SUMMARY TRANSCRIPT: Firing Line Debate, Creation/Evolution
Alex Matulich
This is my summary/pseudo-transcript of the creation/evolution debate
broadcast on the PBS show "Firing Line" 19 December 1997. As debates
go, I thought this was one of the better ones, with both sides putting
on a respectable performance, though the evolution side edged out the
creationists (see my closing notes at the end). What follows is NOT
exactly a transcript. I wrote down what I thought was the gist, or
essence, of what was said by each person as they said it. If you want a
transcript, you can order it from Firing Line for $10.
The debate was nicely organized into a series of mini-debates, some
one-on-one between two individuals, and some involving the whole group.
I use a a separator line to indicate boundaries between mini-debates.
Subject of debate: "RESOLVED: EVOLUTION SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION"
Moderator: Michael Kinsley
Debaters:
Pro (creationist):
Mr. Bill Buckley (needs no introduction)
Mr. Philip Johnson (lawyer, author, Darwin On Trial)
Dr. Micheal Behe (philosopher, author, Darwin's Black Box)
Mr. David Berlinski (author, The Deniable Darwin)
Con (evolutionist):
Mr. Barry Lynne (Americans for the Separation of Church and State)
Ms. Eugenie Scott (Exec. Director, National Center for Science Education)
Dr. Michael Ruse (philosopher)
Dr. Kenneth Miller (biologist, author, reviewed Darwin's Black Box)
All "pro" participants, and at least two "con" participants, claimed to
be Christian.
Opening statements:
Buckley: Our side asks not that everyone embrace creation but rather
acknowledge it as an alternative explanation. Evidence for evolution
is fanciful, not substantial. The human eye could not have formed by
chance [why bring up THAT old argument?]. [goes on with an Argument from
design - everything is just right for the formation of life - can't have
happen that way. Buckley shows no understanding of the weak anthropic
principle].
Lynne: Nobody denies that we have all been created somehow. We differ
on the relationship between evolution and our current situation. We
all agree that evolution is the only logically coherent and useful
explanation for the process of life. It is NOT an ideology. None of
the scientific doctrines have been seriously challenged. Creationists
have duped schools into elevating pseudoscience to the level of real
science. Will we be casting astrological charts instead of studying
astronomy? In the present global environment, we're hurting our country
by mis-educating our children. If evolution is wrong, then give us a
real scientific alternative. "If you claim the world is not round, you
are obliged to tell us what shape it really is." -- M. Gardner
----------
Johnson: The philosophical basis of evolution is "naturalism." [He
talks of how biological entities that appear designed aren't accepted as
such because evolution philosophy prohibits such a notion.] We want to
separate the REAL science from the materialist philosophy.
Scott: [Gives a scientific definition of evolution -- living things
have shared common anscestors and descend with modification from
those ancestors.] Evolution happened. We can't deny that. "How it
happened" is what we argue about. As scientists, we cannot comment on
"who did it." Creationists describe evolution as some metaphysical
system. Scientists, however, do not, and cannot, recognize metaphysical
explanations for natural processes.
Johnson: [Spends time casting aspersions on evolutionist credibility.]
Evolution DOES has some religious basis.
Scott: Only if you're a fundamentalist.
Johnson: [Holds up an "evolve fish"]
Scott: So? Yes, it's a mockery. NCSE sells them but doesn't advertise
them. I have seen cars with both Darwin and Xian fish, facing each
other. Your point?
Johnson: Many use evolution as an argument for atheism. The National
Academy of Science approves when Dawkins and Sagan do this.
Scott: Many scientists have been sloppy with terms like "purpose" and
"natural selection." I've criticized Dawkins; he should not confuse his
philosophical views with science, as arising inevitably from evolution.
NAS is rewriting their "science and creationism" document. Now, Phil,
you've argued (a) evolution doesn't happen, (b) natural selection is not
powerful enough to produce descent w/ modification, and (c) science is a
metaphysical belief system. Which is your KEY point?
Johnson: The mechanism (b) - how can things arise naturally if they
look like they were designed for a purpose?
Scott: Are you aware of the scientific arguments going on today about
other mechanisms?
Johnson: Yes.
Scott: What about the other mechanisms?
Johnson: There aren't any. Macroevolution can't be explained. [I
note that "Macroevolution" is a creationist concept. Not only can
creationists not explain it, but they can't even define it very well, as
Johnson demonstrates]
Scott: What is your unit of change that microevolution applies to?
Johnson: You have to ask, what is the origin of the information?
Scott: Let me rephrase: what is a kind? What is the limit of
variablility within a kind in which evolution can take place?
Johnson: We don't know. We can't get speciation in domestic animals
[clearly wrong but the clock has run out], and we can't get phyla and
major groups.
----------
Behe: [Complexity of cell argument] Flagella appear purposefully
designed. [Shows pictures of embryos in various stages of development
appearing as different kinds of animals, and explains how this diagram
turned out to be a hoax, which everyody agrees on.] Embryology is based
on a fake. We can't deny that much of life in the universe appears
purposefully designed.
Miller: [Kills Behe's irreducible complexity argument using Behe's own
flawed mousetrap analogy showing that it still works missing one of its
parts.] Anyway, how is this relevant to BIOLOGY?
Behe: But you still need some part to perform all the functions!
Miller: OK then your own analogy is flawed. Let's use biology. Delete
the gene which creates the enzyme that metabolizes sugar; a new enzyme
evolves to do this. We observe it under lab conditions. There's an
example of deleting a function and the entire system still works.
Behe: It's not irreducably complex.
Miller: Why?
Behe: [Launches into a non-sequitur] My book has been reviewed by a
number of distinguished scientists. [Quotes some of them, as if this
proves anything. Argument from authority.]
----------
Ruse: [Makes opening statement of where he stands.] I have no problem
with creation, but creationISM is neither good science nor good
religion.
Johnson: [Brings up morality of darwinists and wonders why it's
appropriate for Ruse to mention it in his book.]
Ruse: Why not? Many are liberal but not all of them. Lots are
conservative. But you're probably right; most scientists in general
accept more liberal views.
Berlinski: Does your worldview accept scientific theories?
Ruse: Yes.
Berlinski: Then what is the theory of biology? I can't discern it.
All I see is a name.
Ruse: This is philosophical rhetoric. You find theories in the works
of Dobzhanski, Mendel, etc. just about everywhere you look.
Behe: [Quotes a scientists to say the big bang is wrong.]
Ruse: So? Many scientists make pronouncements not based in science.
I'm not doing that here.
Buckley: Do you disavow those who do, as a philosophical or polemical
matter?
Ruse: I accept that contemporary science is loaded with metaphors, but
having devised a theory, we can still go out and check it against the
world.
----------
Berlinski: [Opening statement] Darwin's theory is a religion following
freudianism and marxism into oblivion. Darwinism offers an inadequate
mechanism to explain anything about life.
Lynne: [Points out that Berlinski doesn't understand that different
ecological situations require different adaptation to occur.]
Berlinski: No I don't. You're explaining adaptation retroactively, not
from general principles. Darwin's theory doesn't explain from general
principles.
Scott: [Expresses frustration at how complicated it is to address
creationist sound bites, because you essentially have to know all of
science to do so, and creationists aren't willing to listen and learn
it all.] By the way, you made a big deal about an article written in
1966. Do you know anything about what's happened in the last 31 years?
Berlinski: Yes, and I agree it's outdated. But still, Darwin's theory
doesn't explain fossil transitions. [Argument about transitions ensues,
Berlinski stubbornly claiming there are too many gaps] Darwin's theory
REQUIRES that we should have a panopoly of intermediate forms. [From
the discussion it appears that no amount of gap filling will suffice.]
----------
Miller: Creationists have no explanation for natural history. [Shows
chart about fossil record, showing that fossils exhibit a succession
of characteristics over time.] Forms appear and then disappear, which
would reveal incompetence in an intelligent designer. Evolution
explains it better.
Behe: [Mentiones Heckle's fraudulent embryos again.] You should notify
your publisher to point this mistake out in your biology textbook.
Miller: Already done. We also have updates on our web site.
Johnson: About the creative power of the combined mechanisms of
mutation and selection, what's the best demonstration?
Miller: I'll give you two. (1) Repeated observations of random
mutation and natural selection producing new species, such as a Hawaiian
butterfly that can feed ONLY on bananas. Bananas were not native to
Hawaii, so by mutation and natural selection these species have emerged.
(2) In Nov 7 or 14 Science article on receptor protein for human growth
hormone. Scientists mutated it by cutting out an amino acid and allowed
natural selection to take place to see if the cell would respond to a
mutation and evolve.
Behe: That's not impressive.
Miller: And that response is known as "argument from personal
incredulity."
Behe: [Takes a quote on embryology from Miller's book about out of
context.]
Miller: [Points it out the fact that Behe quoted it out of context.]
----------
Ruse: WHY, Mr. Buckley, are you on that side? What's your objection?
Buckley: The ideological fixity. Your dogmatic position.
Ruse: In THIS university, that's a fault? [laughter]
Buckley: If you could give something more conclusive than
Darwin.... Dogmas are a disguise for unmethodical thought. [No kidding,
Bill. Some back and forth debate ensues. Buckley continues:] In
evolution, materialism comes first, science after [yeah right].
Slamming creationism isn't necessary to invoke your own postulates. [But
this is exactly what creationists do to evolution.]
Scott: It isn't necessary to invoke God to explain a lot of things.
Buckley: We don't demand that you displace evolution, only that you
acknowledge creation. I am Catholic.
Miller: [Holds up a clear and unambiguous quote supporting evolution,
from Pope John Paul II]
Buckley: [Responds with a non-sequitur about how the Pope was not
referring to Man]
----------
Johnson: [Quotes from some materialist scientists.] If stuff like that
was taught in school, wouldn't that be teaching religion?
Lynne: No, it would be bad teaching. I believe God guides evolution.
Some questions are theological, some are scientific, and the scientific
ones don't require God as an explanation. You try tp portray science
as making it impossible to say with honesty and integrity that one can
believe in a divine creative process and still accept evolution.
Berlinski: [He keeps harping on gaps throughout the remainder of the
debate] Do you agree that the fossil record has gaps? Yes? Then the
fossil record doesn't support Darwin's theory. That's a fact.
Lynne: Bare assertion doesn't make it a fact. There will always be
gaps. No amount of filling them will ever satisfy you.
Behe: Should students be taught what you write about the philosophical
basis for evolution?
Ruse: Sure, but it may not be appropriate for high school biology
level.
Behe: Should high school books consider the philosophical aspects of
origin of life discussions?
Ruse: It depends on the context -- books should describe experiments
but don't read too much into it. Don't dumb it down.
