"ID's rocky way to Oulu, Finland". I met Dr. Paul Nelson.
Kari Tikkanen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecumenical event of churches in city of OULU, Finland 27-29 May 2005
Saturday 28 May 2005 at 4-7 pm
"I know, I believe" -panel discussion
Audiovisual and interactive happening that tries to resolve
subject:
"Can church be believable if it is tied to
naturalistic scientism?"
Partisipants:
-Medical director, professor Pentti Huovinen from KTL (our "NIH")
-Docent Lennart Saari
-Docent Markus Olin (instead of prof. Markku Kulmala, meteorology
expert)
-pastor, Dr Paivi Jussila (btw. she is woman)
-American guest is Dr. Paul Nelson who gives a talk as basis of
discussion
-Professor Matti Leisola
-Emceeing docent Jyri Komulainen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My general comments:
-surprising few people in big gym hall, about 30..50
listeners, most chairs empty. I'd predicted this somebit. Still
nearly disappointment because I spent 3.5 hours for this.
-I was little late, I did not want to make noise by taking
my laptop PC, so I made notices on papers by hand for first 1.5
hours. This was a somebit mistake. Too slow way.
-Target was church vs ID not so much science vs ID. Quite few people
and many events around town Oulu. Due to this I was very relaxed,
no irritation, I had difficulties even to get motivation to arrive
here
-You'd need two opponents: scretary and questions-maker. Even some
moments thinking or inventing hard questions makes you pass many
rows of speech over our head, having "dark moments" in writing down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
0.Finnish Introduction
I Lecture of Paul Nelson
II Panel discussion at 17.29-
III My personal contact with Nelson
0. Finnish Introduction
A Finnish man (I don't know his name) made introduction speech
at the same time as following text was shown with
overhead projector (Finnish but I translated English here):
(Fig 1,2,3,.. refer to photos in my digicamera).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ fig 1
+ Naturalism = there does not exist anything but nature,
+ which we have experience, or is included in mechanistic
+ world view. It denies all supernatural and implies all
+ mental/emotional from materia. Existence of God is denied.
+ Materialistic view of world. Human is just complex machine.
+ Two forms of naturalism exist: secular humanism and marxism.
+
+ In theism personal God works as creator and supporter of
+ world. Deism: God has lost his personality, but maintains
+ creator of world, that left on its own relying on laws.
+ Teleology = there is appropriateness in human beviour (and)
+ phenomena of nature
+
+ 12 stupid Sokrates' questions:
+
+ 1) Can Christianity (recognises miracles?) fundamentally
+ be naturalistic ?
+ 2) Is methodological naturalism/atheism as research program
+ be more fruitful than intuitionistic and supernatural
+ research program ?
+ 3) Does (natural) scientific world view inescapable lead
+ to fully naturalistic ideological world view [difficult
+ to translate but the latter means total view, not just
+ facts but also values, methods of getting knowlegde etc]
+ 4) Are our senses and observations reliable ? On What
+ foundation ?
+ 5) Does belief as one paradigm of science lead to retarding or
+ advancing of science ?
+ 6) Have scientifically educated people specifically high
+ treshold to believe on any supernatural ?
+ 7) Is there any relevance to "religional belief" if man
+ is supporter of either short creation (YEC) or unguided
+ or guided evolution ?
+ 8) Does God even have role of intervening shouter at
+ gambling table of new high priests of science, physicists.
+ 9) Has Finland's Church anything to scare of due to science
+ that would show design as most probable explanation of
+ organized complexity (irreducible complex information)
+ of life ?
+ 10) What is left of Christianity without dogmas or truth
+ propositions?
+ 11) What is that new Reformation which is arriving over
+ Atlantic and wipes smiles off ? [This means US's ID ]
+ 12) Can evolution be full-religion because it made
+ possible to be "intellectually fulfilled atheist" ?
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I. Lecture of Dr. Paul Nelson
=========================
(Powerpoint style presentation, picture overheaded with projector.
Nelson explaines couple sentences at a time, intervened by
(creationist) prof.
Matti Leisola who translates to Finnish.
I made notes and took some digicamera photos. I compined photos of
pictures of text afterwards with my notes.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 2
+ Is Christianity Naturalistic?
+ Should Science Be ?
