Do Creationists Hide Their Religious Foundation?; Criticism of "Tower of Babel"
A Pagano
Pennock wrote: [BEGIN QUOTE] "In public debates creationists often
reject any explicit discussion of religion, insisting that they present
only an alternate scientific position; but in their own literature, they
make it clear that they are engaged in a religious battle for the hearts
and minds of those who have fallen away from God and who would lead
their children away from the true path to salvation." [END QUOTE]
CRITICISM
Since most works of creation science are censored, the occassional
public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to present
their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear of
them. Pennock misleads his readers by implying that during such debates
creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any explicit
discussion of religion." On its face this is patently absurd since
their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
Having been ridiculed, ostracized, laughed at, and scorned since the
Scopes Trial creationists are learning when and when not to introduce
religious statements into debate. The avoidance (rather than
"rejection") of introducing religious statements is partly a function of
the issues, format, and conduct of the debate, but the avoidance
prevents their secular opponents from diverting from the issues and
engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Pennock also misleads his readers by suggesting that in their own
creationist publications the scientific issues are ancillary to their
real or primary interest---the evangelization of the fallen. This again
is patently absurd. What the creationist literature does focus on---as
a matter of the history and philosophy of science---is that there is a
battle between the purely naturalistic world view and the christian
world view. But this focus is as much about empirical issues as it is
about metaphysical ones. One is left to wonder if Pennock read much of
any of the creationist works he listed as references in his book.
Modern secular theorists through their considerable influence on
curricula have been able to "push" the purely naturalistic world view by
over-selling the "conjectural but best available theories" as
indubitable fact. Creationists point out in their literature that
characterizing a conjectural theory as "best available acceptable to a
purely naturalistic world view" where contradictions and shortfalls in
explanatory power exist is hardly the same as saying it is objectively
true or EVEN PROBABLY TRUE. This deception has caused many to question
their faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. In view of
this continuing deception I think creationists are justified in devoting
resources and space in their publications to this battle.
[more to follow]
Regards,
T Pagano
redkite
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:386ED7A8...@fast.net...
> [This is a continuing criticism of Pennock's book, "Tower of Babel."]
>
> Pennock wrote: [BEGIN QUOTE] "In public debates creationists often
> reject any explicit discussion of religion, insisting that they present
> only an alternate scientific position; but in their own literature, they
> make it clear that they are engaged in a religious battle for the hearts
> and minds of those who have fallen away from God and who would lead
> their children away from the true path to salvation." [END QUOTE]
>
>
> CRITICISM
> Since most works of creation science are censored, the occassional
> public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to present
> their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear of
> them. Pennock misleads his readers by implying that during such debates
> creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any explicit
> discussion of religion." On its face this is patently absurd since
> their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
> synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
>
>
purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has already
been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments
have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific investigation,
you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it or not.
David (London UK)
Tim
> CRITICISM Since most works of creation science are censored,
Not true. Creationists can publish whatever they want. This claim of
censorship is utterly absurd. Of course, the kind of anti scientific crap
they publish is not worthy of publication in any respectible publication.
Literature with arguments debunked 20 years ago aren't going to merit
publication in Scientific American!
>the occassional
> public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to present
> their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear of
> them.
The same opportunity exists on their web sites, museums, books, and other
publications. Unfortunatly their is plenty of opportunity for creationists
to warp minds and lie.
>Pennock misleads his readers by implying that during such debates
> creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any explicit
> discussion of religion."
Actually that's not misleading, it's misleading to suggest otherwise.
> Having been ridiculed, ostracized, laughed at, and scorned since the
> Scopes Trial creationists are learning when and when not to introduce
> religious statements into debate.
Wonderful, now if only they could learn when not to introduce lies, out of
context quotes, distortions of science and general bullshit. Of course,
without that, they woudn't have anything but science and there wouldn't be
any debate.
> Pennock also misleads his readers by suggesting that in their own
> creationist publications the scientific issues are ancillary to their
> real or primary interest---the evangelization of the fallen. This again
> is patently absurd.
No it isn't. They make it quite obvious that their religious faith comes
before any scientific evidence. Ever read any of the statements of faith
they have to sign?
What the creationist literature does focus on---as
> a matter of the history and philosophy of science---is that there is a
> battle between the purely naturalistic world view and the christian
> world view.
Actually it's a battle between good science and the rubbish creationists
give out. Evolution is not atheism.
Creationists point out in their literature that
> characterizing a conjectural theory as "best available acceptable to a
> purely naturalistic world view" where contradictions and shortfalls in
> explanatory power exist is hardly the same as saying it is objectively
> true or EVEN PROBABLY TRUE. This deception has caused many to question
> their faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
The only deception is in the creationist literature. Evolution is indeed a
fact of science and if tha conflicts with scripture, tough luck. Scripture
is wrong. It's been wrong before and it's wrong now.
In view of
> this continuing deception I think creationists are justified in devoting
> resources and space in their publications to this battle.
In view of your stupidity, I think you should shut up.
Mike Goodrich
"redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:386ED7A8...@fast.net...
> > [This is a continuing criticism of Pennock's book, "Tower of
Babel."]
> >
> > Pennock wrote: [BEGIN QUOTE] "In public debates creationists often
> > reject any explicit discussion of religion, insisting that they
present
> > only an alternate scientific position; but in their own literature,
they
> > make it clear that they are engaged in a religious battle for the
hearts
> > and minds of those who have fallen away from God and who would lead
> > their children away from the true path to salvation." [END QUOTE]
> >
> >
> > Since most works of creation science are censored, the occassional
> > public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to present
> > their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear of
debates
> > creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any
explicit
> > their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
> > synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
> >
> >
> Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested
in
> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has
already
> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
arguments
> have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
investigation,
> you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
or not.
>
> David (London UK)
>
>
I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to
the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM. With scientific investigation, you
have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it or not.
Notice how apply it fits?
Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
It is really much worse than this. They are guilty of trying to co-opt
science itself and make the great fallacious equivocation that science
IS the religion of materialism/naturalism. In their religious fervor,
they then attempt to foist their religion on the public by actively
seeking to criminilize dissent in the public forum/institutions. They
have become the very thing that they publicly denounce, and the
greatest danger to open-minded free thinking because they hold up their
religion as though it were the valid result of a legimate process of
scientific investigation, then claim than anyone arguing with them is
arguing against science itself. It is a corrupting, fallacious,
subversive attempt to exclusively claim the high ground of reason, and
render all opposition as "unreasonable" by fiat.
The emperor has no clothes.
Cheers,
--Mike Goodrich
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ro...@my-deja.com
Good point.
Which is one of the reasons the Judge in the Arkansas case went against
the creeationist.
He said that you cannot start out with a conclusion and ignore evidence
to the contrary; and still call it science. Which is what the
creationist do.
Rod #613
ro...@my-deja.com
I forgot to add:
Check out the Discovery group, which includes Behe and Philip Johnson
among its members.
Does Pagano deny that their aim is religious, hidden behind a framework
of science?
maff91
wrote:
[...]
>
>I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
>word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>
>
> Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
>in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
>the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
>advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to
>the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM. With scientific investigation, you
>have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it or not.
>
>
>Notice how apply it fits?
>
>
>Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
>connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
>very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
>between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
>held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
>
>It is really much worse than this. They are guilty of trying to co-opt
>science itself and make the great fallacious equivocation that science
>IS the religion of materialism/naturalism. In their religious fervor,
>they then attempt to foist their religion on the public by actively
>seeking to criminilize dissent in the public forum/institutions. They
>have become the very thing that they publicly denounce, and the
>greatest danger to open-minded free thinking because they hold up their
>religion as though it were the valid result of a legimate process of
>scientific investigation, then claim than anyone arguing with them is
>arguing against science itself. It is a corrupting, fallacious,
>subversive attempt to exclusively claim the high ground of reason, and
>render all opposition as "unreasonable" by fiat.
>
>The emperor has no clothes.
Are you projecting?
So why are you unable to convince the Supreme Court, scientific and
business world that creationist fundie cults are doing any science?
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html>
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html>
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
A New Germ Theory
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm>
What is Darwinian Medicine?
<http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm>
Evolution and Origins of disease
<http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html>
Gene Therapy
<http://www.natx.com/>
Hopeful Monsters
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml>
More Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/evo_use.html>
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Biotechnology/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Biotechnology/Genetic_Engineering/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Agriculture/Research/Research_Centers/>
Oil industry (Geology)
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
<http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html>
<http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html>
<http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html>
<http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/plates.html>
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Computer Industry
CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON
<http://www.newscientist.com/ns/971115/features.html>
Evolving A Conscious Machine By Gary Taubes
<http://208.226.13.177/archive/output.cfm?ID=1455>
Further reading: A collection of Adrian Thompson's papers is posted on
his Web site at <http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html>
Microsoft funds software that writes and fixes itself
<http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/08/22/stiinnnws01003.html?1902395>
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html>
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html>
Creationism and Pseudo Science
<http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm>
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
<http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/>
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/>
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html>
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html>
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
[...]
Mike Goodrich bears false witness yet again.
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=%22Mike+Goodrich%22&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=maff91&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>
--
Voices for evolution
http://www.natcenscied.org/voicont.htm
maff91
[...]
>
>I forgot to add:
>Check out the Discovery group, which includes Behe and Philip Johnson
Its aim are more than religious.
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
>among its members.
>Does Pagano deny that their aim is religious, hidden behind a framework
>of science?
>
>Rod #613
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Design refuted
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519544184
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=517183921
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=241590474
A Designer Universe? by STEVEN WEINBERG
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19991021046F
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
Tim
--
===================================================
To sign up for alladvatage.com go here!
https://www.alladvantage.com/joinsecure.asp?refid=heu248
you get paid 50 cents/hour to surf the web!
Also try this www.getpaid4.com where you get paid just for
viewing and clicking ads no surfing nessasary!!
http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/joinnow.cgi?tgamble
===================================================
Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:84nr8h$qob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested
> in
> > purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> > religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has
> already
> > been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
> arguments
> > have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
> investigation,
> > you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
> or not.