Behe: In court testimony you said scientific theory is falsifiable.
How can you falsify the assertion that the flagella has a Darwinian
explanation?
Ruse: By looking at molecular evidence. [Has amusing difficulty
pronouncing "flagella" and blames this on being a philosopher not a
biologist] If the DNA of that flagellating microorganism was found to
be closer to humans than humans are to chimps, then that would falsify
Darwininan theory soundly. Now, tell us about YOUR theory. What is it?
Behe: That you can detect intelligent design just by looking at
something. A design means a designer, I think that's god, but I
wouldn't want to insist on that. It could have been space aliens
seeding their designed life on earth for all we know. The point is
that the system WAS designed although we don't know the identity of the
designers.
----------
Buckley: You're giving the impression that evolutionist theory is
other than what we all know it to be, which is materialist philosophy.
[Quotes some rabidly materialist statement] Do you disavow that?
Lynne: Of course. You've squabbled with evolution but haven't proposed
any MECHANISM to replace it.
Buckley: How about basic intelligence? [Monkeys with typewriters
argument.]
Lynne: Chance is a tool within the toolbox of God's creative interest.
Why limit the power of the divine to prohibit the use of these tools?
Some questions are theological, some are scientific, two kinds of
language and two kinds of issues. Tell me, do YOU know the mind of god
so well that you rule out the possibility that God used evolution as a
tool for creation?
Buckely: I decline to answer. My imagination is finite.
Lynne: What is it about evolution that you find intellectually
challenging? Every scientific acheivement has supported evolution.
Genetics, carbon dating, DNA analysis. With all this evidence, what
line of science contradicts it?
Buckley: There's an unrealistic perspective that everything must have a
materialistic explanation.
----------
Lynne: Mr. Johnson, do you believe there were dinosaurs of Noah's ark?
Johnson: No opinion.
Lynne: [Holds up a creationist book illustrating a dinosaur with a
man.] Do you think that's good biology?
Johnson: No. I have urged conservative Christians to put aside the
Bible issues and investigate what we know about science. That book
there is certainly as silly and damaging as... the work of Dawkins.
Miller: [Shows a famous gap between mammals and whales, and then shows
transitions discovered later.]
[My computer gave me an urgent warning about the battery dying, with
about 20 minutes left in this 2-hour debate, so I have to stop here.]
----------
Closing notes:
There was a lively debate involving Berlinski on Berlinski's subject
of the evening, gaps in the fossil record. The man was fascinating to
watch; stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that there were any valid
refutations of any claims he made.
I found it VERY interesting to watch Mr. Buckley's demeanor throughout
the course of the debate. He seemed clearly surprised at the quality of
the arguments coming from the opposition, and toward the end he gave me
the impression that he regretted being on the creationist side of the
debate. By the time it came to giving his closing remarks, his heart
just didn't seem to be in it.
As expected, the creationists proposed no alternative theory of their
own. While they did their share of evolution-bashing, they did
demonstrate a greater understanding of science than I normally see
from creationists (of course none of them were ICR types). They all
agreed that evolution was a fact, but only as far as minor changes
within a species. Their side did NOT go so far as to say God is behind
everything; indeed, Behe made a strong point that he wasn't insisting
on that, only that there must have been some intelligence behind the
"obvious design."
The creationeists argued, often, that some evolutionists are positive
atheists, or materialists; therefore evolution must be based on the
religion of materialism. Only Behe, the philosopher on the creationist
side, avoided this fallacious argument. It's guilt by association.
It's like saying if one thing in the Bible is true (or false) then the
whole Bible must be true (or false).
Early on, someone from the creationist side expressed hope that
evolution would not be around in the future. Such as statement would
never be made by someone truly interested in science.
Dr. Miller brought along a bunch of props and charts, which were both
enterntaining and instructive. And Michael Ruse was a delight to listen
to; probably the source of more humor than anybody else on either side.
-a
Arne Langsetmo
In <67h3ef$7ij$1...@samba.rahul.net> uni...@rahul.net (Alex Matulich)
writes:
>
[snip]
>
>The creationists argued, often, that some evolutionists are positive
>atheists, or materialists; therefore evolution must be based on the
>religion of materialism. Only Behe, the philosopher on the
>creationist side, avoided this fallacious argument.
Actually, Behe was the only _biologist_ on their side.
> . . . It's guilt by association.
That it is. Red-baiting lives on. Anything to score a point.
And this, in a supposedly _scientific_ argument.
>It's like saying if one thing in the Bible is true (or false) then the
>whole Bible must be true (or false).
No, that's a different kind of argument, also logically fallacious.
But: Because of the _nature_ of the Bible as proffered as evidence,
while the former part of your claim is true, the latter part is not.
The bible, at least by _some_ arguments, derives its authority from
the notion that _everything_ in it must be true _because_ it
has been written by an omniscient God. This goes for the many
statements in the Bible that are inherently unproveable, and for
the many that go against all ordinary evidence (i.e. accounts
of miracles, etc.). Everything in it is no more than fable,
entitled to just as much credence as the Iliad as _history_
(i.e. essentialy _none_ that will stand without independent
corroboration _and_ a complete lack of _objective_ proof to
the contrary), if it can be shown that it is _not_ the inspired
word of God. And all that is necessary to do this is to show
that _one_ unambiguous fact as recounted in the Bible is in fact
incorrect. Thus, if there _is_ one such fact, then the Bible
is relegated from a book that has _divine_ authority for its
justification to one that has the authority of a myth. This
doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is therefore untrue,
but as a simple myth, it is only those things that are verifiabe
by other means _anyways_ that gain any support.
Because of this nature of the evidentiary worth of the Bible,
we have to first establish that the Bible is (or is not) the
word of God, and then use that justification for its subsequent
worth as evidence on other matters. It is this _first_
proposition that may find inductive supporting evidence in the
Bible, but which is _deductively destroyed by any counterevidence.
Fair enough?
BTW: Evolution, not claiming any _divine_ infallibility, does
not have this problem, so your claim _would_ apply to evolution
as to both proof _and_ disproof.
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
am...@unicorn.us.com
In article <67h3ef$7ij$1...@samba.rahul.net>, I wrote:
>
>All "pro" participants, and at least two "con" participants, claimed to
>be Christian.
It has been pointed out to me that this statement is incorrect, and I
apologize. Berlinski does not claim to be Christian.
Mr. David Buckna informed me in e-mail that none of the "pro" side
were creationists either. I disagree. Creationists come in different
flavors. None of these men are young earth creationists. They are
nevertheless creationists. It depends on how you define the label. I
used the term "creationist" as one who argues in favor of a supernatural
or metaphysical explanation life and biological processes, as all of the
"pro" side did. Quoting Buckna quoting Behe's own words:
> >I argue that biochemical systems -- as well as other
> >complex systems -- were designed by an intelligent agent.
These are the words of a creationist. In the context Behe was speaking,
he was trying to disassociate himself from a _particular_ type of
creationist; the young-earth creationists. None of the participants in
the PBS debate were young-earth creationists.
Someone else in this thread pointed out a flaw in one of my last
paragraphs:
>The creationeists argued, often, that some evolutionists are positive
>atheists, or materialists; therefore evolution must be based on the
>religion of materialism. Only Behe, the philosopher on the creationist
>side, avoided this fallacious argument. It's guilt by association.
>It's like saying if one thing in the Bible is true (or false) then the
>whole Bible must be true (or false).
Behe has apparently implied that argument in his books. And my analogy
wasn't quite the same kind of argument.
-a
Tony McGraw
Alex Matulich<UNI...@RAHUL.NET wrote in
message <67h3ef$7ij$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION"
<snip>
>Buckley: You're giving the impression that evolutionist
theory is
>other than what we all know it to be, which is materialist
philosophy.
>[Quotes some rabidly materialist statement] Do you
disavow that?
>
>Lynne: Of course. You've squabbled with evolution but
haven't proposed
>any MECHANISM to replace it.
>Buckley: How about basic intelligence? [Monkeys with
typewriters
>argument.]
Did anyone explain that while mutation is random, natural
selection is not and that for adaptations (variations that
increase fitness) this is the mechanism still considered to
be responsible?
<snip>
>Buckley: There's an unrealistic perspective that everything
must have a
>materialistic explanation.
I'm getting a little confused here. About science and
materialism. Will get back to that.
<snip>
>There was a lively debate involving Berlinski on
Berlinski's subject
>of the evening, gaps in the fossil record. The man was
fascinating to
>watch; stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that there
were any valid
>refutations of any claims he made.
I've seen that in this ng allot. I thought that debaters on
firing line were suppose to be a little more on the upper
end.
<snip>
>The creationeists argued, often, that some evolutionists
are positive
>atheists, or materialists; therefore evolution must be based
on the
>religion of materialism. Only Behe, the philosopher on the
creationist
>side, avoided this fallacious argument. It's guilt by
association.
>It's like saying if one thing in the Bible is true (or false)
then the
>whole Bible must be true (or false).
This is the problem I have. Isn't science suppose to be
materialistic? For some strange reason I've been
operating under that impression for some time now. Am I
getting my terminology mixed up? From what I understand,
you can't evoke the supernatural as a scientific explanation.
Such explanations can not be falsifiable and are therefore
not scientific. Did anyone ask Mr. Buckley if he believed
that supernatural explanations should be considered as
scientific explanations for the diversity of life, then should
it also be considered in other fields of biology like ecology,
embryology, neurobiology, ect.. Hell, should chemist
consider supernatural causes for oxidation; physicist
consider God (or gods) to explain mechanics; or
astronomers postulating angels pushing the planets in their
orbits? Or maybe demons cause physical and mental
illness. Haven't we been here before? I really wish someone
would have pointed these things out (did they?)
Materialism should be the basis for science, that is, there
should be no explanations that evoke the supernatural.
Materialism (or atheism) becomes a philosophy (religion?) when
someone accepts it as a complete world view, not just a
view for how science should be conducted. Only when
someone promotes materialism outside of science would
this constitute a metaphysical stand. Oh, I am an agnostic and
do have a materialistic world view. I would not dare
promote this "world view" in a strictly scientific argument.
I have, however, stated this view and have defended it
when the argument has gone beyond a scientific one (as
can happen in this ng).
Like my evolution prof. said, evolution does not disprove
God." He did add, "you got to bring allot of other things to
the table to do that." I better add that this was a 4000 level
course from a university biology department and most
(all?) of the students were either bio, bio ed, upper level
undergads and a few grad students. If being taught at the
secondary school level, I don't think that any comments
about God should be made. If, however, the question came
up about evolution and God, then the first part of my profs
comment would be appropriate.