+ Oulu ,Finland
+ 28 May 2005
+ Paul A. Nelson
+ Fellow
+ Discovery Institute
+ www.discovery.org/csc
+ Master of Arts Program in Science and Religion
+ Biola University
+ www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion
+
+ The views expressed in this talk are strictly those of
+ the speaker, and not the Discovery Institute, Biola university,
+ or any of their affiliates.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fic 3
+
+ Let us begin with two facts
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-2 packs: "EVIL"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 4
+ (b&w pic, people marching)
+ Auschwitz, 1944
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1-"Auschwitz 1944" people marching to concentration camp, they gonna
die few hours later of this snapshot.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 5
+ (complex look like pic of virus)
+ Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 6
+ (complex picture of life cycle of HIV)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2-HIV (two figures of complex structure and life of virus)
-The world is broken
In our world evil is real. There is "natural evil".
(Perhaps he means there is two kinds of evil).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 7
+ Q. How does the naturalistic worldview
+ ("naturalism") explain the reality of evil?
+ A. It doesn't explain it. Indeed, the
+ very concept of evil embarrasses naturalism.
+ Evil is not real.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 8
+ Naturalism says that the physical universe (all that exists)
+ is a closed system of causes-and-effects
+
+ (under that is green ball, inside it: "physical universe")
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 9
+ But particles in motion know nothing of "evil."
+ Our experience of moral realities require more.
+
+ (green ball, inside it "physical universe" outside "mind and agency"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 10
+ We know, however, that we (as intelligent agents)
+ act upon physical things, and leave evidence
+
+ (green ball "physical universe", rounded by bigger
+ brown ring where are words "mind and agency" ""right"", ""wrong"",
+ "moral categories" and arrows from brown ring to green ball)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Above bubble of materialism and natural law there is
moral categories: "right" and "wrong".
-causality flows only from matter.
-Painting (showed religional pic of Patmos island), designed
-Galileo-surveyor searches life
-For christians belief is on resurrection.
-God is not bounded by natural laws.
Nelson said he has toolbox:
Toolbox: natural causes, intelligent causes.
Then he showed molecular biological picture of Chaperone:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 11
+ Chaperone (groEL)
+ (picture of molecule, looks like wreath)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-kindergarten of babyproteins
-Is it possible that it is designed ?
-Shouldn't it be possible to give science a chance to investigate this
?
...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 12
+ The Rule of
+ Methodological Naturalism
+ "The statements of science must invoke only
+ natural things and processes."
+ National Academy of sciences (Donald kennedy et al.,1998)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why God cannot act on?
-IMHO on biology 1886- (..science didn't ask anymore this (?))
-Elliot Sober is Nelson's opponent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 13
+ (Photo of Elliott)
+ Elliott Sober
+ Philosopher of science (evolutionary theory) at
+ Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin,
+ and prominent critic of intelligent design
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--Sober 1984,141: To find reason is the same as to find treasure in
science.
-SARS: we find reason.. (Nelson perhaps means here that finding
reason to SARS, is finding treatment to SARS is as valuable as
treasure).
Nelson showed figure of treasure island where treasure marked "X",
soon beside it popped up text:" was intelligently designed"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 14,15
+ Question: what cause phenomenon?
+ (Fig of treasure island, southest part of island hatched where "X")
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-but we don't have treasure map (Nelson wiped X away)
-Nelson said (=admitted) (in some moment) that
there is not ID theory, ID-movement does not have ID theory (!!!)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fig 16
+ Let's suppose life on Earth were intelligently designed
+
+ That is what really happened
+
+ Then, if scientists were strictly bound by methodological
+ naturalism, they could not discover the truth about the
+ history of life.
+
+ Thus, something is very wrong with methodological
+ naturalism as a framework.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-ID dispute touched for now only USA, said Nelson. But he mentioned
that recently Dutch science and education secretary took step,
recognized ID.
-On October 2005 in Wien there gonna be conference.. (of ID?)
QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE TO Dr. Paul Nelson:
-------------------------------------------------
Prof. Leisola as interpreter.
Q1 - Black-shirted ahead: (I missed some sentences)
"Is it possible for nature work human-like sensible way itself?"
Nelson -(..I missed part again..)
- there is goal directed behaviour in nature
- Life systems are informal rich systems
Q2- I, Kari (only one asking directly in English):
"What is your honest personal opinion? Is there two designers - Good
Designer and Bad Designer ? (I lifted 2 fingers of my left hand making
"V" figure). In Theological Institute they have concluded that if You
conclude God from nature, looking cruelty etc., then you get terrible
God".