> >
> > David (London UK)
And you have no clue!
Jdguil
> "redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> >
>> >
>> Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested
>in
>> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>> religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has
>already
>> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
>arguments
>> have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
>investigation,
>> you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
>or not.
>>
>> David (London UK)
>>
>>
>
>I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
>word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>
>
> Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
>in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)?
Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that is supported by
physical evidence. Many people who do have religious beliefs also accept
evolution.
With EVOLUTIONISM,
>the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
>advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to
>the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
The amazing thing about evolution is that astronomy, geology, physics and
biology, all starting from different points of view, come to the conclusion
that evolution is correct. There was no need to presuppose the conclusion.
>With scientific investigation, you
>have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it or not.
>
That is the point evolutionists are trying to make, and that is the point
creationists refuse to accept.
>Notice how apply it fits?
>
>
>Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
>connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
>very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
>between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
>held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
Thats a lot of big words that don't mean a heck of a lot. Please explain what
you mean by the religion of 'materialism/naturalism'.
>
>It is really much worse than this. They are guilty of trying to co-opt
>science itself and make the great fallacious equivocation that science
>IS the religion of materialism/naturalism. In their religious fervor,
>they then attempt to foist their religion on the public by actively
>seeking to criminilize dissent in the public forum/institutions.
Lol. Now is that ever the granddaddy of exaggeration. I can't think of any
example of evolutionary scientists attempting to criminalize opposing
viewpoints. Creationists on the other hand have a long history of that tactic:
the Scopes trial comes immediately to mind.
They
>have become the very thing that they publicly denounce, and the
>greatest danger to open-minded free thinking because they hold up their
>religion as though it were the valid result of a legimate process of
>scientific investigation, then claim than anyone arguing with them is
>arguing against science itself. It is a corrupting, fallacious,
>subversive attempt to exclusively claim the high ground of reason, and
>render all opposition as "unreasonable" by fiat.
Yep, that is what creationist religion tries to do. Fortunately real scientists
still use the scientific method. And the scientific method continues to gather
evidence that proves evolution is correct.
Regards,
Jim
Dick C.
>In article <386f3...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
> "redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>in
>> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>> religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has
>already
>> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
>arguments
>> have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
>investigation,
>> you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
>or not.
>>
>> David (London UK)
>>
>>
>
>I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
>word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
Actually, no they won't, as the word substitutions make the entire statement
false.
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>CRITICISM
>Since most works of creation science are censored, the occassional
>public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to present
>their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear of
>them.
meaningless rhetoric. censored by whom? proof?
this is more paranoia on the part of creationists. since their work
isnt science they have to say their work is 'censored' to justify
their exclusion, along with astrologers and tarot card readers, from
science.
Pennock misleads his readers by implying that during such debates
>creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any explicit
>discussion of religion." On its face this is patently absurd since
>their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
>synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
here pagano is confused.
historically creationists tried to exclude the teaching of science in
schools. when this failed they adopted the tactic of trying to hide
the religious basis of creationism to try to make it acceptable. proof
of this is seen in the publication of 2 different versions of some
creationist textbooks...one for use in religious schools, where god is
explicitly mentioned, and one for use in 'public' schools where he's
hidden.
it's a poor 'science' which has as a prime motivating force, the
supreme court of the USA.
>
>Pennock also misleads his readers by suggesting that in their own
>creationist publications the scientific issues are ancillary to their
>real or primary interest---the evangelization of the fallen. This again
>is patently absurd. What the creationist literature does focus on---as
>a matter of the history and philosophy of science---is that there is a
>battle between the purely naturalistic world view and the christian
>world view. But this focus is as much about empirical issues as it is
>about metaphysical ones. One is left to wonder if Pennock read much of
>any of the creationist works he listed as references in his book.
this is more meaningless rhetoric. if you check the 'answers in
genesis' or the ICR homepage, the scientific issues ARE ancillary to
the evangelization of the fallen...in fact the ICR does not admit
scientists, only creationists. and if there was a 'battle' between the
xtian and 'naturalistic' world view, why would so many xtians be
evolutionary biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc? the 'battle' is
a figment of creationist imagination.
>
>Modern secular theorists through their considerable influence on
>curricula have been able to "push" the purely naturalistic world view by
>over-selling the "conjectural but best available theories" as
>indubitable fact
nonsense. if pagano is able to demonstrate how the teaching of physics
is different than biology let him do so. he selectively attacks
biology because god isnt mentioned, when, in fact, it's mentioned as
often as in physics...i.e. never. pagano's arbitrary cultural
beliefs...that 'god created' means evolution is wrong...does not cause
science to be wrong
.. Creationists point out in their literature that
>characterizing a conjectural theory as "best available acceptable to a
>purely naturalistic world view" where contradictions and shortfalls in
>explanatory power exist is hardly the same as saying it is objectively
>true or EVEN PROBABLY TRUE. This deception has caused many to question
>their faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
which has nothing to do with science. if your faith is so weak you
need science to prop it up, you deserve what you get.
.. In view of
>this continuing deception I think creationists are justified in devoting
>resources and space in their publications to this battle.
no doubt. just as the geocentrists did battle with the heliocentrists.
the theologians lost.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
>connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
>very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
>between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
>held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
unfortunately creationists think everything is religious. they thus
have to reframe everything as a religious debate. materialism has
nothing to do with religion. creationism is an arbitrary cultural
belief about the world which is contradicted by all sciences.
evolution is only one. thus creationists have to make it into a
religious debate because their beliefs have failed them
>
>It is really much worse than this. They are guilty of trying to co-opt
>science itself and make the great fallacious equivocation that science
>IS the religion of materialism/naturalism
proof?
none. rhetoric?
lots
.. In their religious fervor,
>they then attempt to foist their religion on the public by actively
>seeking to criminilize dissent in the public forum/institutions.
unfortunately for creationists it was the founding fathers who wrote
in the 1st amendment that teaching religion is not a govt function.
unless you can prove creationism ISNT religion, the govt is prohibited
from teaching it. it's not censorship. it's the constitution.
fundamentalists are very unhappy because they cant force their
religion on the rest of us. they think that's a violation of their
religious freedom.
may...@andrews.edu
snip
> Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested
in
> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> religion?
Creationists erroneously believe that purely scientific data bolsters
their religion all by itself. To them, a religion without scientific
support is basically a religion that shouldn't be taken seriously. So
they force the two spheres of interests into a disastrous mixture.
> With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has already
> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
arguments
> have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
investigation,
> you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
or not.
Yes, creationists are not very scientific in this regard.
--vince
hrgr...@my-deja.com
> > news:386ED7A8...@fast.net...
> > > [This is a continuing criticism of Pennock's book, "Tower of
> Babel."]
> > >
> > > Pennock wrote: [BEGIN QUOTE] "In public debates creationists
often
> > > reject any explicit discussion of religion, insisting that they
> present
> > > only an alternate scientific position; but in their own
literature,
> they
> > > make it clear that they are engaged in a religious battle for the
> hearts
> > > and minds of those who have fallen away from God and who would
lead
> > > their children away from the true path to salvation." [END QUOTE]
> > >
> > >
> > > Since most works of creation science are censored, the occassional
> > > public debate is a precious opportunity for creationists to
present
> > > their competing ideas to an audience who might not otherwise hear
of
> debates
> > > creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any
> explicit
> > > discussion of religion." On its face this is patently absurd
since
> > > their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
> > > synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
> > >
> > >
interested
> in
> > purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> already
> > been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
> arguments
> > have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis. With scientific
> investigation,
> > you have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it
> or not.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the
appropriate
> word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>
interested
> in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
Which is 1. not a religion, but a "Weltanschaung" (world view), and 2.
not the world view of "evolutionists" - which can be found among
Christians, Hindus, atheists (weak or strong), Muslims...
With EVOLUTIONISM,
> the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
> advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead
to
> the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
Strawman. "Literal truth" may be your projection. Scientists claim that
an established theory is the best current explanation for a set of
observations. No more, nor less.
With scientific investigation, you
> have to go wherever the evidence takes you, whether you like it or
not.
Would you like to build a theory which is contradicted by the evidence ?
> Notice how apply it fits?
No, it fits not at all.
> Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
> connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is
a
> very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
> between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis
Equivocation. "Faith" in the neo-Darwinian synthesis is equivalent
to "faith" in special relativity, not to "faith" in salvation.
> and their deeply
> held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
May I warn you that you are close to violating the 8th/9th (depending
on the Bible version) commandment. You can be a theist and regard the
fact and theory of evolution as correct at the same time, as several
participants on this NG do.
> It is really much worse than this. They are guilty of trying to co-
opt
> science itself and make the great fallacious equivocation that science
> IS the religion of materialism/naturalism.
Science, while not a religion, presupposes methodological naturalism.
You are free to advocate other activities which drop this restriction
*), but sorry, the name of "science" is already taken. Protected by use
immemorial, if not by trade mark ....
*) like explaining planetary orbits by the activities of invisible
leprechauns, or claiming that God must have removed all traces of the
Flood by a miracle.
In their religious fervor,
> they then attempt to foist their religion on the public by actively
> seeking to criminilize dissent in the public forum/institutions.
Up to now, only criminal laws *against* the teaching of science have
been passed.
"Religious fervor" is obviously a projection, BTW.
They
> have become the very thing that they publicly denounce, and the
> greatest danger to open-minded free thinking because they hold up
their
> religion as though it were the valid result of a legimate process of
> scientific investigation, then claim than anyone arguing with them is
> arguing against science itself. It is a corrupting, fallacious,
> subversive attempt to exclusively claim the high ground of reason, and
> render all opposition as "unreasonable" by fiat.
Not unreasonable. Just not scientific. Running while holding the ball
may not be unreasonable, but it is against the rules of soccer.
> The emperor has no clothes.
I fully agree. We may not be thinking about the same emperor, however.
Regards,
HRG.
> Cheers,
>
> --Mike Goodrich
Chaver09
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:386ED7A8...@fast.net...
> [This is a continuing criticism of Pennock's book,
> "Tower of Babel."]
Actually, it seems to be less a "criticism" and more an opportunity for
Pagano to play his broken-record routines.