Please feel free to correct any misuse of terminology that I
have made. Most of my background in biology and
sometimes the philosophical terms may be used
inappropriately?
Tony McGraw
Gods are peripheral phenomena produced by evolution.
Sir Julian Huxely
Jennifer Palonus
UGH! It's bad enough to see your side beaten up. It hurts doubly bad
when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a headache!
Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E team:
(Thanks to uni...@rahul.net (Alex Matulich) for the psuedo-transcript:)
(Imaginary exchanges marked with ***)
>Pro (creationist):
> Mr. Bill Buckley (needs no introduction)
> Mr. Philip Johnson (lawyer, author, Darwin On Trial)
> Dr. Micheal Behe (philosopher, author, Darwin's Black Box)
> Mr. David Berlinski (author, The Deniable Darwin)
>
>Con (evolutionist):
> Mr. Barry Lynne (Americans for the Separation of Church and State)
> Ms. Eugenie Scott (Exec. Director, National Center for Science Education)
> Dr. Michael Ruse (philosopher)
> Dr. Kenneth Miller (biologist, author, reviewed Darwin's Black Box)
>
>All "pro" participants, and at least two "con" participants, claimed to
>be Christian.
May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an out
& out materialist. Like me.
>Johnson: The philosophical basis of evolution is "naturalism." [He
>talks of how biological entities that appear designed aren't accepted as
>such because evolution philosophy prohibits such a notion.] We want to
>separate the REAL science from the materialist philosophy.
>
>Scott: [Gives a scientific definition of evolution -- living things
>have shared common anscestors and descend with modification from
>those ancestors.] Evolution happened. We can't deny that. "How it
>happened" is what we argue about. As scientists, we cannot comment on
>"who did it." Creationists describe evolution as some metaphysical
>system. Scientists, however, do not, and cannot, recognize metaphysical
>explanations for natural processes.
>Johnson: [Spends time casting aspersions on evolutionist credibility.]
>Evolution DOES has some religious basis.
>
>Scott: Only if you're a fundamentalist.
>
>Johnson: [Holds up an "evolve fish"]
>
>Scott: So? Yes, it's a mockery. NCSE sells them but doesn't advertise
>them. I have seen cars with both Darwin and Xian fish, facing each
>other. Your point?
>
>Johnson: Many use evolution as an argument for atheism. The National
>Academy of Science approves when Dawkins and Sagan do this.
>
>Scott: Many scientists have been sloppy with terms like "purpose" and
>"natural selection." I've criticized Dawkins; he should not confuse his
>philosophical views with science, as arising inevitably from evolution.
>NAS is rewriting their "science and creationism" document.
Scott made a fundamental blunder: She took great pains to agree with
Johnson on his main philosophical point. His claim that materialism is
flawed is the basis for his whole position. Scott responded by
APOLOGIZING for the materialists!
Scott should read what Ayn Rand said about "the anatomy of compromise":
1. In any _conflict_ between two men (or two groups) who
hold the _same_ basic principles, it is the more consistent
one who wins.
2. In any _collaboration_ between two men (or two groups)
who hold _different_ basic principles, it is the more evil or
irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly
defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;
when they are _not_ clearly defined, but are hidden or
evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
- Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal
Scott thought she was being clever by agreeing with Johnson on his basic
principle. She ended up by apologizing for the fact that Dawkins is an
atheist, plus apologizing for the fact that her organization sells
Darwin fish! "Well, we do sell them, but umm, we don't ADVERTISE the
fact!" Eugenie, you did it to yourself.
>Now, Phil,
>you've argued (a) evolution doesn't happen, (b) natural selection is not
>powerful enough to produce descent w/ modification, and (c) science is a
>metaphysical belief system. Which is your KEY point?
>
>Johnson: The mechanism (b) - how can things arise naturally if they
>look like they were designed for a purpose?
>
>Scott: Are you aware of the scientific arguments going on today about
>other mechanisms?
>
>Johnson: Yes.
>
>Scott: What about the other mechanisms?
IIRC, it was here that Scott started distancing herself from natural
selection as an explanation for evolution. (Or maybe it was later.) But
it came across to me (an educated layperson) that there was something
she was trying to hide. Is natural selection REALLY something in
scientific disrepute? It sure sounded that way. Very evasive tactic. Why
did she have to do that?
>Johnson: There aren't any. Macroevolution can't be explained.
>
>Scott: What is your unit of change that microevolution applies to?
>
>Johnson: You have to ask, what is the origin of the information?
>
>Scott: Let me rephrase: what is a kind? What is the limit of
>variability within a kind in which evolution can take place?
>
>Johnson: We don't know. We can't get speciation in domestic animals
>[clearly wrong but the clock has run out], and we can't get phyla and
>major groups.
Too bad the clock ran out. But at least Kenneth Miller rode to the
rescue later on on that point.
I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side were
impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians, and that nobody
stood up for the materialistic basis of science! Does the scientific
method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it? And if
it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
hands and say "God did it"? Please tell me how we can tell the
difference between a natural phenomenon that we don't know enough about
yet, and a miracle that nobody was around to witness. I think the only
thing the phrase "God did it" does, is to shut off rational thought.
Johnson***: Well, uh...
Palonus***: It shuts off debate, it shuts off further inquiry, it shuts
off any hope of further progress. How does lightning work, Phil? People
used to think that it was the wrath of God. But other people instead
used the materialistic, godless scientific method to investigate
further, and today we have television cameras broadcasting this debate
around the world. The point is, whether a scientist is an atheist or a
christian, SCIENCE - the ACT of science - must assume a naturalistic
explanation because it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell the difference between a
miracle, or an explanation based on wishful thinking. How COULD you tell
the difference without a MATERIALISTIC framework?
Kinsley***: Let professor Johnson respond.
Or, if I was in a bad mood, I might try this tack:
Palonus***: Phil, there is a man called David Berkowitz. He used to be
a mailman. He killed a half dozen people & tried to kill another half
dozen. He claimed a 6000 year old warrior spirit talked to him through
his neighbor's dog and commanded him to kill. The courts asked some
scientists to examine him, and they said "Well, there's no evidence that
6000 year old warrior spirits exist, so obviously he's insane." And so
the court declared Berkowitz to be criminally insane, and today he sits
in prison.
Johnson***: I fail to see...
Palonus***: Now Phil, I think you can agree with me that a grave
injustice has been done! The scientists, blinded as they are by their
reliance on godless materialism, either failed or refused to see the
"higher" truth, that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", was really a
patsy, and the TRUE murderer is running free (or floating or whatever -
I dunno what a 6000 year old warrior spirit does).
Johnson***: But we're talking about (unintelligible)...
Palonus***: The point is, whether a scientist is an atheist or a
christian, SCIENCE - the ACT of science - must assume a naturalistic
explanation because it's impossible to tell the difference between a
miracle, or an explanation based on wishful thinking, or a psychotic
hallucination. How COULD you tell the difference without a MATERIALISTIC
framework?
Johnson***: Um, Lewontin was a Marxist!
Kinsley***: Well, we're out of time for this round.
>Behe: [Complexity of cell argument] Flagella appear purposefully
>designed. [Shows pictures of embryos in various stages of development
>appearing as different kinds of animals, and explains how this diagram
>turned out to be a hoax, which everyody agrees on.] Embryology is based
>on a fake. We can't deny that much of life in the universe appears
>purposefully designed.
>
>Miller: [Kills Behe's irreducible complexity argument using Behe's own
>flawed mousetrap analogy showing that it still works missing one of its
>parts.] Anyway, how is this relevant to BIOLOGY?
>
>Behe: But you still need some part to perform all the functions!
This part was great. My only criticism is that when Miller showed his
4-part mousetrap & Behe complained & Buckley complained that he didn't
know what the point was, Miller should've said something like this:
Miller***: Michael's irreducible complexity argument might hold water
if evolution worked in only one way: By adding steps, one by one, to
existing mechanisms. But in reality, we see mechanisms getting smaller,
as well as individual steps changing while having the same number of
steps overall. Just like I made a little change to one of the
mousetrap's parts to make a 4-step mousetrap work as well as the 5-step
mousetrap.
Behe***: Whaaaaa! I wanna go home!
[snip]
Ruse vs. the C's was a weak point, I thought. Although he was funny.
I'll have to watch the tape again, but that whole exchange seemed very
muddled.
Miller vs. Berlinksi was excellent!
Ruse & Miller vs. Buckley was OK, although I was getting mighty
embarrassed for Buckley.
>Johnson: [Quotes from some materialist scientists.] If stuff like that
>was taught in school, wouldn't that be teaching religion?
>
>Lynne: No, it would be bad teaching. I believe God guides evolution.
>Some questions are theological, some are scientific, and the scientific
>ones don't require God as an explanation. You try tp portray science
>as making it impossible to say with honesty and integrity that one can
>believe in a divine creative process and still accept evolution.
See Ayn Rand above. With friends like these... :-( Well, actually, I
thought Lynne was good most of the time. Just arguing from a little
philosophical quicksand, especially against Johnson.
Remember, Johnson is the truly dangerous one: He argues from a
consistent philosophical base. One that is FATAL to science &
rationality. I don't care how many times he claims to be the keeper of
TRUE rationality - he's working to DESTROY rationality in order to save
his religion.
[snip]
>Buckley: How about basic intelligence? [Monkeys with typewriters
>argument.]
>
>Lynne: Chance is a tool within the toolbox of God's creative interest.
>Why limit the power of the divine to prohibit the use of these tools?
>Some questions are theological, some are scientific, two kinds of
>language and two kinds of issues. Tell me, do YOU know the mind of god
>so well that you rule out the possibility that God used evolution as a
>tool for creation?
>
>Buckely: I decline to answer. My imagination is finite.
Here again: A needless sinking into quicksand. Fortunately, it was only
knee-deep.
[snip]
On the whole I guess it wasn't a total loss for the E side. But they
were MUCH more bloodied than they needed to be. Sure, people with more
technical knowledge than I might think the E's won the debate on points,
but the vast majority of viewers probably thought it was a draw, at
BEST.
The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
Materialistically,
Jenny
---------------------------------------- jpal...@graphicaldynamics.com
Print out Lotus Organizer 97 daily/weekly calendars, to-do lists,
address book updates - all automatically!
---------------------------------- http://www.graphicaldynamics.com/aa/
PZ Myers
In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>, jpal...@halcyon.com
(Jennifer Palonus) wrote:
>UGH! It's bad enough to see your side beaten up. It hurts doubly bad
>when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a headache!