Nelson circumvented my (first) personal question by lecturing general
answers given due to course of history mentioning medieval scholastids,
C.S.Lewis and Job in Bible. (It seems for him "evil" is very abstract
not concrete thing, never clarifies who, what evil is.).
Q3 - biology studend behind me:
"As I've studied evolution I found that.. they generate explanation
stories over explanation stories to explain faults/weak points of
evolution .. Evolution is like collapsing house of cards." (She more
announced/preached than asked).
Nelson speak about Copernicus and Galileo: round orbits of planets -
"perfect round" -But Kepler - showed that they are ellipses. (I'm not
sure purpose of this. Critique of perfection ? Critique of human
abilities to recognize perfection ?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II Panel discussion (Finnish)
=============================
I tell here only shortly about some of participants and theirs talks
and conclusions.
Pastor Paivi Jussila said Nelson's ID look like glued over/on, it looks
like artificial. She also said no-one is pure naturalistic or
non-naturalistic. Normal human has contradictive stuff in his mind.
Medical director, physician and God believer, Pentti Huovinen
critisized USA that they mix religion to politics. He believes
evolution. Huovinen wondered who stops Nelson to study. Man has to be
able to replicate observations. He asked people to study praying and
its effects. He is making book of it.He mentioned how Jesus had said to
Thomas that seeing is not most important but belief only. Science
cannot be basis of belief. American way of belief cannot be founded on
science.
Lennart Saari (I know he is YEC) critisized evolution, spoke "clergy"
of science as "medieval church" complaining how his career has nearly
stopped due to his views.(His Doctor thesis was on agriculture and
forestry but now rings birds). He'd wanted see more scientifical
evidence against evolution by Nelson. He also said ID does not effect
on his belief this or that. He also admitted that he is atheist when
making science (studying birds etc).
Markus Olin was quite physics-philosophical, so much that his stance
was not quite clear to me. For ex he said: "It is extremely difficult
to study chance. If propeller spins water of this glass, then you need
largest supercomputer in the world(for calculation). How You calculate
evolution of life ? Is here visible little piece of information? It
might be devastating.. The man who manages, he is repulsive". (Couple
last sentences very hard to grasp, I didn't get what he meant). But he
also exposed that professor of meteorology, Markku Kulmala, had
recommended Dembski's book Design Interference to him. (In addition to
I got impression that Markku Kulmala had chickened out of this event,
he had said to emcee "I'm scientist and in this (ID)case it is not
question of (natural) science".)
Prof. Leisola (he is OEYL) said that ID is science. He also said that
he is fully methodological naturalist when working in his lab. He
offered Dembski's book Design Interference ( or Interfering Design ?
Anyway the more laymen version of those, translated to Finnish by him)
to the panelists and to audience. Leisola said: "You can order by
email. But C.O.D. because You never know if consignee is bandit or
christian" (Audience laughing). He also mentioned how drunken
(Finnish?) World Championship atheletes/fans had kept Dr. Nelson awake
in hotel in Helsinki at night. "If we are apes, then man
distrupt(something)/make scramble." Here We see again how strongly
morality is Leisola's argument against evolution. It is his favourite
arguments.(However this evening he did not mention nazism and rapes, as
usual).
Emcee Jyri Komulainen was clearly quite negative to ID.
Audience got later ask questions but I was not allowed to though I
waved my hand. Emcee said only 6 questions allowed, no more. (And
those were scheduled beforehand :-0, perhaps during interval when I
and others got to men's room, but I don't get how..). Many
preached/announced than asked so much that emcee had to remind he wants
short questions.
I remember how one black-shirted man in first row said this interesting
point: "Psychoanalysis has studied minds of small childs. Freud
observed that at any age a child who experience extremely good, does
not want to give it up. If child has to give up due to austere rough
reality then child experiences so powerful emotions that passes all
reality and reality check. Child is in psychosis and 'mentally ill',
hallusinating what he/she needs."
Finally Dr. Paul Nelson spoke.. "Scientian" means "knowledge", how he
believes ID is knowledge, science etc though he splitted between his
belief and reality : "I'm not going to claim ID is knowledge though I
believe it is.."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
III My personal contact with Nelson
===================================
(I made notes a few hours later from my memory)
After final speech we had chance to meet Dr. Nelson. Fortunately not
much crowd or queue. When he ended chatting with someone I approached
him. I didn't get to say anything when he astonished me totally
pointing his finger at me
and resting his other hand on my right shoulder saying:
Nelson: "You must be Kari".