> Pennock wrote: [BEGIN QUOTE] "In public debates
> creationists often reject any explicit discussion of
> religion, insisting that they present only an alternate
> scientific position; but in their own literature, they
> make it clear that they are engaged in a religious
> battle for the hearts and minds of those who have fallen
> away from God and who would lead their children away
> from the true path to salvation." [END QUOTE]
Anyone who has really bothered to read creationist literature (Pagano has
not) would find this to be true. Why else would there be a "general
edition" and a "public school edition" of the book "Scientific Creationism?"
All a reviewer needs to do is compare the two editions. The first is
explicitely religious and the second has the religious references "removed"
in order to allegedly appease the secular courts. But moving on to Pagano's
specific replies:
> CRITICISM
> Since most works of creation science are censored,
By whom, Pagano? Creationists can and do publish pretty much whatever they
want and as much as they want. Their works are readily available to anyone
who might want to actually read what they have to say (which seems to
exclude you, by my reading of your own claims regarding them).
> the occassional public debate is a precious
> opportunity for creationists to present their
> competing ideas to an audience who might
> not otherwise hear of them.
A "competing idea" is not the same thing as a reasonable scientific
alternative. Science is not decided in public debates with frauds and
charlatans.
> Pennock misleads his readers by implying that
> during such debates creationists are hiding their
> real interests by "rejecting any explicit discussion of
> religion."
This depends on the venue of the "debate" and again reveals that Pagano
hasn't bothered to attend any debates or read any creationist literature.
> On its face this is patently absurd since their very
> moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
> synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
Not quite. In general, a "creationist" was someone who simply believed in a
creator who created by whatever means might be considered reasonable by that
particular creationist. Only in the last generation has the word been
hijacked by the more radical fundamentalist factions of Christianity and the
meaning has narrowed.
One might also consider that many of these creationists are these days
backing away from "creationism" and into "intelligent design," which is
essentially the same thing.
> Having been ridiculed, ostracized, laughed at, and
> scorned since the Scopes Trial creationists are learning
> when and when not to introduce religious statements into
> debate.
And when are such statements relevant in a SCIENTIFIC debate, Pagano?
> The avoidance (rather than "rejection")
Pagano wants to play semantics.
> of introducing religious statements is partly a function of
> the issues, format, and conduct of the debate, but the
> avoidance prevents their secular opponents from diverting
> from the issues and engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Not always. At any rate, religious statements have NO place in a discussion
of science or scientific evidence. This is where creationists are at their
weakest, as Pagano frequently demonstrates himself with his hit-and-run
forays into the group. Creationists have no evidence.
> Pennock also misleads his readers by suggesting
> that in their own creationist publications the scientific
> issues are ancillary to their real or primary interest---the
> evangelization of the fallen. This again is patently
> absurd.
No. It is patently -- and OBJECTIVELY -- true. Pagano again fails to read
the very literature of the parties he presumes to defend and once again
reveals his ignorance of that which he criticizes and defends.
> What the creationist literature does focus on---as
> a matter of the history and philosophy of science---is
> that there is a battle between the purely naturalistic
> world view and the christian world view. But this
> focus is as much about empirical issues as it is
> about metaphysical ones.
Pagano, pick one such "empirical issue" and let's debate it.
> One is left to wonder if Pennock read much of
> any of the creationist works he listed as references
> in his book.
Just as one must wonder if Pagano has read ANY creationist literature
because he repeats this sort of nonsense every time he presumes to address
it.
> Modern secular theorists
"Modern secular theorists" = scientists
> through their considerable influence on curricula have
> been able to "push" the purely naturalistic world view by
> over-selling the "conjectural but best available theories" as
> indubitable fact.
This has been revealed to be false in this very newsgroup more often than
most of us would care to count.
Pagano has had the difference between "conjecture," "theory," and "fact"
explained to him far too frequently for this to be a simple mistake. Then
again, let's remember that Pagano has declared himself "unteachable" on the
subject matter and has also said he is not here to learn or discuss these
issues. You are to believe him because HE has said it.
> Creationists point out in their literature that characterizing
> a conjectural theory as "best available acceptable to a
> purely naturalistic world view" where contradictions and
> shortfalls
Describe any of these "contradictions and shortfalls," Pagano, so that we
may discuss them.
> in explanatory power exist is hardly the same
> as saying it is objectively true or EVEN PROBABLY
> TRUE.
In simpler language, the creationists practice denial.
> This deception
"Deception," Pagano? Isn't that like saying they lie? But when someone
suggests that YOU have lied you declare them "childish" and the argument _ad
hominem_.
> has caused many to question their faith in
> the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
And rightfully so.
> In view of this continuing deception I think creationists
> are justified in devoting resources and space in their
> publications to this battle.
By being deceptive themselves?
Interesting double-standard.
> [more to follow]
In order for there to be "more," Pagano, I submit that there should have
been substance in the first place. There's none. When do you plan to
start?
Tracy P. Hamilton
wf...@ptd.net wrote in message <38700e04....@news.ptd.net>...
>On 1 Jan 2000 23:38:56 -0500, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Pennock misleads his readers by implying that during such debates
>>creationists are hiding their real interests by "rejecting any explicit
>>discussion of religion." On its face this is patently absurd since
>>their very moniker, "creationist," which they proudly take, is
>>synonomous with its christian religious foundation.
They do not hide their *interest*. However, when they *claim* that
the scientific evidence alone is convincing, it is *not* true. The
overwhelming
majority of those who are "convinced" by the scientific evidence were
already convinced of the conclusion beforehand, and generally not
scientists.
They have failed to convince those who know the science without that prior
conviction to their position. That is a tough task which they are
apparently
inadequate to perform. They would rather take the coward's way out.
>
>here pagano is confused.
>
>historically creationists tried to exclude the teaching of science in
>schools.
more cowardice in the realm of science
>when this failed they adopted the tactic of trying to hide
>the religious basis of creationism to try to make it acceptable. proof
>of this is seen in the publication of 2 different versions of some
>creationist textbooks...one for use in religious schools, where god is
>explicitly mentioned, and one for use in 'public' schools where he's
>hidden.
Actually the problem is that the motivations and arguments are religious,
in spite of the alleged (by creationists) secular nature of the legislation
or books.
Religious motivation in and of itself is not bad, but IS relevant to issues
of
legislative intent. If the "creation science" bill being passed by
legislators
is in their minds and words to support a literalist reading of a religious
book,
maybe they are right for once. That is the way I see it, they way *they*
saw it,
why can't Pagano see it?
[snip]
>>Pennock also misleads his readers by suggesting that in their own
>>creationist publications the scientific issues are ancillary to their
>>real or primary interest---the evangelization of the fallen. This again
>>is patently absurd. What the creationist literature does focus on---as
>>a matter of the history and philosophy of science---is that there is a
>>battle between the purely naturalistic world view and the christian
>>world view.
This is evangelism. Duh!
>>But this focus is as much about empirical issues as it is
>>about metaphysical ones.
What!? Tell us how *empirical* issues can resolve a christian vs. purely
naturalistic world view.
[snip]
>>Modern secular theorists through their considerable influence on
>>curricula have been able to "push" the purely naturalistic world view by
>>over-selling the "conjectural but best available theories" as
>>indubitable fact
Maybe their considerable influence has something to do with their
considerable success from using the scientific method. Perhaps if the
creationists were to employ it, they would have the same success and
influence.
If your gripe is how theories are taught, perhaps you can convince the
education system and students to put in the time required for a more
elaborate development of understanding of science. It would be much more
effective if you would first set the example.
[snip]
>.. Creationists point out in their literature that
>>characterizing a conjectural theory as "best available acceptable to a
>>purely naturalistic world view" where contradictions and shortfalls in
>>explanatory power exist is hardly the same as saying it is objectively
>>true or EVEN PROBABLY TRUE. This deception has caused many to question
>>their faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
This is *easily* innoculated against by saying that whatever science comes
up with, God is still behind it all. Those who do not wish to do so do at
the peril of losing their members. The problem will only get worse, not
better. How long does Chicken Little have to cry that the sky (Darwinism)
is falling before people start to think, maybe Chicken Little is wrong?
No, the problem is one of hubris and subsequent self-deception. Those who
think that *their* particular religion is (must be!) the truth, with nothing
that
will change their mind, nor factoring in that humans are fallible in
*anything* that
they do.
It is worse than hypocritical to criticize scientists for realizing using a
method
that explicitly realizes objective truth is a goal or an ideal with no way
of knowing
if it has been obtained, and not a peep from Chicken Little about those who
c
laim to have the TRUTH with no acknowledgement that they could be wrong.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
"redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested in
> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has already
> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
> arguments have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis.
Mike Goodrich replied:
> I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
> word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>
> Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
> in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
> religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
> the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
> advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to
> the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you to say
my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion. If your idea of
an argument is to assume that only anti-religious athiests accept the
arguments for evolution, then nothing you have to say can possibly be worth
reading.
> Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
> connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
> very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
> between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
> held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
Tim
expresses that they accept science (evolution) will automatically be
reffered to as an atheist. If the Pope showed up and said he accepted
evolution he would be an atheist. Yes, it's stupid, but so is creationism,
young earth creationism I mean.
Anyway, welcome to talk.origins, you'll find it interesting!
Q
In <20486.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 3 Jan 2000 17:33:00 -0500,
"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
>materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
>the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
It would be very helpful and instructive to see a dialog between
yourself and Steven Carr on this topic. Do you suppose that
could be arranged?
<386fca4f...@news.demon.co.uk>
bel...@daimler.de.met
<kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
>"redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested in
>> purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>> religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has already
>> been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
>> arguments have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis.
>
>Mike Goodrich replied:
>> I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
>> word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>>
>> Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
>> in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>> religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
>> the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
>> advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to
>> the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
>
>Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you to say
>my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
you're of a pair.
Adam Noel Harris
:
:In <20486.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 3 Jan 2000 17:33:00 -0500,:
:>Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
:>materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
:>the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
:
:It would be very helpful and instructive to see a dialog between
:yourself and Steven Carr on this topic. Do you suppose that
:could be arranged?