>
>Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E team:
[snip]
>I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side were
>impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians, and that nobody
>stood up for the materialistic basis of science! Does the scientific
>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it? And if
>it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
>
I agree 100%. Naturalism *is* one of our strengths, and the evolution
debaters threw it away early in the game. Unfortunately, rhetoric is one
of the other sides' strengths, and I can see the dilemma the pro-evo side
must have faced illustrated in your hypothetical participation:
>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
>explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
>hands and say "God did it"? Please tell me how we can tell the
>difference between a natural phenomenon that we don't know enough about
>yet, and a miracle that nobody was around to witness. I think the only
>thing the phrase "God did it" does, is to shut off rational thought.
>
>Johnson***: Well, uh...
>
>Palonus***: It shuts off debate, it shuts off further inquiry, it shuts
>off any hope of further progress. How does lightning work, Phil? People
>used to think that it was the wrath of God. But other people instead
>used the materialistic, godless scientific method to investigate
>further, and today we have television cameras broadcasting this debate
>around the world. The point is, whether a scientist is an atheist or a
>christian, SCIENCE - the ACT of science - must assume a naturalistic
>explanation because it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell the difference between a
>miracle, or an explanation based on wishful thinking. How COULD you tell
>the difference without a MATERIALISTIC framework?
You've got good answers, but I think you'd be really lucky to have
Johnson or Berlinski just say "Well, uh..." -- more likely, Johnson
would tear off into some irrelevancy to tarnish you ("So now you claim
belief in god is irrational? You are calling most of the people in this
audience irrational!"). Berlinski would have repeated his brain-dead
comments ("If evolution is so rational, give me the formula to describe
it! Where are the *NUMBERS*?"). You get the idea. It's just too easy
to come up with zingers for your side and fumble-tongued stupidity for
the other side, after the fact.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Arne Langsetmo
In <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com> jpal...@halcyon.com (Jennifer
Palonus) writes:
>
>UGH! It's bad enough to see your side beaten up. It hurts doubly bad
>when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a headache!
>
>Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E team:
>
>(Thanks to uni...@rahul.net (Alex Matulich) for the
>psuedo-transcript:) (Imaginary exchanges marked with ***)
[snip]
>May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
>off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an
>out & out materialist. Like me.
I agree 100%. And, as I noted in another post, they should have put
a _real_ creationist on the stand (i.e., one that purports to have
a theory of creation), and let have at it. . .
[snip]
>I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side
>were impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians, and
>that nobody stood up for the materialistic basis of science! Does
>the scientific method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory
>or doesn't it? And if it doesn't, then is this a failing of science
>or is it a strength???
[Palonus gives a version of what she would do]:
>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands
>naturalistic explanations for everything, then what's the
>alternative? Throw up our hands and say "God did it"? Please
>tell me how we can tell the difference between a natural
>phenomenon that we don't know enough about yet, and a miracle
>that nobody was around to witness. I think the only thing the
>phrase "God did it" does, is to shut off rational thought.
>
>Johnson***: Well, uh...
>
>Palonus***: It shuts off debate, it shuts off further inquiry,
>it shuts off any hope of further progress. How does lightning
>work, Phil?. . .
Trick question. I'm not sure he knows. . . ;-)
> . . . People
ROFL. Thanks. I like the idea. I'll put it in my bag
of rhetorical tools. . .
I _had_ Johnson for Criminal Law. He was _very_ hostile
to the insanity plea, as I remember. He didn't think
much of the idea that people couldn't "conform their
conduct to the requirements of the law", or that
"diminished capacity" should be a defence. I remember
having discussions after class withhim about this; he
thought that _everyone_ is capable of conforming their
behaviour to the requirements of the law, assuming they
have the capacity to know what the law is, and that if
they didn't do so, that they should be locked up.
Mr. Johnson apparently has little familiarity with
psychiatry, nor with people who suffer from the
schizophrenias, BPD or obsessive/compulsive disorder.
I do (and in addition I have a neurophysiology
background), and I tried to point out to him the
"irresistable" nature of some compulsions. But that
didn't dissuade him in his opinions. From this, I
guess that he would have had insisted that Berkowitz
was simply an evil person. But, given his religious
background, he might have to admit to the possiblility
of demonic possession, as you point out. But that
possibly wouldn't faze him either. In his world, he
wouldn't be punishing a sinner, he would be doing the
Lord's work in defeating Satan incarnate. Which
is probably OK from a legal standpoint in his mind.
All this doesn't diminish _your_ point, though, but
I suspect it wouldn't convince him.
If Johnson's reading this NG, and I ever have to take
a course from him again, I guess I'm in for a good
sled ride. . . ;-)
[snip]
>The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
>
>Materialistically,
>Jenny
>
>----------------------------------------
>jpal...@graphicaldynamics.com
Thanks for the commentary. It needed to be said.
May your days grow longer again,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
[...}
Fantasy exchanges are fun, aren't they? However, your fantasy
opponent hardly ever shows up to give you that big win on stage.
JP>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
JP>explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
JP>hands and say "God did it"? Please tell me how we can tell the
JP>difference between a natural phenomenon that we don't know enough about
JP>yet, and a miracle that nobody was around to witness. I think the only
JP>thing the phrase "God did it" does, is to shut off rational thought.
JP>[Fantasy] Johnson***: Well, uh...
Yet Another Pseudo-Johnson: There has been great progress in making
the reliable detection of intelligent intervention a quantifiable
process. William Dembski's manuscript on "The Design Inference"
shows how small probabilities lead us to the recognition of complex
specified information. Stephen Meyer's analysis of DNA indicates
that principles like the ones Dembski writes about are in operation
there, which answers your question nicely. Now, about rational
thought, you seem to be in some confusion. It isn't rational to
keep using a technique which consistently fails to provide answers
about how information can be generated in the genome by chance
processes, when techniques based upon some of the fine work
mentioned just now show intelligent design theories to work well
in this area.
JP>Palonus***: It shuts off debate, it shuts off further inquiry, it shuts
JP>off any hope of further progress. How does lightning work, Phil? People
JP>used to think that it was the wrath of God. But other people instead
JP>used the materialistic, godless scientific method to investigate
JP>further, and today we have television cameras broadcasting this debate
JP>around the world. The point is, whether a scientist is an atheist or a
JP>christian, SCIENCE - the ACT of science - must assume a naturalistic
JP>explanation because it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell the difference between a
JP>miracle, or an explanation based on wishful thinking. How COULD you tell
JP>the difference without a MATERIALISTIC framework?
JP>Kinsley***: Let professor Johnson respond.
YAP-J: Well, scientific revisionism comes in many guises. The men who
worked out the principles of electricity were theists pretty much
without exception. I've argued before that scientific inquiry is
based upon the belief that God is rational and created a rational
universe which men can use reason to come to understand. The sort of
disavowal of God that Jennifer espouses does not buy any sort of
scientific acumen; the ability to reason about a God-created world
gave us the principles of electricity and electronics, not naturalism.
You would be well advised to actually read biographies of Faraday and
other giants of the field.
JP>Or, if I was in a bad mood, I might try this tack:
JP>Palonus***: Phil, there is a man called David Berkowitz. He used to be
JP>a mailman. He killed a half dozen people & tried to kill another half
JP>dozen. He claimed a 6000 year old warrior spirit talked to him through
JP>his neighbor's dog and commanded him to kill. The courts asked some
JP>scientists to examine him, and they said "Well, there's no evidence that
JP>6000 year old warrior spirits exist, so obviously he's insane." And so
JP>the court declared Berkowitz to be criminally insane, and today he sits
JP>in prison.
JP>Johnson***: I fail to see...
YAP-J: And of course, Leopold and Loeb demonstrate that atheistic
materialists have their own murderers in the group.
Guilt-by-association tactics indicate some desperation, I think.
JP>Palonus***: Now Phil, I think you can agree with me that a grave
JP>injustice has been done! The scientists, blinded as they are by their
JP>reliance on godless materialism, either failed or refused to see the
JP>"higher" truth, that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", was really a
JP>patsy, and the TRUE murderer is running free (or floating or whatever -
JP>I dunno what a 6000 year old warrior spirit does).
JP>Johnson***: But we're talking about (unintelligible)...
YAP-J: That's very entertaining, but the fact of the matter is that
psychologists and psychiatrists now know (since they've pretty much
shucked Freud) a thing or two about hallucination. Just because we on
this side believe in God doesn't mean that we're gullible enough to
mistake hallucination for active entities, and we're certainly not
gullible enough to blandly accept the dogmatic statements of
evolutionists that they have truth in their hands when all they really
have on the big questions is speculation.
JP>Palonus***: The point is, whether a scientist is an atheist or a
JP>christian, SCIENCE - the ACT of science - must assume a naturalistic
JP>explanation because it's impossible to tell the difference between a
JP>miracle, or an explanation based on wishful thinking, or a psychotic
JP>hallucination. How COULD you tell the difference without a MATERIALISTIC
JP>framework?
JP>Johnson***: Um, Lewontin was a Marxist!
YAP-J: You can tell by using the techniques being developed by Dembski
and Meyers. It's a mistake to believe that naturalism is necessary,
or even desirable in every circumstance. Science got its start from
men who believed that God's creation was rational and that *therefore*
could be understood in some parts by men. Science worked fine before
materialism emerged as a controlling philosophy, and I expect that
science will continue to work well when materialism is recognized by
all as a sad reflection of a secular dark age, as far as its stifling
effect on scientific progress is concerned.
JP>Kinsley***: Well, we're out of time for this round.
(YAP-J smiles benignly.)
======================================================================
Jennifer, please don't mistake me as someone who believes YAP-J to be
right. In fact, I made some of the same points you have here in a
presentation that Johnson (the realio-trulio PEJ) attended last
February. Many of the bits in YAP-J are real pieces of argumentation,
either from Johnson or from other ID folks. The rhetorical excesses
are my own, added for what I think of as verisimilitude.
I can tell you from experience that being on-the-spot with a bunch of
ID-enthusiasts is a far different thing than fantasy exchanges with
debating partners that one just doesn't have the imagination to
attribute with either substantive responses or good rhetorical
comebacks. While you or I can make critiques of the performances of
the E-side debaters on Firing Line, I think it entirely probable that
neither you or I would have come away from actual participation in
such an event feeling like we had not been scored upon. Give 'em
a break.
My paper, "Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism", can be found
on the Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise web page.
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/elsberry.html
You'll also find papers by Dembski and Meyers on the page.
Other papers to pay attention to are by Vuletic, Pennock,
and Schafersman.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Information sent to any
of my email addresses is my personal property, to be published as I see fit.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"he went and immolated himself on a patent cigar lighter" - archy
Tony McGraw
Alex Matulich<UNI...@RAHUL.NET wrote in
message <67h3ef$7ij$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION"
<snip>
>Buckley: You're giving the impression that evolutionist
theory is
>other than what we all know it to be, which is materialist
philosophy.