I: "Oh my God.. How You know me.. I'm nearly blushing.."
Nelson: "I saw You make a lot of notes with laptop.. You have hard
questions... I read talk.origins."
I:"Well, Wilkins has mentioned that you read it.." (We both smiling).
In somewhere between chatting Nelson also mentioned :"I thought you
won't be in Oulu..".
(I never had met him, never emailed etc. I had read about him in
internet somebit. Much later when driving home I realized that I had
put notice of this event weeks ago and also warned that I maybe don't
have time for this, and Nelson had read it).
Fortunately I knew how easy Yankees make friends and are courteus and
here in t.o John Wilkins had "warned" about Nelson's politeness..;) So
I didn't forget my questions touching YEC and astrology. But first our
chatting went on. In panel discussion they had talked about funding. So
I said that even amateurs can make contributions to science for ex
in astronomy and geology. (I also mentioned my modest observations of
eclipsing binaries, I found period of V355 And etc).
Now Nelson looked like little surprised "Hmm..interesting." [I
remembered much later after this event that Newton invented his
calculus in farm escaping plague, Heisenberg found quantum mechanics in
island escaping hay fewer, Einstein worked in Switzerland's patent
office. My point: Genius revolution does not allways need university.
Creationists moaned in panel discussion that mentioning God/contra-evo
in study gets you sacks in university etc].
Then bigger questions.
I asked Dr. Nelson: "when dinosaurs started tampering on earth, were
they millions years ago..?" "You believe Young Earth ? -"Yes." Nelson
said to latter "question". I said that I'd somehow comprehend in
biology if God is filled into holes of our knowledge. (With left hand
as axes I was chopping holes in my right hand).
But I don't get how PhD-guys believes young earth. Paul Nelson was very
open-minded, honest. He admitted "I am young Earth
Creationist". He has to believe so due to basis of biblical belief,
science tells old earth. His many (ID-)friends believe on old
earth.There exist signs on young earth and some work for these (he
means YEC-"scientists") but it does not assure him. He admits
permanent tension inside him. (He pointed his right hand to one
direction) "I have belief on young earth" (then he pointed his left
hand to another direction) "I know science tells other, old earth".
"This is tension I just have to live with".
I mentioned William Faulkner from AIG who believes YEC though teaches
BigBang.Then I mentioned AiG's Dr. Shapiro (actually Dr. Sarfati but I
remembered wrong) who despise talk.originians as "bunch of clowns".
Nelson laughed.
Then I asked: "What about astrology. What if astrology is also
represented as science, bringing it into science ?" (My purpose to show
that too wide criteria gets all humbug into science..). Nelson
considered astrology's terms and concepts murky, fuzzy.. He didn't
consider astrology empirical. He raised Behe from ID. "Behe is
empirical.. he tests". I could not respond anything about Behe, but I
said about astrology that "Astrology is high level too. I know there is
two PhD's in astrology in England and in France. (I'm not anymore sure
if I mentioned those countries but I had those in mind). Nelson said
"Oh", lifted his eye brows. So he looked little surprised again.
After me came young woman who had had laptop PC, too. She introduced
herself as religional UUSI TIE-magazine reporter to Dr. Nelson . I
didn't see other journalists.
Over 3.5 hours was spent. I had to leave because I had hurry, hungry
and I got headache.
Perhaps charming politeness of Nelson or my headache made me forgot my
original commenting that Dr. Nelson never answered my public question
about his opinion of existence of Bad Designer.
CONCLUSIONS:
-ID's got rocky way to OULU. No mentioning in local newspaper,
quite small audience, only one reporter (in addition to me ;)
-I was little confused how honest Nelson and even many others were.
Nelson's charming friendliness and honesty was confirmed. His YEC
and "ID has not theory" opinions and also ties to Bible were
confirmed.
-Perhaps IDers underestimate danger and power of astrology rival.(*)
-Take something to eat/drink and another companion (secretary,
recorder) within if you want full record and want to ask hard
questions without headache in this kind of long lasting events.
-Finnish creationists use "atheistic" methodological naturalism in
their labs/field. They don't expect touch of God (or evil) to disturb
study.
Regards,
Mr Kari A.T.
Ps.(*) Here in Finland couple years ago teacher's OPETTAJA-magazine
introduced without critique one PhD (in education) woman who lectures
and consults about human character using astrology. This spring in same
magazine in letters to editor there was debate of evolution (which they
had to stop, it is rumored).