:
:<386fca4f...@news.demon.co.uk>
It would be perhaps amusing to see a conversation between yourself and
your many other talk.origins personas. Might you start a new thread? How
many of you are there, anyway?
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Q
18:12:33 -0500, "Tim" <gam...@attcanada.net> wrote:
>You're new here aren't you?
Well, you're obviously new here if you've never heard of the Sweetie.
Ken Cox
> "Tim" <gam...@attcanada.net> wrote:
> >You're new here aren't you?
>
> Well, you're obviously new here if you've never heard of the Sweetie.
True. He's been around at least five years.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
[ Posted and mailed. ]
Mike Goodrich wrote:
> EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested in purely scientific
> issues when their real agenda is to bolster their religion (- THE
> RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM) [.]
I replied:
> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
> to say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
bel...@daimler.de.met replied to me:
> I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
> interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
> you're of a pair.
Sadly, it would appear that bel...@daimler.de.met has not been paying
attention. Perhaps she/he would care to tell me when I said any such
thing about anyone else?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
``Some people call it "being boring," other people call it "listening".''
-- Garrison Keillor
A Pagano
Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested in
purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
arguments have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis.
Pagano replies to redkite:
Redkite merely echos Pennock's ("Tower of Babel") tired claim that
creationists are merely pretending to be interested in scientific
issues. Since there is a fair amount of creationist writings available
substantiating such a claim should not be difficult. Since there is no
supporting arguments Redkite simply offers a baseless accusation. For
the last 40 years Creationists have never made any secret of their
christian religious background and have made explicit that the
historical events described in Genesis are relied upon to recontruct
unobserved history. The creationists are as interested in the
scientific issues as they are the metaphysical, but the scientific ones
are not sufficient to uncover unique, non recurring history.
Redkite decries the creationist when he relies upon the historical
content of Genesis, but he apparently is ignorant of the fact that the
modern secular evolutionary framework is not strictly composed of
observation statements and statements of experimental results.
Prehistory is made up of a series of unique, nonrecurring events for
which there were no observers. As a result the scientific method is not
privileged to uncover such history. As a result the modern secular
framework must and does make its own metaphysical claims about nature
and science. The modern secular theorist through his considerable
influence on curricula and with the media has veiled this fact.
**********************************
Mike Goodrich replied:
I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in advance
- just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to the
literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
Pagano comments:
Goodrich illustrates nicely that the modern secularist applies a
standard to creationists which they don't live by themselves.
***********************************
Provine wrote:
Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you to
say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion. If your
idea of an argument is to assume that only anti-religious athiests
accept the arguments for evolution, then nothing you have to say can
possibly be worth reading.
Pagano replies:
Oh come now Professor, as a faithful follower of the modern secular
framework haven't you accepted the National Academy of Science's and
Gould's principle of "non overlapping magisteria," and don't you
maintain a "respectful noninterference" between science and your
Trinitarian beliefs? If this is the case (and I see no other solution
for the christian who accepts the modern secular framework) then your
arguments on the "science side" are indistinquishable from those of the
atheist because they are completely separate from your "Trinitarian
side." So Goodrich isn't addressing your Trinitary beliefs which you,
in all likelyhood have walled off from your scientific beliefs.
*******************************************
Goodrich wrote:
Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide the
connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there is a
very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the connection
between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply held
relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
Provine replied;
Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
Pagano replies:
Before Goodrich attempts this, the Professor must deny that he follows
the NAS's and Gould's principle of "non overlapping magisteria" and that
he doesn't maintain a "respectful noninterference" between science and
his Trinitarian beliefs. If he can't deny this then it would seem that
the "shoe" Goodrich has shown him "fits" and he should wear it in good
health. If I were Goodrich I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
denial.
Regards,
T Pagano
bel...@daimler.de.met
"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
>[ Posted and mailed. ]
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested in purely scientific
>> issues when their real agenda is to bolster their religion (- THE
>> RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM) [.]
>
>I replied:
>> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
>> to say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
>
>bel...@daimler.de.met replied to me:
>> I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
>> interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
>> you're of a pair.
>
>
>Sadly, it would appear that bel...@daimler.de.met has not been paying
>attention. Perhaps she/he would care to tell me when I said any such
>thing about anyone else?
You're a piece of work, Sweetie. Perhaps you would care to show us
where in this thread anyone was addressing you when you butted in with
your "stupid" comment.
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies to redkite:
The creationists are as interested in the
>scientific issues as they are the metaphysical, but the scientific ones
>are not sufficient to uncover unique, non recurring history.
unfortunately these 'events' pagano described are subject to natural
law. creationists believe the universe is a random, chaotic place
based on chance, and what we observe today can tell us nothing about
what happened in the past.
>
>Redkite decries the creationist when he relies upon the historical
>content of Genesis, but he apparently is ignorant of the fact that the
>modern secular evolutionary framework is not strictly composed of
>observation statements and statements of experimental results.
however much of it is. and nothing in creationism is based on
experimental results. creationism, by definition, must reject
experimental results since these show creationism is wrong.
>Prehistory is made up of a series of unique, nonrecurring events for
>which there were no observers. A
so what? this 'prehistory' is subject to natural law. if it ISNT then
the universe is based on random chance.
s a result the scientific method is not
>privileged to uncover such history. As a result the modern secular
>framework must and does make its own metaphysical claims about nature
>and science. The modern secular theorist through his considerable
>influence on curricula and with the media has veiled this fact.
such a metaphysical claim is that the universe is an orderly place
subject to natural law. that's science. creationists, with their claim
that prehistory is 'unique, nonrecurring' and therefore cannot be
subject to natural law state that god's universe is based on chance.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Oh come now Professor, as a faithful follower of the modern secular
>framework
since there is no 'christian' science vs 'real science' pagano's
characterization of science as 'secular' is meaningless.
Todd S. Greene
<3872A72B...@fast.net>):
>"redkite" <red...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be interested in
>purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>religion? With creationism, the conclusion to every argument has already
>been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
>arguments have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis.
>
> Pagano replies to redkite:
>Redkite merely echos Pennock's ("Tower of Babel") tired claim that
>creationists are merely pretending to be interested in scientific
>issues. Since there is a fair amount of creationist writings available
>substantiating such a claim should not be difficult. Since there is no
>supporting arguments Redkite simply offers a baseless accusation. For
>the last 40 years Creationists have never made any secret of their
>christian religious background and have made explicit that the
>historical events described in Genesis are relied upon to recontruct
>unobserved history. The creationists are as interested in the
>scientific issues as they are the metaphysical, but the scientific ones
>are not sufficient to uncover unique, non recurring history.
>
>Redkite decries the creationist when he relies upon the historical
>content of Genesis, but he apparently is ignorant of the fact that the
>modern secular evolutionary framework is not strictly composed of
>observation statements and statements of experimental results.
>Prehistory is made up of a series of unique, nonrecurring events for
>which there were no observers. As a result the scientific method is not
>privileged to uncover such history. As a result the modern secular
>framework must and does make its own metaphysical claims about nature
>and science. The modern secular theorist through his considerable
>influence on curricula and with the media has veiled this fact.
>**********************************
>
>
>
>Mike Goodrich replied:
>I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the appropriate
>word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
>
>Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested
>in purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
>religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With EVOLUTIONISM,
>the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in advance
>- just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to lead to the
>literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
>
>
> Pagano comments:
>Goodrich illustrates nicely that the modern secularist applies a
>standard to creationists which they don't live by themselves.
>***********************************
>
>
>
>Provine wrote:
>Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you to
>say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion. If your
>idea of an argument is to assume that only anti-religious athiests
>accept the arguments for evolution, then nothing you have to say can
>possibly be worth reading.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Oh come now Professor, as a faithful follower of the modern secular
However, Tony, I see you do not deny that there is a very distinct
correlation between belief in "biblical inerrancy" and creationism
(especially young earth creationism). On the other hand, there is no
correlation between religious beliefs (or political beliefs, or favorite
flavors of ice cream, or others) and accepting scientific discoveries
regarding whether or not there is ice on the moon, or regarding
meteorology, or regarding the ancient ages of the universe and the
earth. I realize this point is a little bit too much of a practical one
for one such as you who loves to deal in misrepresentative abstractions,
but that's the way it is (that's the truth of the matter).
Or, perhaps, now you would like to explain with many words of
abstraction why such a correlation is either irrelevant or doesn't
really exist. Please do so. It's fun to watch you demonstrate your poor
grasp of reality.
But here's something from someone who's at least a bit more honest that
you:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
===========================================
From *Theistic Evolution*, by Bert Thompson
(1977, pp. 9-10, 11-12, 64):
===========================================
The Bible clearly teaches that there are some things that are not to be
compromised! Yet many in the church today are screaming and yelling
"Compromise, compromise!" If their words do not say it, their actions
do. The ranks of the church are being breached because brethren shout,
"Compromise!" Liberalism and modernism are steadily driving wedges into
the ranks of the army of God. False teachers have not only "crept in
unaware" (Jude 4), "bringing in their damnable heresies" (2 Peter 2:1),
but in too many instances these same false teachers are being openly
invited to come in and bring their false teachings with them - and
brethren welcome them with open arms!
The false teacher and his heresies are welcomed because others possess
the spirit of compromise. He could bring them in among faithful brethren
in no other way!! Perhaps this spirit of compromise is a symptom of a
much larger disease. The unfaithful, the adulterers, the disorderly, and
others of almost any sin mentionable have been fellowshipped in the
church in many places (though not all) for a long time. An increasingly
large number of churches, it seems, do not know (or at least do not
follow) the New Testament teaching concerning discipline. Others
seemingly care little what the New Testament teaches in this regard. And
on the skirts of this laxity, the false teacher has made his appearance
among us! [pp. 9-10]
It is the firm belief of this writer that the most serious compromise of
our day and time is in the area of creation. there is the offer to
compromise at every point where God has spoken. Men have compromised
Genesis 1 into an allegorical, poetical myth - something written by a
senile old Hebrew storyteller who could do no better.... Men have
compromised Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11 until there is nothing left to
compromise!!