>[Quotes some rabidly materialist statement] Do you
disavow that?
>
>Lynne: Of course. You've squabbled with evolution but
haven't proposed
>any MECHANISM to replace it.
>Buckley: How about basic intelligence? [Monkeys with
typewriters
>argument.]
Did anyone explain that while mutation is random, natural
selection is not and that for adaptations (variations that
increase fitness) this is the mechanism still considered to
be responsible?
<snip>
>Buckley: There's an unrealistic perspective that everything
must have a
>materialistic explanation.
I'm getting a little confused here. About science and
materialism. Will get back to that.
<snip>
>There was a lively debate involving Berlinski on
Berlinski's subject
>of the evening, gaps in the fossil record. The man was
fascinating to
>watch; stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that there
were any valid
>refutations of any claims he made.
I've seen that in this ng allot. I thought that debaters on
firing line were suppose to be a little more on the upper
end.
<snip>
>The creationeists argued, often, that some evolutionists
are positive
>atheists, or materialists; therefore evolution must be based
on the
>religion of materialism. Only Behe, the philosopher on the
creationist
>side, avoided this fallacious argument. It's guilt by
association.
>It's like saying if one thing in the Bible is true (or false)
then the
>whole Bible must be true (or false).
This is the problem I have. Isn't science suppose to be
This is my second attempt to post this. Gave it some time
to show up. Have this problem all the time.
Jennifer Palonus
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) wrote:
>You've got good answers, but I think you'd be really lucky to have
>Johnson or Berlinski just say "Well, uh..." -- more likely, Johnson
>would tear off into some irrelevancy to tarnish you ("So now you claim
>belief in god is irrational? You are calling most of the people in this
>audience irrational!"). Berlinski would have repeated his brain-dead
>comments ("If evolution is so rational, give me the formula to describe
>it! Where are the *NUMBERS*?"). You get the idea. It's just too easy
>to come up with zingers for your side and fumble-tongued stupidity for
>the other side, after the fact.
Yeah, I know. But it was so fun! :-)
Seriously, the point is simply that arguing from a consistent base makes
life in a debate so much easier. (So easy, that even I could do it?)
Stephen F. Schaffner
>when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a headache!
>
>Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E team:
I have been interested to see how much agreement has been expressed
with Jennifer's comments, since I disagree with most of what she says.
[...]
>May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
>off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an out
>& out materialist. Like me.
For all I know, Scott _is_ a materialist. What difference does it make?
The validity of evolution doesn't depend on whether materialism is true.
[...]
>Scott made a fundamental blunder: She took great pains to agree with
>Johnson on his main philosophical point. His claim that materialism is
>flawed is the basis for his whole position. Scott responded by
>APOLOGIZING for the materialists!
She didn't, as far as I know, say that materialism was flawed; she
said that materialism is an invalid conclusion to draw from the fact
of evolution. She's right.
[...]
>Scott thought she was being clever by agreeing with Johnson on his basic
>principle. She ended up by apologizing for the fact that Dawkins is an
>atheist,
I thought she apologized for the fact that Dawkins deduces his atheism
from evolution (a "fact" that may well be wrong, but that's irrelevant).
These are unrelated facts.
[...]
>I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side were
>impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians,
Two of the four were Christians.
>and that nobody
>stood up for the materialistic basis of science!
There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather, materialism
is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly not a
necessary one.
>Does the scientific
>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it?
Not in general. What does that have to do with materialism? It's
possible to have a perfectly consistent science that disallows "God
did it" without having materialism; in fact, I suppose one could have
a fully idealistic science with the same restriction. Materialism is
a statement about what exists, not about what kinds of explanation
are useful in science.
>And if
>it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
It's neither. It's a reflection of the way the universe happens to
be. If the universe were such that certain phenomena *were* clearly
inexplicable by the same set of rules that govern everything else,
science very probably *would* make provision for the statement
"science fails to work here." Science advances natural explanations
for all phenomena it encounters because history suggests that such
explanations are very likely to be fruitful ones, not because of
some a priori hypothesis of materialism.
>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
>explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
>hands and say "God did it"?
Well, if that's what really did happen, why not? To be concrete:
suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
explanations for the diversity of life. Evolution is a good
explanation for the history of life not just because it's the only
naturalistic explanation available, but because it's a good
explanation.
>Please tell me how we can tell the
>difference between a natural phenomenon that we don't know enough about
>yet, and a miracle that nobody was around to witness. I think the only
>thing the phrase "God did it" does, is to shut off rational thought.
Well, it seems to have that effect on some people. Not on Ken Miller,
though. He actually attempted to reason about the kinds of
"explanation" being offered by the other side. He pressed them to give
a coherent non-natural explanation for the same phenomena, and I thought
that this approach was the most effective argument that the pro-E
side offered.
[...]
>Palonus***: Now Phil, I think you can agree with me that a grave
>injustice has been done! The scientists, blinded as they are by their
>reliance on godless materialism, either failed or refused to see the
>"higher" truth, that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", was really a
>patsy, and the TRUE murderer is running free (or floating or whatever -
>I dunno what a 6000 year old warrior spirit does).
I think rejecting 6000 year old warrior spirits because they're
"unscientific" would be a remarkably silly thing to do. Science has
rejected them not because of a bias against them, but because it found
explanations that work much better for behavior such as Berkowitz's.
To put it in a nutshell: 1) Scientists are justified in having a very
strong bias toward expecting natural-law explanations for phenomena;
2) Even if, for some reason (not that the anti-E's ever offer a
reason), that bias should be set aside in the case of the history of
life, evolution _still_ offers a better explanation of the actual data
than anything coming from the other side.
[...]
>The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
To some things, yes. To the validity of evolution? Not much. I dare
say that Ken Miller's philosophy (just to pick a handy example)
differs considerably from yours, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his
science to speak of.
-------
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Jennifer Palonus
wels...@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) wrote:
>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
>Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>[...}
>
>Fantasy exchanges are fun, aren't they? However, your fantasy
>opponent hardly ever shows up to give you that big win on stage.
Darn! But the point is that when you debate from a position of
consistent principles, it's much easier than when you have to (or
tactically decide to) concede your opponent's basic premises.
[snip]
>Jennifer, please don't mistake me as someone who believes YAP-J to be
>right. In fact, I made some of the same points you have here in a
>presentation that Johnson (the realio-trulio PEJ) attended last
>February. Many of the bits in YAP-J are real pieces of argumentation,
>either from Johnson or from other ID folks. The rhetorical excesses
>are my own, added for what I think of as verisimilitude.
>
>I can tell you from experience that being on-the-spot with a bunch of
>ID-enthusiasts is a far different thing than fantasy exchanges with
>debating partners that one just doesn't have the imagination to
>attribute with either substantive responses or good rhetorical
>comebacks. While you or I can make critiques of the performances of
>the E-side debaters on Firing Line, I think it entirely probable that
>neither you or I would have come away from actual participation in
>such an event feeling like we had not been scored upon. Give 'em
>a break.
(sigh) OK. I'll cut them a LITTLE slack. :-)
>My paper, "Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism", can be found
>on the Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise web page.
>
>http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/elsberry.html
Read it. Liked it. Waiting for the movie. :-)
I especially liked this passage:
...natural and supernatural causation are confounding: suspected
supernatural causation may simply be due to currently indiscern-
ible natural causes. Because of the confounding nature of the
interaction, the only way to establish supernatural causation is
through the elimination of all natural alternatives. This is simply
another case of proving a negative, which is an intractable
problem. That is, asserted supernatural causation logically
requires an exhaustive study of possible natural causes of the
phenomenon in question, which is counter to the usual desired
outcome of such assertions.
>You'll also find papers by Dembski and Meyers on the page.
>Other papers to pay attention to are by Vuletic, Pennock,
>and Schafersman.
I didn't see those. (BTW, the URL didn't work, because the real filename
is Elsberry.html)
Tony McGraw
Stephen Shaffner<SSC...@MORGAN10.SLAC.STANFORD.
EDU wrote in message
<67p655$b7b$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
>Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>UGH! It's bad enough to see your side beaten up. It hurts
doubly bad
>>when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a
headache!
>>
>>Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E
team:
>
>I have been interested to see how much agreement has
been expressed
>with Jennifer's comments, since I disagree with most of
what she says.
>She didn't, as far as I know, say that materialism was
flawed; she
>said that materialism is an invalid conclusion to draw
from the fact
>of evolution.
Scientist do not draw materialistic or naturalistic
philosophies from evolution or any other theory. Science
operates using a materialism. The point is that evolution is
a materialistic explanation and that is why it is considered
scientific.
<snip>
>There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather,
materialism
>is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly
not a
>necessary one.
Unless I'm not understanding the terms here, are you saying
that science can use the supernatural to explain things? If
not then doesn't that make science materialistic? If yes then
provide a scientific explanation that does so in which we
can then deduce testable hypotheses?
>>Does the scientific
>>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or
doesn't it?
>Not in general. What does that have to do with
materialism? It's
>possible to have a perfectly consistent science that
disallows "God
>did it" without having materialism; in fact, I suppose one
could have
>a fully idealistic science with the same restriction.
Materialism is
>a statement about what exists, not about what kinds of
explanation
>are useful in science.
What would "idealistic science" look like? I understand
that idealism was a philosophy that belied that ideas about
perfection were a way to understand things more then
actually looking at the real world. Desn't idealism mean that
the things we see in the real world are illusions and the
ideas about it are of more concern? Of course I may be
mistaken, I have no good grounding in philosophy.
<snip>
Tony McGraw
Gods are peripheral phenomena produced by evolution
Sir Julian Huxley
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <67pgs1$1a8$1...@gte1.gte.net>,
Tony McGraw <ton...@mail.gte.net> wrote:
>Scientist do not draw materialistic or naturalistic
>philosophies from evolution or any other theory. Science
>operates using a materialism. The point is that evolution is
>a materialistic explanation and that is why it is considered
>scientific.
Scientists, like non-scientists, draw all kinds of philosophical
conclusions from science -- theistic, atheistic, just plain
silly. They just don't have any particular standing as scientists
when they do so.
><snip>
>>There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather,
>materialism
>>is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly
>not a
>>necessary one.
>
>Unless I'm not understanding the terms here, are you saying
>that science can use the supernatural to explain things?
You are misunderstanding the terms here. The only relevant
meaning for "materialism" that I know is something like "the
belief that nothing but the material exists."
