when the realm of scientific evolution is exceeded and now the metaphysic of evolution is introduced.
"I accept the theory of evolution because it best explains the evidence. I accept science as the best way to learn about the natural world because of its long and continuing record of success. It seems to me that all you're doing is pinning the "religion" label on evolution in the hopes that it will stick without having to argue the evidence, and simply because it contradicts your own religious views."
Not at all. Again, my views have no conflict with the science of evolution, it is with the metaphysic of the evolutionary paradigm - a servant of materialistic naturalism - that I have a problem with, as well I should.
Evolution as the causing agent for the earth's entire biota clashes head-on with the Biblical account of creation. Evolution as the mechanism by which man came to be forces a 'special' interpretation of Scripture which cannot be reconciled with either consistency or with God's character. Herein lies the rub.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Zephan, posted 03-28-2003 3:13 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 4:27 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 67 (35639)
03-28-2003 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joralex
03-28-2003 12:33 PM


Mr. Joralex,
Extremely well put. I'm enjoying reading your posts and couldn't agree with you more (although it is difficult for me to validate even the tiny scientific aspect of evolution by the mere observation of the self-evident changes in the gene pool since evolution has always been about being inextricably intertwined with the metaphysical extrapolations of the self-evident, to wit: microbe to man -- notwithstanding the bizarre appearance of the microbe under the alleged circumstances).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 12:33 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 67 (35653)
03-28-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joralex
03-28-2003 12:33 PM


Re: Ah so...
Joralex writes:
"You weren't equating those who accept materialistic naturalism with Atheism?"
Absolutely I was, and do. But that's not what you attributed to me. Read the above 'Joralex writes' as well as your own previous post...etc...
I wasn't trying to speak so precisely as to require getting into a "You said/did not" kind of thing. You equated materialistic naturalism with atheism, and I was only pointing out that it's not generally true, which you claim is what you said anyway.
I respect your right to your views/position. However, I will suggest to you for your musing the possibility that such a position isn't really possible. A metaphysic is, by definition, all-encompassing.
In that case, by your definition I have no metaphysic. The worldview I apply depends upon context.
I have been professionally involved in science for over three decades and have never once had any conflict with my science and religious views.
Sure you have! You just rationalize the conflicts away by saying, "That's not science, that's a metaphysic." If only putting a label on something could make it so.
The conflict arises when the realm of scientific evolution is exceeded and now the metaphysic of evolution is introduced.
But you so far seem to feel no need to make the case in support of this assertion. You've repeated this many times now, but as yet haven't identified where scientists are making the leap of faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 12:33 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024