The result of all this compromise is theistic evolution!
There is no compromise any more despicable than theistic evolution!
Theistic evolution is the old "compromise game" at its best (worst?!).
"Christians" who have so little faith in what God has said, and so much
faith in what man has speculated, have capitulated and have accepted
theistic evolution in its totality. These are people who have "the best
of God and the best of science" (or so they think). Let it matter not,
we are told, that theistic evolution is in direct contradiction to
direct Bible teaching. [pp. 11-12]
Theistic evolution is possibly the greatest (and most dangerous)
compromise which a Christian could ever make. To compromise on the
matter of origins is certain to lead, at some point in the future, to
another compromise, and another, and then another. The end result who
can know? It is not at all impossible that the Christian would be led
into atheism!! In the words of Dr. R. L. Wysong:
Many hold to evolution while at the same time espousing belief
in a creator. The result is a sort of hybrid, a baptized
evolution called theistic evolution.... The creator is used here
as a vindicator of evolutionary difficulties. With time, as
evolutionists explained more and more by naturalism, the creator
was crowded further and further back in time and given less and
less responsibility. For many, theistic evolution is only
believed transitorily. The position is only a filler, an easily
passed bridge from theism to atheism. (The Creation-Evolution
Controversy, 1976, p. 63)
[p. 64]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tony, when you try to pretend that, for example, young earth
creationists are just as interested in science as are, say, geologists
(and others) who realize why the earth is quite ancient and astronomers
(and others) who realize why the universe is even more ancient, you
demonstrate your belief in misrepresentation. But, please, don't let me
stop you. You only add fuel to the fire of your own roasting!
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
Martin Crisp
<bel...@daimler.de.met> wrote in message news:3872a95...@4ax.com...
> In <21958.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 4 Jan 2000 10:55:50 -0500,
> "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >[ Posted and mailed. ]
> >
> >Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >> issues when their real agenda is to bolster their religion (- THE
> >
> >I replied:
> >> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
> >> to say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
> >
> >> I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
> >> interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
> >> you're of a pair.
> >
> >
> >Sadly, it would appear that bel...@daimler.de.met has not been paying
> >attention. Perhaps she/he would care to tell me when I said any such
> >thing about anyone else?
>
> You're a piece of work, Sweetie. Perhaps you would care to show us
> where in this thread anyone was addressing you when you butted in with
> your "stupid" comment.
Mike Goodrich's rephrase opened "Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are
pretending to be interested
in purely scientific issues when" (his shouting)
His remark, therefore, was open to anyone who presumes themselves included
by the label "Evolutionist".
You may also decide that I wasn't invited to 'butt in' on this particular
subthread, in which case I would remind you that this is a discussion group,
there is no such thing as 'butting in' unless someone specifically says they
want a reply from a particular individual and that individual only. Even
after making such a request there is SFA that can be done about someone who
decides to weigh-in with their $0.02 worth. This is usenet, there are no
rules, only conventions.
Now, rather than diversionary tactics maybe you might answer his challenge:
Where has he said such a thing?
Have Fun
Martin
A Pagano
or not. But only if the good professor has time to respond. However,
with a new semester in full swing he may have only had enough time to
take a swipe at Goodrich. If Provine denies that he maintains a
respectful noninterference between science and his Trinitarian Faith
then he must offer how he harmonizes purely naturalistic, random,
accidental-but-fortuitous creation with creation by one omnipotent God
who intentionally created the world and the life in it. Not an eviable
position.
Greene's always seems a tad aggravated...hope it wasn't anything I
said. Greene's main weakness in arguing his position about cosmology
lies in his presupposing "that there are only a finite and perhaps even
limited number of possibilities as to what nature [as represented by the
data] could be." He believes that his highly conjectural big bang
theory which merely offers a hypothetical story to explain billions of
years of unique non recurring historical events is the only
possibility. He is under the mistaken idea that corroborations to
whatever arbitrary level he choses justify this belief. That the
history and philosophy of science so dispute these notions hasn't
dissuaded him. But even more than these errors is the notion that the
pure unadulterated scientific method is privileged to uncover the truth
of 15 billion years of unique non recurring history. The scientific
method is only privileged to identify and study regularities which can
be repeatedly observed and reproduced not unobserved unique history.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
The scientific
>method is only privileged to identify and study regularities which can
>be repeatedly observed and reproduced not unobserved unique history.
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
prove it.
science assumes an orderly universe based on laws. thus we can say
what happened in the past based on laws of nature we discover.
creationists say that the universe is based on random chance and thus
we cannot say anything about the past based on natural law.
Elmer Bataitis
> Pagano replies to redkite:
> For
> the last 40 years Creationists have never made any secret of their
> christian religious background and have made explicit that the
> historical events described in Genesis are relied upon to recontruct
> unobserved history.
So they rely on Genesis to reconstruct history. Cool.
> The creationists are as interested in the
> scientific issues as they are the metaphysical,...
That's not what you just said, Tony. Since some actions described in
Genesis have a scientific basis which do you choose to investigate
scientifically??? Name a few.
>.... but the scientific ones
> are not sufficient to uncover unique, non recurring history.
Tony, can you demonstrate a non unique, recurring history??
;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> If Provine denies that he maintains a
> respectful noninterference between science and his Trinitarian Faith
> then he must offer how he harmonizes purely naturalistic, random,
> accidental-but-fortuitous creation with creation by one omnipotent God
> who intentionally created the world and the life in it. Not an eviable
> position.
Bataitis disgorges:
Why not? At least it's a position that's consistant with an *omnipotent*
creator. Tony's claim is really one that claims that God is not
omnipotent because God is incapable of using *what appear to us to be*
random, purely naturalistic events to accomplish His creation.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> A Pagano wrote:
>
> > Pagano replies to redkite:
> > For
> > the last 40 years Creationists have never made any secret of their
> > christian religious background and have made explicit that the
> > historical events described in Genesis are relied upon to recontruct
> > unobserved history.
>
> So they rely on Genesis to reconstruct history. Cool.
>
> > The creationists are as interested in the
> > scientific issues as they are the metaphysical,...
>
> That's not what you just said, Tony. Since some actions described in
> Genesis have a scientific basis which do you choose to investigate
> scientifically??? Name a few.
>
> >.... but the scientific ones
> > are not sufficient to uncover unique, non recurring history.
>
> Tony, can you demonstrate a non unique, recurring history??
>
> ;-)
But we all know that Tony is master of epitheta ornantes (the more the
better ...) and pleonasma ... :-)
HRG.
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
> 716-442-2884
> **********************************************************
>
>
bel...@daimler.de.met
Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
That wouldn't include Sweetie. He's a creationist.
Martin Crisp
Not in the sense that would exclude a belief in evolution from what I can
make out (or does he have MPD?).
From a recent posting of his (Re: ... Wonder no more):
<quote>
Over the last 11 years of my participation here, I have asked many times
for a simple statement of what Creationists propose as a scientific
theory, and what evidence they use to support it. Nothing long or
involved; it would probably be a post of less than 200 lines. Name some
assertions unique to Creation science, and name one or two scientific
observations which support those assertions. Name five predictions made
by creation scientists which went against the mainstream scientific view,
and which were later demonstrated correct and accepted by the scientific
community.
</quote>
So was your redefinition of 'creationist' deliberate or an honest stuff-up?
Have Fun
Martin
--
Kinky:
What I do that you wouldn't
Perverted:
What you do that I wouldn't
Mike Goodrich
> > Surely the point is that creationists are pretending to be
interested in
> > purely scientific issues when their real agenda is to bolster their
already
> > been worked out in advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all
> > arguments have to lead to the literal truth of Genesis.
>
> > I was going to comment on this, but then I noticed that the
appropriate
> > word substitutions will do nicely, thus:
> >
interested
their
> > religion (- THE RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM)? With
EVOLUTIONISM,
> > the conclusion to every argument has already been worked out in
> > advance - just as all roads lead to Rome, all arguments have to
lead to
> > the literal truth of NEO-DARWINISM.
>
to say
> my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
Sir, you are you committing the fallacy of equivocation here by
implicitly equating biology with evolutionism - the two are very
definitly not the same thing.
Biology, to whatever extent it can be found to follow valid principles
of scientific/rational investigation may be found to have uncovered a
certain amount of truth concerning the world of the organic.
Evolutionism, because of its stated commitment to
materialism/naturalism is not a science at all but a philosophical ISM
whose reliability is questionable given the notable unreliability of
materialism/naturalism to serve as any kind of basis/framework within
which to uncover the actual truth of the history of life.
If your idea of
> an argument is to assume that only anti-religious athiests accept the
> arguments for evolution, then nothing you have to say can possibly be
worth
> reading.
>
You are being grandiose.
> > Indeed, people of the creation persuasion almost never try to hide
the
> > connection with their "religious" convictions. If anything, there
is a
> > very clear pattern of evolutionists being in denial of the
connection
> > between their faith in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and their deeply
> > held relgious convictions about materialism/naturalism.
>
> Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
> materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
> the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
>
One thing is for sure, the nature of your convictions about
materialism/naturalism are anything but "scientific".
> Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu !
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
>
>
--Mike Goodrich
--
"Could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by a
process we cannot completely specify? The intellectually responsible
answer is that we do not know -- we have no way of knowing. But that
is not the answer evolutionary theorists accept." --David Berlinski
Mark Isaak
Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Evolutionism, because of its stated commitment to
>materialism/naturalism is not a science at all but a philosophical ISM
>whose reliability is questionable given the notable unreliability of
>materialism/naturalism to serve as any kind of basis/framework within
>which to uncover the actual truth of the history of life.
You are quite mistaken. Evolution is not committed to materialism in the
sense you mean. Evolution, like ALL science, ALL engineering, ALL
industry, ALL agriculture, and most of the rest of human endeavors, is
materialistic in that it deals only with material. However, in no way
does it assume that what it deals with is the sum total of reality.
Evolutionists, just like engineers, shopkeepers, and farmers, can envision
realms beyond their professions.