Science could use the supernatural to explain things (at least
it has done so in the past), but it does not in current
practice (for very good reasons).
[...]
>What would "idealistic science" look like?
Exactly like materialist science. That's the point.
>I understand
>that idealism was a philosophy that belied that ideas about
>perfection were a way to understand things more then
>actually looking at the real world. Desn't idealism mean that
>the things we see in the real world are illusions and the
>ideas about it are of more concern? Of course I may be
>mistaken, I have no good grounding in philosophy.
I'm no philosopher either, and there have been a variety of
idealist philosophies, most of which I know nothing about.
They all take ideas (or Ideas) to be more fundamental than
material phenomena -- think Platonism, for example. Nothing
prevents an idealist from studying matter, as far as I know.
Arne Langsetmo
In <67p655$b7b$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
(Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>
[snip]
>It's neither. It's a reflection of the way the universe happens to
>be. If the universe were such that certain phenomena *were* clearly
>inexplicable by the same set of rules that govern everything else,
>science very probably *would* make provision for the statement
>"science fails to work here." Science advances natural explanations
>for all phenomena it encounters because history suggests that such
>explanations are very likely to be fruitful ones, not because of
>some a priori hypothesis of materialism.
Some people do, though, to some extent. Usually because of a
combination of the futility of endeavour in such fields _if_
this weren't the case, and the fact that _nothing_ we have seen
gives any evidence whatsoever that we _should_ entertain the
abandonment of such hypothesis. That and family commitments.
In fact, some would assert that the hypothesis has pretty much
been proven, maybe as well as _any_ in science. Those that are
intelllectually lazy or eminently pragmatic (I'm not sure which
yet) may refuse to even consider the possibility that this
hyppothesis is wrong, at least while sober, but I think this is
a far cry from the "religious" faith some make it out to be. . .
[snip]
>Well, if that's what really did happen, why not? To be concrete:
>suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
>showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
>old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
>the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
>that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
>Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
>pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
>explanations for the diversity of life. Evolution is a good
>explanation for the history of life not just because it's the only
>naturalistic explanation available, but because it's a good
>explanation.
Stephen:
I _will_ agree _logically_ with your statements, but:
If pigs had wings. . . .
Which leaves us with only naturalistic explanations, and
given the evidence, pending a _better_ naturalistic
explanation, the _only_ explanation. This, I think,
is where philosophy leaves science in the trenches. . .
[snip]
>>The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
Ahhh, I thought so. I was wondering if you were coming in with
a philosophical bent. You must have tolerated Berlinski better
than I. But Buckley. . . ;-)
[snip sig]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
Schaffner) wrote:
>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
>Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>UGH! It's bad enough to see your side beaten up. It hurts doubly bad
>>when it's their own fault. The darn program gave me a headache!
>>
>>Here are a few points I'd have made if I were on the E team:
>
>I have been interested to see how much agreement has been expressed
>with Jennifer's comments, since I disagree with most of what she says.
>
Unfortunately I read this early in reading the responses.
>[...]
>>May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
>>off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an out
>>& out materialist. Like me.
>
>For all I know, Scott _is_ a materialist. What difference does it make?
>The validity of evolution doesn't depend on whether materialism is true.
>
It does not depend on whether it is TRUE, but it does depend on
whether it is acceptably good enough. However, the issue is not
whether the materialism behind evolution is acceptable, but whether
the materialism behind science is acceptable. The point should have
been strongly made that evolution has exactly the same metaphysical
basis as any and all other science.
>[...]
>>Scott made a fundamental blunder: She took great pains to agree with
>>Johnson on his main philosophical point. His claim that materialism is
>>flawed is the basis for his whole position. Scott responded by
>>APOLOGIZING for the materialists!
>
>She didn't, as far as I know, say that materialism was flawed; she
>said that materialism is an invalid conclusion to draw from the fact
>of evolution. She's right.
>
The problem is that Johnson is being intellectually dishonest. The
"materialism" of communism is not the materialism of science.
[snip]
>
>>and that nobody
>>stood up for the materialistic basis of science!
>
>There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather, materialism
>is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly not a
>necessary one.
>
I would like you to expand on this before I comment. We might be in
agreement, but I don't know.
>>Does the scientific
>>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it?
>
>Not in general. What does that have to do with materialism?
Nothing. God is "eliminated" by parsimony, not my materialism.
> It's
>possible to have a perfectly consistent science that disallows "God
>did it" without having materialism; in fact, I suppose one could have
>a fully idealistic science with the same restriction. Materialism is
>a statement about what exists, not about what kinds of explanation
>are useful in science.
>
Materialism is either a statement about what exists or a statement
about what we will use as input. As a strong sceptic I take the second
position. But you can build science on either.
>>And if
>>it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
>
>It's neither. It's a reflection of the way the universe happens to
>be.
Do you *know* this? I happen to suspect your are right, but I am not
sure we need to make this strong a statement.
> If the universe were such that certain phenomena *were* clearly
>inexplicable by the same set of rules that govern everything else,
>science very probably *would* make provision for the statement
>"science fails to work here."
Again, this is not materialism, this is uniformitarianism.
>Science advances natural explanations
>for all phenomena it encounters because history suggests that such
>explanations are very likely to be fruitful ones, not because of
>some a priori hypothesis of materialism.
>
Agreed.
>>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
>>explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
>>hands and say "God did it"?
>
>Well, if that's what really did happen, why not? To be concrete:
>suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
>showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
>old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
>the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
>that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
>Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
>pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
>explanations for the diversity of life. Evolution is a good
>explanation for the history of life not just because it's the only
>naturalistic explanation available, but because it's a good
>explanation.
>
Well said. However, there is much contained in that judgement of "good
explanation". Essentially this whole debate is actually over what
standards we should use for "good".
>
[snip]
>
>[...]
>>Palonus***: Now Phil, I think you can agree with me that a grave
>>injustice has been done! The scientists, blinded as they are by their
>>reliance on godless materialism, either failed or refused to see the
>>"higher" truth, that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", was really a
>>patsy, and the TRUE murderer is running free (or floating or whatever -
>>I dunno what a 6000 year old warrior spirit does).
>
>I think rejecting 6000 year old warrior spirits because they're
>"unscientific" would be a remarkably silly thing to do.
I think in a strong sense you explanation below can be summed up as
saying it was "unscientific". That is, your reasons for rejection are
correct, but the title you reject is also correct.
>Science has
>rejected them not because of a bias against them, but because it found
>explanations that work much better for behavior such as Berkowitz's.
>To put it in a nutshell: 1) Scientists are justified in having a very
>strong bias toward expecting natural-law explanations for phenomena;
>2) Even if, for some reason (not that the anti-E's ever offer a
>reason), that bias should be set aside in the case of the history of
>life, evolution _still_ offers a better explanation of the actual data
>than anything coming from the other side.
>
Her point was to ask why Johnson would reject them. He has no reason
other than it contradicts his pre-determined answer.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ssc...@vesta03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
Schaffner) wrote:
>In article <67pgs1$1a8$1...@gte1.gte.net>,
>Tony McGraw <ton...@mail.gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>Unless I'm not understanding the terms here, are you saying
>>that science can use the supernatural to explain things?
>
>You are misunderstanding the terms here. The only relevant
>meaning for "materialism" that I know is something like "the
>belief that nothing but the material exists."
That is not the materialism behind science at all. In fact such a
strong statement has unwarranted assumptions. It may even be wrong: is
gravity material? How about heat? The "materialism" of science says
that we will study public persistent measurable observations. If there
is something else we just won't study it.
>Science could use the supernatural to explain things (at least
>it has done so in the past), but it does not in current
>practice (for very good reasons).
>
That have nothing to do with "materialism". The "supernatural" is
reject because it does not explain anything.
Brian R. Speer
Jennifer Palonus wrote:
>
> I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side were
> impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians, and that
> nobody stood up for the materialistic basis of science!
This misses the point. By having Christians on the side of evolution,
they took away one of the great harping points of creationists: that
evolution is a materialist/atheist conspiracy. By simply pointing out
"We're Christians" they saved a lot of debate time over fruitless
issues, and probably opened the minds of some viewers to the fact that
evolution is not inherently anti-Christian.
Having been raised in a fundamentalist environment, I appreciate how
many folks actually believe that no Christian could possibly believe in
evolution.
> The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
You betcha!
--Brian R. Speer
UC Museum of Paleontology
vesp...@socrates.berkeley.edu
Jennifer Palonus
ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) wrote:
[snip]
>>Palonus***: Phil, If science is flawed because it demands naturalistic
>>explanations for everything, then what's the alternative? Throw up our
>>hands and say "God did it"?
>
>Well, if that's what really did happen, why not? To be concrete:
>suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
>showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
>old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
>the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
>that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
>Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
>pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
>explanations for the diversity of life.
The angel would be a publicly-viewable piece of empirical evidence,
though. If geology really did show that the earth is 6000 years old,
then that WOULD be the correct scientific conclusion to make.
>Evolution is a good
>explanation for the history of life not just because it's the only
>naturalistic explanation available, but because it's a good
>explanation.
Jenny
(STILL waiting for Santa to show up...)
Arne Langsetmo
In <67qhic$n13$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> ssc...@vesta03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
(Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>
[snip]
>You are misunderstanding the terms here. The only relevant
>meaning for "materialism" that I know is something like "the
>belief that nothing but the material exists."
Let's make one small change here, and see if it calms you down
a bit:
"The only relevant meaning for "materialism" ... is something
like 'the belief that nothing but the material exists, _as
far as makes any difference_.'"
Now, would that bring the definition out of the realm of
philosophy and make it once again suitable for use in the
realm of science?
[snip]
I have no problem with the existence of gods, even _material_
gods. The main reason that they don't bother me is that
they, by all appearences, don't exist.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
In <34A21C...@socrates.berkeley.edu> "Brian R. Speer"
<vesp...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> . . . By having Christians on the side of evolution,
>they took away one of the great harping points of creationists: that
>evolution is a materialist/atheist conspiracy. By simply pointing out
>"We're Christians" they saved a lot of debate time over fruitless
>issues, and probably opened the minds of some viewers to the fact that
>evolution is not inherently anti-Christian.
I hate to say it, but _science_, all of it (physics, chemistry,
biology, etc.), is anti-Christian. It's not per se, anti-religion,
but it _is_ anti-Christian. Christianity makes a number of assertions
about the real word that are testable, a number of "fair" inferences
can be made WRT other predictions, and yet we see _no_ evidence
for such things in the natural world today. We see no evidence of
the "wrathful" god of erlier times, no evidence for a "kinder" god
now, no evidence that prayer per se (as opposed to people's belief
in prayer) has any effect, no evidence that planets can be halted
in their tracks, no evidence that God intercedes miraculously (and
on a _grand_ scale!) on the side of the "good" or the chosen, no
evidence at all there there exists _any_ material effect that _can_
be fairly attributed to a God and God alone. Physical laws are
disappointingly consistent. The universe, when it comes right
down to it, may be amazingly awesome, but is tediously regular
about it. . .
When so-called "Christians" back into a situation where they
can "accept" this naturality of the world, and say that they
leave room for God to fill in around the edges, they deny the
_cornerstone_ of their religion, the book that purports to
describe it all. _Without_ this book, it is no longer
"Christianity", but the mangled corpse of a religion. Which,
should you choose to believe in it, you are free to do. But
don't call it Christianity.
There was a _long_ repost here just prior to this post I'm
responding to, from a creationist article, that made the
same point, and I think it has some validity: If you
disbelieve the first book of the Bible, you must also
disbelieve the second. And the second, the third. And
so on. Evolution, _not_ basing _its_ authority on revealed
divine omniscience, does not suffer from such a problem.
It can be wrong, or need modification, in one of its facets,
and yet the whole house still stands. Christianity, due
to the nature of its derivation, does _not_ have this
feature, and when one wall goes, so goes the whole temple.
This is an admitted overstatement and simplification, but
I did want to point out that Christianity is _not_ (AFAIK)
some pick-and-choose grocery, suitable for vegetarians and
carnivores alike. When you buy the meal ticket, someone
_else_ has prepared the meal.
. . but, politically and tactically, the pro-evo people
did the "right" thing. . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Paul Ford
In article <myers-ya02408000...@cronkite.temple.edu>,
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) wrote:
>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>, jpal...@halcyon.com
>(Jennifer Palonus) wrote:
<SNIP>
>>I am flabbergasted that so many people here on T.O. on the E side were
>>impressed by the fact that all the E's were christians, and that nobody
>>stood up for the materialistic basis of science! Does the scientific
>>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it? And if
>>it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
>
>I agree 100%. Naturalism *is* one of our strengths, and the evolution
>debaters threw it away early in the game. ... <SNIP>
Whoa, hold on a second. While I agree that naturalism is one of the biggest
strengths of science, I can see why the Evos distanced themselves from it. I
think one of the common propaganda points of Creationists is the claim that
science won't allow even the *possibility* that God did it. From an objective
viewpoint it could be said that, even given physical evidence that God had an
active hand in creation/abiogenesis/evolution, science would discard the
possibility out of hand. I don't think that's true, but the propagandists
could make that claim.
While I seriously doubt that God took direct, *physical* action in any of the
above, the possibility still exists that he did. If we discard that
possibility from the outset, we lay ourselves open to the claim that we are
anti-religion. On the other hand, if we say that we will accept any *hard*,
*physical*, *measureable* evidence for the "meddling God" idea, if it were to
ever appear, then maybe we can defuse that claim against science.
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is | Want to know what evolution
Want. Beware them both, and all of their | is really about? See the
degree, but most of all beware this boy, | talk.origins archive
for on his brow I see that written which |
is Doom..." | http://www.talkorigins.org
- Dickens, "A Christmas Carol" |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee
In article <681ic3$6ju$4...@news2.cais.com> paul...@mail.wdn.nospam.com (Paul Ford) writes:
>Whoa, hold on a second. While I agree that naturalism is one of the biggest
>strengths of science, I can see why the Evos distanced themselves from it. I
>think one of the common propaganda points of Creationists is the claim that
>science won't allow even the *possibility* that God did it. From an objective
>viewpoint it could be said that, even given physical evidence that God had an
>active hand in creation/abiogenesis/evolution, science would discard the
>possibility out of hand. I don't think that's true, but the propagandists
>could make that claim.
Actually it wouldn't. Science and scientists investigate what happened.
If there was a deity that did it, that's *how* it did it.
The problem with creationists is that they *insist* "God did it but not
the way you say". Or sometimes "why can't you include our god in the
equation?". But things still happened that way whether or not there is a
deity, whether it's their deity or any other. There is no reason to
include a god in anything yet.
Should that happen then one will be included. And (objectively) given all
the deities that people believe(d) in, it is unlikely to be their one. But
I'm not sure how to test for it anyway because they don't define it in
such a way that it can possibly be taken into account.
>While I seriously doubt that God took direct, *physical* action in any of the
>above, the possibility still exists that he did. If we discard that
But no more than the possibility that any of the other deities you don't
believe in either, exists too.
Alan Barclay
In article <67vv0u$k...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <34A21C...@socrates.berkeley.edu> "Brian R. Speer"
><vesp...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>
>> . . . By having Christians on the side of evolution,
>>they took away one of the great harping points of creationists: that
>>evolution is a materialist/atheist conspiracy. By simply pointing out
>>"We're Christians" they saved a lot of debate time over fruitless
>>issues, and probably opened the minds of some viewers to the fact that
>>evolution is not inherently anti-Christian.
>
>I hate to say it, but _science_, all of it (physics, chemistry,
>biology, etc.), is anti-Christian. It's not per se, anti-religion,
>but it _is_ anti-Christian. Christianity makes a number of assertions
>about the real word that are testable, a number of "fair" inferences
>can be made WRT other predictions, and yet we see _no_ evidence
I don't think it's science that is anti-Christian. I think it's the real
world that is.
If the Christian predictions had matched the real world, then science
would not have contradicted anything that Christianity predicted. It's
hardly science's fault that the real world didn't match up with Christianity's
predictions.
Arne Langsetmo
In <88326195...@elaine.drink.com> gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan
Barclay) writes:
>
>In article <67vv0u$k...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>I hate to say it, but _science_, all of it (physics, chemistry,
>>biology, etc.), is anti-Christian. It's not per se, anti-religion,
>>but it _is_ anti-Christian. Christianity makes a number of
>>assertions about the real word that are testable, a number of
>>"fair" inferences can be made WRT other predictions, and yet we
>>see _no_ evidence
>
>I don't think it's science that is anti-Christian. I think it's
>the real world that is.
>
>If the Christian predictions had matched the real world, then
>science would not have contradicted anything that Christianity
>predicted. It's hardly science's fault that the real world didn't
>match up with Christianity's predictions.
You are right. I stand corrected. I was very loose with my words,
and it _is_ indeed the real world, and not science, which just
_attempts_ to describe this world, that is the problem for
Christianity. Thank you.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Paul Ford
In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>,
chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>In article <681ic3$6ju$4...@news2.cais.com> paul...@mail.wdn.nospam.com (Paul
Ford) writes:
>>Whoa, hold on a second. While I agree that naturalism is one of the biggest
>>strengths of science, I can see why the Evos distanced themselves from it.
I
>>think one of the common propaganda points of Creationists is the claim that
>>science won't allow even the *possibility* that God did it. From an
objective
>>viewpoint it could be said that, even given physical evidence that God had
an
>>active hand in creation/abiogenesis/evolution, science would discard the
>>possibility out of hand. I don't think that's true, but the propagandists
>>could make that claim.
>
>Actually it wouldn't. Science and scientists investigate what happened.
>If there was a deity that did it, that's *how* it did it.
Hmmm -- you're right -- hadn't thought of that (grumble).
>The problem with creationists is that they *insist* "God did it but not
>the way you say". Or sometimes "why can't you include our god in the
>equation?". But things still happened that way whether or not there is a
>deity, whether it's their deity or any other. There is no reason to
>include a god in anything yet.
I agree with your point. The "we have to include God no matter what"
attitude is clearly invalid for science. The only thing I would want to do is
make sure we're *not* closing the door (which you addressed above).
>Should that happen then one will be included. And (objectively) given all
>the deities that people believe(d) in, it is unlikely to be their one. But
>I'm not sure how to test for it anyway because they don't define it in
>such a way that it can possibly be taken into account.
I can't imagine it either. IMHO, we will never be able to "measure" God, and
until we can, it's not science to include him/her/it/them.
>>While I seriously doubt that God took direct, *physical* action in any of
the
>>above, the possibility still exists that he did. <SNIP>
>
>But no more than the possibility that any of the other deities you don't
>believe in either, exists too.
True -- rather than "God" I should have said "a deity or deities."
<SNIP>
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <34a10699....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
>Schaffner) wrote:
>
>>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
>>Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
>>>off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an out
>>>& out materialist. Like me.
>>
>>For all I know, Scott _is_ a materialist. What difference does it make?
>>The validity of evolution doesn't depend on whether materialism is true.
>>
>It does not depend on whether it is TRUE, but it does depend on
>whether it is acceptably good enough. However, the issue is not
>whether the materialism behind evolution is acceptable, but whether
>the materialism behind science is acceptable. The point should have
>been strongly made that evolution has exactly the same metaphysical
>basis as any and all other science.
Agreed, although I'm rather nervous about your use of "materialism"
here, especially since you seem to mean something different by it than
Jennifer does.
[...]
>>She didn't, as far as I know, say that materialism was flawed; she
>>said that materialism is an invalid conclusion to draw from the fact
>>of evolution. She's right.
>>
>The problem is that Johnson is being intellectually dishonest. The
>"materialism" of communism is not the materialism of science.
As far as I know, "materialism" means that only the physical exists.
I don't know whether that's the materialism of communism, but I gather
that it's the materialism of Jennifer. One can certainly be a
materialist in this sense and be a scientist, but one need not be.
My point was that I don't see any advantage in opposing Johnson with
a materialist.
[...]
>>There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather, materialism
>>is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly not a
>>necessary one.
>>
>I would like you to expand on this before I comment. We might be in
>agreement, but I don't know.
Empirically, science can be done by people with all kinds of
metaphysical positions, including materialism and (I suspect)
idealism. It can also be done by people with extremely muddled
metaphysical beliefs. There is no practical requirement for any
particular philosophical base. Nor is there, as far as I know,
any such logical requirement. (No doubt some philosophical beliefs
would make science pointless at best, and impossible at worst,
but that's not relevant.)
>>>Does the scientific
>>>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it?
>>
>>Not in general. What does that have to do with materialism?
>
>Nothing. God is "eliminated" by parsimony, not my materialism.
I don't come to the same conclusion, but that's also irrelevant.
>> It's
>>possible to have a perfectly consistent science that disallows "God
>>did it" without having materialism; in fact, I suppose one could have
>>a fully idealistic science with the same restriction. Materialism is
>>a statement about what exists, not about what kinds of explanation
>>are useful in science.
>>
>Materialism is either a statement about what exists or a statement
>about what we will use as input. As a strong sceptic I take the second
>position. But you can build science on either.
I am under the impression that Jennifer used the former sense
(otherwise who cares whether the pro-evolution side contained
Christians or not?)