Creationists, on the other hand, are not so broad-minded. Most of them
seem to need concrete evidence for God. This, of course, draws God into
the realm of materialistism. For all their complaints about
materialism/naturalism, the creationists are the ones who are promoting
the concept the most by trying to make God materialistic. That is one of
my biggest complaints against creationism. I'm rather happy with the
spiritual beliefs I have, and I'm not willing to revert to a non-spiritual
atheism just to become a creationist.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Chaver09
From: "A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: We shall see...
> We shall see if my representation of Prof Provine's
> position is accurate or not.
It's already clear that it is not, Pagano.
> But only if the good professor has time to respond.
> However, with a new semester in full swing he may have
> only had enough time to take a swipe at Goodrich.
If this was, indeed, a "swipe" as opposed to a challenge, it would seem
well-advised compared to your own claims and the subsequent lack of defense
that occurs on your part.
> If Provine denies that he maintains a respectful
> noninterference between science and his Trinitarian
> Faith then he must offer how he harmonizes purely
> naturalistic, random, accidental-but-fortuitous creation
> with creation by one omnipotent God who intentionally
> created the world and the life in it.
MUST he?
Why?
You won't defend your own assertions. Why should anyone else feel obligated
to defend theirs when you make such claims?
The fact is that Provine and others have done so in the past. Such a
"reconciliation" has appreared in this newsgroup and your participation in
that sort of discussion has been quite conspicuous by your absence.
> Not an eviable position.
Quite enviable, considering he understands the subject matter and you do
not.
> Greene's always seems a tad aggravated...hope
> it wasn't anything I said.
But it WAS. You see, Pagano, those of us who have been reading for a while
remember your continued misrepresentation and inappropriate responses to his
attempts to reason with you.
> Greene's main weakness in arguing his position about
> cosmology lies in his presupposing "that there are only
> a finite and perhaps even limited number of possibilities
> as to what nature [as represented by the data] could be."
And what does this mean EXACTLY, Pagano?
> He believes that his highly conjectural big bang
> theory which merely offers a hypothetical story...
THEORETICAL.
There's quite a difference, Pagano.
By the way, Pagano, just why is it that microwave background radiation and
the red shift are NOT evidence for the Big Bang.
You DO remember that challenge, don't you, Pagano?
Why won't you answer it?
> to explain billions of years of unique non recurring
> historical events
List these events, Pagano.
> is the only possibility.
What other scientific possibilities exist, Pagano?
> He is under the mistaken idea that corroborations to
> whatever arbitrary level he choses justify this belief.
"Corroborations" in paganospeak means evidence to the rest of us. But
Pagano will not discuss either "corroborations" or evidence, as the
oft-evaded question about microwave background radiation and the red shift
has shown.
> That the history and philosophy of science so dispute
> these notions hasn't dissuaded him.
It shouldn't. Vague references to "the history and philosophy of science"
are Pagano red herrings.
> But even more than these errors is the notion that the
> pure unadulterated scientific method is privileged to
> uncover the truth of 15 billion years of unique non recurring
> history.
Pagano repeats himself and characteristically says nothing of substance.
> The scientific method is only privileged to identify and
> study regularities which can be repeatedly observed and
> reproduced not unobserved unique history.
How many times do you have to be corrected on this, Pagano? The scientific
method is NOT limiting in this way and you have been told that a number of
times.
When does it stop being a mistake, Pagano? At one point does it become a
lie?
Chaver09
From: "A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: We shall see...
> We shall see if my representation of Prof Provine's
> position is accurate or not.
It's already clear that it is not, Pagano.
> But only if the good professor has time to respond.
> However, with a new semester in full swing he may have
> only had enough time to take a swipe at Goodrich.
If this was, indeed, a "swipe" as opposed to a challenge, it would seem
well-advised compared to your own claims and the subsequent lack of defense
that occurs on your part.
> If Provine denies that he maintains a respectful
> noninterference between science and his Trinitarian
Q
spam.a...@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
>In article <38812ff0...@4ax.com>, bel...@daimler.de.met wrote:
>
>> In <3872...@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>, on 4 Jan 2000 22:51:41 -0500, "Martin
>> Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><bel...@daimler.de.met> wrote in message news:3872a95...@4ax.com...
>> >> In <21958.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 4 Jan 2000 10:55:50 -0500,
>> >> "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >[ Posted and mailed. ]
>> >> >
>> >> >Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> >> >> EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested in purely scientific
>> >> >> issues when their real agenda is to bolster their religion (- THE
>> >> >> RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM) [.]
>> >> >
>> >> >I replied:
>> >> >> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
>> >> >> to say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
>> >> >
>> >> >bel...@daimler.de.met replied to me:
>> >> >> I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
>> >> >> interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
>> >> >> you're of a pair.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Sadly, it would appear that bel...@daimler.de.met has not been paying
>> >> >attention. Perhaps she/he would care to tell me when I said any such
>> >> >thing about anyone else?
>> >>
>> >> You're a piece of work, Sweetie. Perhaps you would care to show us
>> >> where in this thread anyone was addressing you when you butted in with
>> >> your "stupid" comment.
>> >
>> >Mike Goodrich's rephrase opened "Surely the point is that EVOLUTIONISTS are
>> >pretending to be interested
>> >in purely scientific issues when" (his shouting)
>> >
>> >His remark, therefore, was open to anyone who presumes themselves included
>> >by the label "Evolutionist".
>>
>> That wouldn't include Sweetie. He's a creationist.
>
>Not in the sense that would exclude a belief in evolution** from what I can
>make out...
In <20486.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 3 Jan 2000 17:33:00 -0500, "Dr
Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
>materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
>the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
**I guess it all depends on what you mean by "evolution", and what role
Sweetie's God played in "creation".
Dick C.
> "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
>to say
>> my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
>
>
>Sir, you are you committing the fallacy of equivocation here by
>implicitly equating biology with evolutionism - the two are very
>definitly not the same thing.
Of course the study of evolution is as central to biology as the study
of gasoline engines is to auto mechanics. One can do without the central
core, but all you are qualified to do is brakes and tires.
>
>Biology, to whatever extent it can be found to follow valid principles
>of scientific/rational investigation may be found to have uncovered a
>certain amount of truth concerning the world of the organic.
>
>Evolutionism, because of its stated commitment to
>materialism/naturalism is not a science at all but a philosophical ISM
>whose reliability is questionable given the notable unreliability of
>materialism/naturalism to serve as any kind of basis/framework within
>which to uncover the actual truth of the history of life.
You can make up your definitions all you want, just don't expect anyone
to take them as valid. Evolution is no more, nor less, materialistic than
any other science. It is science, and in not violates any principles of
any other science.
>
>
>If your idea of
>> an argument is to assume that only anti-religious athiests accept the
>> arguments for evolution, then nothing you have to say can possibly be
>worth
>> reading.
>>
>
>
>You are being grandiose.
And you are being ridiculous.
snip
>
>One thing is for sure, the nature of your convictions about
>materialism/naturalism are anything but "scientific".
And your understanding of science, and of language, has as much to
do with reality as the mad rantings of any bag woman on the street.
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Martin Crisp
> In <spam.and.eggs-0...@147.109.83.17>, on 6 Jan 2000
03:46:21 -0500,
> spam.a...@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
>
> >In article <38812ff0...@4ax.com>, bel...@daimler.de.met wrote:
> >
> >> In <3872...@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>, on 4 Jan 2000 22:51:41 -0500, "Martin
> >> Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><bel...@daimler.de.met> wrote in message news:3872a95...@4ax.com...
> >> >> In <21958.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 4 Jan 2000 10:55:50 -0500,
> >> >> "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[ Posted and mailed. ]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >> >> >> EVOLUTIONISTS are pretending to be interested in purely scientific
> >> >> >> issues when their real agenda is to bolster their religion (- THE
> >> >> >> RELIGION OF NATURALISM/MATERIALISM) [.]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I replied:
> >> >> >> Speaking as a Trinitarian Baptist, I find it somewhat stupid of you
> >> >> >> to say my interest in biology is just a mask to hide my religion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >bel...@daimler.de.met replied to me:
> >> >> >> I would imagine he finds it equally stupid of you to say that his
> >> >> >> interest in biology is just a mask to hide his religion. I guess
> >> >> >> you're of a pair.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sadly, it would appear that bel...@daimler.de.met has not been paying
> >> >> >attention. Perhaps she/he would care to tell me when I said any such
> >> >> >thing about anyone else?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a piece of work, Sweetie. Perhaps you would care to show us
> >> >> where in this thread anyone was addressing you when you butted in with
> >> >> your "stupid" comment.
> >> >
> >> >Mike Goodrich's rephrase opened "Surely the point is that
EVOLUTIONISTS are
> >> >pretending to be interested
> >> >in purely scientific issues when" (his shouting)
> >> >
> >> >His remark, therefore, was open to anyone who presumes themselves included
> >> >by the label "Evolutionist".
> >>
> >> That wouldn't include Sweetie. He's a creationist.
> >
> >Not in the sense that would exclude a belief in evolution** from what I can
> >make out...
>
>
> In <20486.9...@copland.rowan.edu>, on 3 Jan 2000 17:33:00 -0500, "Dr
> Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
> >Oh, do tell me all about my "deeply held relgious convictions about
> >materialism/naturalism". This should be fascinating. Is my belief in
> >the Risen Saviour materialist or naturalist?
>
>
> **I guess it all depends on what you mean by "evolution", and what role
> Sweetie's God played in "creation".
I don't know what his position is wrt the participation level of his god
in evolution (however I assume it isn't special creation of particular
species or higher level taxa, see URLs below), further I don't think it
matters that much given that it was fairly obvious from the portion of his
text that I included (since snipped) that he doesn't class himself as a
Creationist.
A couple of articles of his that suggest his view of evolution is probably
fairly mainstream:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=507036411&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=384600081&fmt=text
(I'm sure I could find more but I dislike deja)
I still cannot see justification for belinda claiming he is a creationist
in anywhere near the sense usually used in here. It seems like an attempt
to divert attention from the preceeding claim that Mike's comment wasn't
open to him to answer.
Q
spam.a...@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
>I don't know what his position is wrt the participation level of his god
>in evolution
Why not? He's been posting here for at least 6 years.
>(however I assume it isn't special creation species or higher level taxa,
so what's your point? what if it's just a gentle "nudge" here and there;
is that OK? how about a slight push? how about a shove? where
do YOU draw the line?
>see URLs below), further I don't think it
>matters that much given that it was fairly obvious from the portion of his
>text that I included (since snipped) that he doesn't class himself as a
>Creationist.
He doesn't get to make that choice. He gets classified based on his
viewpoints.
[snip]
Todd S. Greene
<3872C12D...@fast.net>):
>[snip]
>
>Greene's always seems a tad aggravated...hope it wasn't anything I
>said. Greene's main weakness in arguing his position about cosmology
>lies in his presupposing "that there are only a finite and perhaps even
>limited number of possibilities as to what nature [as represented by the
>data] could be." He believes that his highly conjectural big bang
>theory which merely offers a hypothetical story to explain billions of
>years of unique non recurring historical events is the only
>possibility. He is under the mistaken idea that corroborations to
>whatever arbitrary level he choses justify this belief. That the
>history and philosophy of science so dispute these notions hasn't
>dissuaded him. But even more than these errors is the notion that the
>pure unadulterated scientific method is privileged to uncover the truth
>of 15 billion years of unique non recurring history. The scientific
>method is only privileged to identify and study regularities which can
>be repeatedly observed and reproduced not unobserved unique history.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
I'm only aggravated by deliberate, or even obstinately "accidental,"
misrepresentation. Besides that, you so seem to love to delve in your
abtract "gobbledygook-speak," where you "say much" without saying
anything at all.
As usual, you use your "highly conjectural big bang theory" term in
reference to my comments, *knowing* that you are being
misrepresentative. We went over this exact same territory several months
ago, Tony, and finally, after much time and effort, I got you to admit
that you had misrepresented me. (And other people have done the same
thing on this same specific topic.) Now, several months later, you are
back at it. You just don't quit.
You make the point that anything and everything is possible. Yes. Of
course. But that's not the point. The point is, what *did* happen (and,
in astronomy, what do we observe of the past right now) and how do we
know what happened? You can promote sheer speculation all you wish to,
Tony, just as long as you don't misrepresent your sheer speculation as
being something else. If you're going to promote things like the Moon &
Spencer conjecture or Humphreys' cosmology in this forum, please go
right ahead and do so. If you just want to remain with your
"gobbledygook-speak," then just stay with that. You may think your
evasion of details is persuasively effective, but - guess what? - it
really is just effectively evasive, and obviously so.
OR you could actually "step up to the plate" and deal with the details
of the cases at hand, such as Nova Cygni, SN1987a, Cepheid variable
stars, NGC 4603, and the like. Fortunately, with astronomy we don't have
to worry about the complications of "unobserved unique history" since we
actually have "observed unique history" by which we actually see the
ancient universe all around us. But, again, you and I already covered
this territory several months ago, Tony, and at that time you agreed
that the universe was ancient. Is your memory really that short, or are
you just delving in the thick mire of your misrepresentation over
something that you have already agreed with me on?
Figure yourself out, Tony, then get back to me on what your position is
regarding whether or not the universe is ancient. Did you decide that
you did not agree on this after all, or were you lying at the time you
told me that you agreed that it was ancient? What? Are you that confused
in your own mind, that you don't know what you think?
That's unfortunate. Take care, Tony.
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
maff91
Greene) wrote:
Tony thinks that he's presenting some new argument.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Strawman | Proposers |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Theistic science/ | Al-Ghazali, Paley, Behe, Dembski, et al |
| Atheistic science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+-
| Proletarian science/ | Stalin, Lysenko, et al |
| Bourgeois science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| German science/ | Hitler et al |
| Jewish science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hypatia
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430644
Ibn Rochd (Averroes)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430645
Where Were You in 1002?
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/collins/122499coll.html
Galileo
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430642
Giordarno Bruno
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430640
Lucilio Vanini
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430639
Expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423172
Cheng Ho
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423159
Lysenko
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430643
<http://www.deja.com/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=Lysenko+AND+%7Ea+%28joe+cummings%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=talk.origins&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=25>
Scientists flee from Hitler's Germany
http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423171
"There is no such thing as 'Science'. There is only 'German Science',
'Jewish Science' and etc. The implied objective of this line of
thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling
clique, controls not only the future but the past."
-- Orwell, Looking Back on the Spanish War
http://www.georgetown.edu/users/barbera/1984.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/%7Esavitz/galtransform.htm
J. Robert Oppenheimer
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430641
Tsien Hsue-shen (Qian Xuesen)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423158
>
>Regards,
>Todd S. Greene
--
Science Makes News (New York Times - November 1, 1999, Monday )
To the Editor: Your Oct. 29 news articles ''Biologists Find
Progenitors of Earth's Flowering Plants'' and ''Earliest Divorce Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-flower-evolution.html
X and Y Chromosomes'' show the difference between science and
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-sex-chromosome.html
creationism. Evolutionary scientists make news through the
scientific process, while creationists make news through the political
process."
http://www.nytimes.com/99/11/01/letters/l01bio.html
Martin Crisp
> In <spam.and.eggs-0...@147.109.83.17>, on 7 Jan 2000
19:14:53 -0500,
> spam.a...@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
>
>
> >I don't know what his position is wrt the participation level of his god
> >in evolution
>
> Why not? He's been posting here for at least 6 years.
Because it wasn't particularly relevant to search for that particular
piece of information given that he appears to accept darwinian evolution.
Remember: I wasn't trying to say he *wasn't* a creationist, but that he
was an 'evolutionist', hence my remark that *if* he is a creationist it
isn't a form that excludes evolution.
[i.e. 'creationist' covers a lot of different flavours, some preclude
evolution (e.g. YEC), others do not (those who claim that being a
creationist means anything that involves God at all, as in 'He created the
universe, if you believe in him you are therefore a creationist'.) By some
metrics he is not a creationist, by others he is.]
> >(however I assume it isn't special creation species or higher level taxa,
>
> so what's your point? what if it's just a gentle "nudge" here and there;
> is that OK? how about a slight push? how about a shove? where
> do YOU draw the line?
See above, the line, whether I draw it or not, is largely irrelevant to
what I'm saying.
> >see URLs below), further I don't think it
> >matters that much given that it was fairly obvious from the portion of his
> >text that I included (since snipped) that he doesn't class himself as a
> >Creationist.
>
> He doesn't get to make that choice. He gets classified based on his
> viewpoints.
OK, his viewpoint is obviously that he is not a Creationist, however I'm
not sure exactly what he classes as creationism.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
[ Posted and mailed because Subject line was changed. ]
[ NB: I only found this thread by accident. I search for replies to me
on "darren provine", not "provine", because in this group "provine" is
often my cousin at Cornell. If you wants a reply, be sure to either
include my first name too, or e-mail me the message in question. ]
Mike Goodrich wrote something about how "evolutionists" pretend to like
science so they can push their religion of materialism. Since my religion
is rather explicitly non-materialistic, I objected. (It may be that I
had misunderstood Mr Goodrich to include me as an "evolutionist". The
term seems to have flexible meanings based on who says it. Usually it
seems to mean "anyone who accepts the argument that humans and other
primates share a common ancestor", which would include me. He may have
meant it to mean overexcited atheists who argue for atheism based on the
mainstream scientific view of earth history, in which case I spoke out
of turn. Sorry.)
Tony Pagano replied to me with:
> [A]s a faithful follower of the modern secular framework haven't you
> accepted the National Academy of Science's and Gould's principle of
> "non overlapping magisteria," and don't you maintain a "respectful
> noninterference" between science and your Trinitarian beliefs?
("Modern secular framework"? It's safe to say that nobody who actually
knows much about me would write such a thing, which supports my suspicion
that Mr Pagano doesn't actually bother to read anything posted by anyone
else.)
I don't know the text to which you are referring, and I don't recognise
the terms "non overlapping magisteria" and "respectful noninterference".
Maybe I'd accept those positions, and maybe not.
My view is simply that scientific investigation can uncover some things,
but not everything. In those domains where scientific investigation is
valid, the conclusions of such investigation cannot simply be ignored. But
in those domains where scientific investigation cannot be used, it should
not be cited.
Consider the usual "design versus random" discussions. Many people write
as if it's a one-dimensional choice. I think there are two dimensions:
"organised plan <--> random" and "accidental <--> intentional". That gives
four categories:
A) intentional results accomplished via random methods,
B) accidental results which arose from random activity,
C) intentional results achieved by planned courses of action,
D) accidental results achieved by planned courses of action
(which is either empty, or includes unintended results, depending
on how you want to class unintended results).
The "random" conclusion that evolutionary biologists reach can speak only
to the first dimension. That is, scientists can rightly say that the
development of species is in "A union B", and not in "C union D". But
having argued for "A union B", the evolutionary biologists have to stop
there: they can't tell whether it's A or B.
When atheists argue that the random nature of development proves there the
results must be unintentional, they are just making a basic reasoning
error. (It's the same error religious people make when they argue that
belief in a Creator rules out evolution, but from the other side.)
If what is meant by "respectful noninterference" is that questions about
existence and intentions of a Creator are left to theologians, and that
scientists will refrain from theological claims, I think that would be
a distinct improvement over the situation we have now. (In which people
such as my aforesaid distant cousin presume to teach theology.)
Have I done anything like answer your question?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Motivation is not my department."
-- Dr Dea, "The Mountains of Mourning" (Lois McMaster Bujold)
A Pagano
[ Posted and mailed because Subject line was changed. ]
[ NB: I only found this thread by accident. I search for replies to me
on "darren provine", not "provine", because in this group "provine"
is
often my cousin at Cornell. If you wants a reply, be sure to either
include my first name too, or e-mail me the message in question. ]
Pagano replies:
If D. Provine is referring to William Provine, I don't believe I've ever
seen him make a post in this forum or seen him referred to in the
subject line of single post in the last four years. Perhaps someone
will run a quick search at deja.com and prove me wrong.
**********************************
Provine wrote:
Mike Goodrich wrote something about how "evolutionists" pretend to like
science so they can push their religion of materialism.