>>>And if
>>>it doesn't, then is this a failing of science or is it a strength???
>>
>>It's neither. It's a reflection of the way the universe happens to
>>be.
>
>Do you *know* this? I happen to suspect your are right, but I am not
>sure we need to make this strong a statement.
True. It's a reflection of what most scientific explorations have
so far revealed about the world.
[...]
>>Well, if that's what really did happen, why not? To be concrete:
>>suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
>>showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
>>old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
>>the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
>>that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
>>Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
>>pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
>>explanations for the diversity of life. Evolution is a good
>>explanation for the history of life not just because it's the only
>>naturalistic explanation available, but because it's a good
>>explanation.
>>
>Well said. However, there is much contained in that judgement of "good
>explanation". Essentially this whole debate is actually over what
>standards we should use for "good".
I'm not sure that that's true. I think it could be true, but in
practice it doesn't seem to be. Creationists usually argue against
evolution on the basis on the same kinds of standards that scientists
use. They have, to be sure, non-scientific motivations for their
arguments, but the arguments themselves don't generally attack the
ideal of a good explanation that science uses.
[...]
>>I think rejecting 6000 year old warrior spirits because they're
>>"unscientific" would be a remarkably silly thing to do.
>
>I think in a strong sense you explanation below can be summed up as
>saying it was "unscientific". That is, your reasons for rejection are
>correct, but the title you reject is also correct.
Sure, but when you're in a context where science itself is under
attack, it pays to make explicit that the reasons for rejecting
warrior spirits are not arbitrary.
>>Science has
>>rejected them not because of a bias against them, but because it found
>>explanations that work much better for behavior such as Berkowitz's.
>>To put it in a nutshell: 1) Scientists are justified in having a very
>>strong bias toward expecting natural-law explanations for phenomena;
>>2) Even if, for some reason (not that the anti-E's ever offer a
>>reason), that bias should be set aside in the case of the history of
>>life, evolution _still_ offers a better explanation of the actual data
>>than anything coming from the other side.
>>
>Her point was to ask why Johnson would reject them. He has no reason
>other than it contradicts his pre-determined answer.
Fair enough.
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <34a20ea0....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins ssc...@vesta03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
>Schaffner) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Unless I'm not understanding the terms here, are you saying
>>>that science can use the supernatural to explain things?
>>
>>meaning for "materialism" that I know is something like "the
>>belief that nothing but the material exists."
>
>strong statement has unwarranted assumptions.
I agree completely.
>It may even be wrong: is
>gravity material? How about heat?
In this sense, yes.
>The "materialism" of science says
>that we will study public persistent measurable observations. If there
>is something else we just won't study it.
Quite. My points are: (1) That's not (I think) materialism at all
(I see no need to confuse matters by redefining familiar terms); and
(2) Jennifer was making quite a different claim.
>>Science could use the supernatural to explain things (at least
>>it has done so in the past), but it does not in current
>>practice (for very good reasons).
>>
>That have nothing to do with "materialism". The "supernatural" is
>reject because it does not explain anything.
Well, if science were intrinsically materialistic (in the sense I
keep using), it never would have included supernatural explanations
for _anything_. And the reason such explanations were rejected was,
I think, that "better" naturalistic explanations proved to be possible.
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <67td8k$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <67qhic$n13$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> ssc...@vesta03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
>(Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>meaning for "materialism" that I know is something like "the
>>belief that nothing but the material exists."
>
>a bit:
>
> "The only relevant meaning for "materialism" ... is something
> like 'the belief that nothing but the material exists, _as
> far as makes any difference_.'"
Calm me down? I'm already as calm as a mud puddle.
>Now, would that bring the definition out of the realm of
>philosophy and make it once again suitable for use in the
>realm of science?
But it was philosophy that Jennifer was making statements about,
and it was those statements I was disagreeing with.
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <34a52a9c...@news.halcyon.com>,
Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) wrote:
>
>>suppose things had turned out differently. Suppose geology really
>>showed that the earth, and the rest of the universe, were 6000 years
>>old. Suppose all species appeared suddenly in the fossil record, at
>>the same time, and showed no change since then. Suppose, in fact,
>>that there were still an angel standing with flaming sword outside the
>>Garden of Eden for everyone to see. In that case, I think it would be
>>pretty bloody stupid to waste time casting about for evolutionary
>>explanations for the diversity of life.
>
>though. If geology really did show that the earth is 6000 years old,
>then that WOULD be the correct scientific conclusion to make.
Quite. Just as Behe's molecular machines are publicly-viewable pieces
of empirical evidence. If it really were impossible for them to have
evolved, science should say so (not that such a determination is in
practice possible in the foreseeable future). The _wrong_ response to
Behe is "It must have evolved, since I'm not allowed to conceive of
non-natural explanations."
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <67r35b$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <67p655$b7b$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
>(Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>>[...]Science advances natural explanations
>>for all phenomena it encounters because history suggests that such
>>explanations are very likely to be fruitful ones, not because of
>>some a priori hypothesis of materialism.
>
>Some people do, though, to some extent. Usually because of a
>combination of the futility of endeavour in such fields _if_
>this weren't the case, and the fact that _nothing_ we have seen
>gives any evidence whatsoever that we _should_ entertain the
>abandonment of such hypothesis.
Sure. But you can't see any difference between the scientific
hypotheses advanced by people who adopt a hypothesis of materialism
and those who don't.
[...]
[hypothetical world with evidence for young-earth creation deleted]
>I _will_ agree _logically_ with your statements, but:
>If pigs had wings. . . .
>
>Which leaves us with only naturalistic explanations, and
>given the evidence, pending a _better_ naturalistic
>explanation, the _only_ explanation. This, I think,
>is where philosophy leaves science in the trenches. . .
The reason for making my point is that the claim of Johnson
et al is precisely that scientists _have_ ignored non-naturalistic
explanation out of bias. To effectively rebut such a charge, I
think you have to show both that science's naturalistic bias
is legitimate, _and_ that it leads to sound conclusions in this case
even if it's dropped. Deeply-held scientific biases have been wrong
before, after all.
>[snip]
>
>>>The true lesson of this debate? PHILOSOPHY MATTERS.
>
>Ahhh, I thought so. I was wondering if you were coming in with
>a philosophical bent. You must have tolerated Berlinski better
>than I. But Buckley. . . ;-)
That was Jennifer, not me. I'm in the "Damn it, Jim, I'm a
scientist" school, which tends to be suspicious of philosophers.
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine,|| The history of science is rather
and may not be those of SLAC, Stanford|| putrid. . .
University, or the DOE. || Hilary Putnam
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ssc...@vesta04.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
Schaffner) wrote:
>In article <34a10699....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In talk.origins ssc...@morgan10.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F.
>>Schaffner) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <349f2a4e...@news.halcyon.com>,
>>>Jennifer Palonus <jpal...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>>>May as well have been all four. Since it was Johnson for the C's right
>>>>off the bat (after the opening statements), the E should've been an out
>>>>& out materialist. Like me.
>>>
>>>For all I know, Scott _is_ a materialist. What difference does it make?
>>>The validity of evolution doesn't depend on whether materialism is true.
>>>
>>It does not depend on whether it is TRUE, but it does depend on
>>whether it is acceptably good enough. However, the issue is not
>>whether the materialism behind evolution is acceptable, but whether
>>the materialism behind science is acceptable. The point should have
>>been strongly made that evolution has exactly the same metaphysical
>>basis as any and all other science.
>
>Agreed, although I'm rather nervous about your use of "materialism"
>here, especially since you seem to mean something different by it than
>Jennifer does.
>
It does. I think, and I know I am getting somewhat confused here, that
you and Jennifer are closer together. However, she is more interested
in the political implications than you are.
>[...]
>>>She didn't, as far as I know, say that materialism was flawed; she
>>>said that materialism is an invalid conclusion to draw from the fact
>>>of evolution. She's right.
>>>
>>The problem is that Johnson is being intellectually dishonest. The
>>"materialism" of communism is not the materialism of science.
>
>As far as I know, "materialism" means that only the physical exists.
It can mean that. That is not my view nor it is required for science.
The minimum materialism of science is that science will only study
persistent public observations, what we frequently call material.
>I don't know whether that's the materialism of communism, but I gather
>that it's the materialism of Jennifer.
The materialism of communism is quite hard to pin down, as is any
essential of a political/religious/philosphical position.
>One can certainly be a
>materialist in this sense and be a scientist, but one need not be.
>My point was that I don't see any advantage in opposing Johnson with
>a materialist.
>
She was really making a political point. As I understand her position
she is saying we should shoot for the philosophical underpinnings of
Johnson's argument and the best way to do that is to get someone who
is clearly different. We can certainly argue 1) if that is the
appropriate goal and 2) if that is the appropriate tool. I am not sure
I want to engage in that argument.
>>>There is no materialistic basis of science. Or rather, materialism
>>>is one possible base among many for science. It's certainly not a
>>>necessary one.
>>>
>>I would like you to expand on this before I comment. We might be in
>>agreement, but I don't know.
>
>Empirically, science can be done by people with all kinds of
>metaphysical positions, including materialism and (I suspect)
>idealism. It can also be done by people with extremely muddled
>metaphysical beliefs. There is no practical requirement for any
>particular philosophical base. Nor is there, as far as I know,
>any such logical requirement. (No doubt some philosophical beliefs
>would make science pointless at best, and impossible at worst,
>but that's not relevant.)
>
Ok. I do agree.
>>>>Does the scientific
>>>>method allow "God did it" as an acceptable theory or doesn't it?
>>>
>>>Not in general. What does that have to do with materialism?
>>
>>Nothing. God is "eliminated" by parsimony, not my materialism.
>
>I don't come to the same conclusion, but that's also irrelevant.
>
For me, God is an explanation, a result, not an input. As such it is
eliminated by the Razor, not by the domain of study. Note, I am only
saying that God is eliminated from the conclusions. I am not making
any comment at all on the existence of God.
[snip]
>
>>Well said. However, there is much contained in that judgement of "good
>>explanation". Essentially this whole debate is actually over what
>>standards we should use for "good".
>
>I'm not sure that that's true. I think it could be true, but in
>practice it doesn't seem to be. Creationists usually argue against
>evolution on the basis on the same kinds of standards that scientists
>use. They have, to be sure, non-scientific motivations for their
>arguments, but the arguments themselves don't generally attack the
>ideal of a good explanation that science uses.
>
I disagree. They seem to adopt the standards of science, but they are
really making political arguments. The standard of a "good"
explanation in science is whether it makes confirmed predictions. But
the standard they want to use is whether it leads to a "moral"
society.