Pagano replies:
As I recall the thread, Goodrich was criticizing a similar claim by
RedKite aimed at creationists. Goodrich simply made a few appropriate
word substitutions in Redkite's attack to show that the modern secular
theorist is not immune from similar criticism. In the case of Dawkins,
Gould, Dennett, Kitcher and several others such a criticism is not
without justification. That those influential modern secular theorists
push their "religion" of materialism with subtlety doesn't make the
criticism any less justified. Does Provine distance himself from that
crowd?
****************************
Provine continues:
Since my religion is rather explicitly non-materialistic, I objected.
(It may be that I had misunderstood Mr Goodrich to include me as an
"evolutionist".
Pagano replies:
The fact that your Trinitarian Faith opposes purely materialistic
philosophies is only relevent if it is applied to other epistemological
endeavors where it has a nexus. Since Goodrich was criticizing Redkite
who did not profess any christian religious beliefs one wonders why you
thought he included you. Is it possible that you felt that the "shoe
fit?"
*****************************
Provine continues:
The term seems to have flexible meanings based on who says it. Usually
it seems to mean "anyone who accepts the argument that humans and other
primates share a common ancestor", which would include me. He may have
meant it to mean overexcited atheists who argue for atheism based on the
mainstream scientific view of earth history, in which case I spoke out
of turn. Sorry.)
Pagano replies:
The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
to be true a priori. Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has
assumed that all living things are connected lineally via common
ancestors. If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent
then his cry of indignation will get him some mileage. However, if he
accepts the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural
selection, and historical contingency which are offered to explain the
lineal connection between ancestor and descendent populations then his
indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and its
properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The modern
secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent creative
properties and none have been found.
The atheists---overexcited or not---openly embrace and classify as true
such purely materialistic philosophies. I respect them because they
apply such philosophies consistently in every epistemological endeavor
for which such philosophies have nexus. The modern secular theorists at
the National Academy of Sciences and Gould have offered Christians a way
out for their failure to consistently apply their opposition to purely
materialistic philosophies in other endeavors. They suggest that
christians who would accept the modern secular framework of evolutionism
should adopt a principle of "respectful noninterference" between their
explicit christian opposition to purely materialistic philosophies and
their explicit adoption in certain modern secular theories. Of course
none of this applies to Provine if he limits his acceptance to the a
priori assumption of and the vacuous theory of common descent.
[more to follow]
Regards,
T Pagano
Mike Dunford
--==--
A Pagano wrote:
[snip]
>
> Pagano replies:
> The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
> to be true a priori.
Incorrect. The theory of common descent is an adequate explanation for
fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
Wallace, and for various other points of data.
If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
> Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has
> assumed that all living things are connected lineally via common
> ancestors.
This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
that the earth moves around the sun.
> If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent
> then his cry of indignation will get him some mileage. However, if he
> accepts the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural
> selection, and historical contingency which are offered to explain the
> lineal connection between ancestor and descendent populations then his
> indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
> materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and its
> properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The modern
> secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent creative
> properties and none have been found.
Your definition of "pure materialism" differs, I believe, from that used
by most others on this group. Most people here assume that for a theory
to be "purely materialistic," it must *actively exclude* everything but
matter. By your definition, it appears that any theory which does not
*specificly include* the supernatural is "purely materialistic."
By your definition, *all* of science is in opposition to the teachings
of the Catholic Church.
> The atheists---overexcited or not---openly embrace and classify as true
> such purely materialistic philosophies. I respect them because they
> apply such philosophies consistently in every epistemological endeavor
> for which such philosophies have nexus. The modern secular theorists at
> the National Academy of Sciences and Gould have offered Christians a way
> out for their failure to consistently apply their opposition to purely
> materialistic philosophies in other endeavors. They suggest that
> christians who would accept the modern secular framework of evolutionism
> should adopt a principle of "respectful noninterference" between their
> explicit christian opposition to purely materialistic philosophies and
> their explicit adoption in certain modern secular theories.
I will simply point out here that your assessment of the idea of
"respectful noninterference" is totally dependent on your interpretation
of what constitutes a "purely materialistic" theory. For those of us who
hold a more rational definition of this concept, the conflict does not
appear to be as obvious.
[rest snipped]
--Mike Dunford
A Pagano
The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
to be true a priori.
Dunford
Incorrect. The theory of common descent is an adequate explanation for
fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
Wallace, and for various other points of data.
Pagano replies:
DOES COMMON DESCENT EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION?
The principle of faunal succession combined with the principle of
superposition apparently explains that the unobserved history of
biological change was one of progression from simple to complex.
However, neither the theory of common descent nor neoDarwinian theory
predict any such thing. So I doubt that common descent explains the
principle of faunal succession.
The principle of faunal succession states that groups of fossil animals
and plants occur in the geologic record in a definite and determinable
order and that a period of geologic time can be recognized by its
characteristic fossils. This principle has proved, in part, to be a
useful "instrument" in locating petroleum and mineral deposits; however,
its reliability as an "instrument" for commercial geology is not related
to whether it is consistent with the theory of common descent or whether
together they correspond to actual unobserved history.
There are some other problems with faunal succession. First, so-called
index fossils often appear out of sequence which makes this principle
more of a utilitarian rule-of-thumb rather than a law-like
generalization. The second problem is related to the principle of
superposition. The principle of superposition assumes, in part, that
layers were essentially horizontal when they were deposited. However,
reproducible experiments indicate that this assumption is not a
universally good one for deposition under flowing water. If this is
true the interpretation that faunal succession and superposition
represents a history of biological progression is misleading at best and
false at worst.
***************************************
Dunford wrote:
If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
Pagano replies:
Common descent has been around in one form or another long before
Darwin.
**************************************
Pagano previously wrote;
Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has assumed that all living
things are connected lineally via common
ancestors.
Dunford replied:
This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
that the earth moves around the sun.
Pagano replies:
Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
repeating. No one had to assume any particular theory. Doubters could
and did make repeated observations, suggested new theories, and tested
them against the observations. The hypothetical lineal connections are
proposed to be unique and non recurring. As a result they are
inaccessible to the scientific method. The difference is like night and
day.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
>DOES COMMON DESCENT EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION?
>The principle of faunal succession combined with the principle of
>superposition apparently explains that the unobserved history of
>biological change was one of progression from simple to complex.
>However, neither the theory of common descent nor neoDarwinian theory
>predict any such thing. So I doubt that common descent explains the
>principle of faunal succession.
finally pagano realizes that evolution does not predict increasing
complexity...it's about time. since some organisms get LESS complex
with time, such a prediction would falsify evolution..
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote;
>Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has assumed that all living
>things are connected lineally via common
>ancestors.
as have christian theorists. there's only science. there is not
science for christians, and 'other' science for everyone else.
> Pagano replies:
>Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
>repeating. No one had to assume any particular theory. Doubters could
>and did make repeated observations, suggested new theories, and tested
>them against the observations. The hypothetical lineal connections are
>proposed to be unique and non recurring. As a result they are
>inaccessible to the scientific method. The difference is like night and
>day.
incorrect. pagano thinks science is merely a collection of
disconnected facts. that's wrong. science also draws conclusions and
formulates theories about the way the world works. evolution is
observed and is empirical. this allows theories to be developed about
the origin of species. unless pagano thinks the universe is based on
random chance, he has to specify why this process, used by all
sciences, is wrongly applied in biology.
Mike Goodrich
Mike Dunford <mdun...@impop.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:387FABB3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> posted and emailed
> --==--
>
> A Pagano wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
> > to be true a priori.
>
A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions, predictions,
etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and found to hold in light
such carefull testing. The common descent hypothesis has never achieved
such a status, and as such remains merely a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is by itself not "adequate" to explain a matter. Unless one
holds to a shockingly low standard of "adequacy".
> for
> fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
> for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
> Wallace, and for various other points of data.
>
> If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
> need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
>
"A priori" here means "taken in front of", or "assumed beforehand". The
common descent hypothesis is routinely taken as true by the modern secular
theorist and then the "evidence" is ostensibly "explained" in light of this
assumption. This is an unacceptable circular pattern of reasoning.
Unacceptable to the rational that is.
> > Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has
> > assumed that all living things are connected lineally via common
> > ancestors.
>
> This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
> that the earth moves around the sun.
>
Carefull here. Since Galileo, investigators have availed themselves of the
opportunity to put Galileo's and Newton's claims to a carefull testing out
process. Important non-intuitive siuations can be contrived so as to
further verify very risky and easily/obviously falsifiable predictions,
descriptions, etc. You are making a huge unwarranted leap by attempting
this weak analogy. The common descent hypothesis is not even really
classifiable as this kind of science. It could only qualify as a proposed
historical "reconstruction" - it must not be even labled as "scientific"
lest the uninitiated assume it has been validated by rigorous scientific
investigation - the way Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were. In this
sense, Darwin's work does not belong in the same classification as the work
of these men. The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much
less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the way a
forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only help us
understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the actual
historical development.
> > If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent
> > then his cry of indignation will get him some mileage. However, if he
> > accepts the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural
> > selection, and historical contingency which are offered to explain the
> > lineal connection between ancestor and descendent populations then his
> > indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
> > materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and its
> > properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The modern
> > secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent creative
> > properties and none have been found.
>
> Your definition of "pure materialism" differs, I believe, from that used
> by most others on this group.
So what???
>Most people here assume that for a theory
> to be "purely materialistic," it must *actively exclude* everything but
> matter. By your definition, it appears that any theory which does not
> *specificly include* the supernatural is "purely materialistic."
Partially true, but you overstate.
What is at issue is wether "purely materialistic" attempts to account for
the history and totality of reality are really sufficient.
>
> By your definition, *all* of science is in opposition to the teachings
> of the Catholic Church.
Note that you are equivocating between "science" and "materialism" here.
There is no reason for it. Science is not - nor ever should be - based on
materialism. It should be based on observation and empirical verification.
It is in that sense that I say as I have said before, that the investigation
of origins is *not* repeat *not* primarily a scientific enterprise. Because
of this, there is no *real* conflict between the Bible and "science". The
conflict is only an apparent one - to those who insist that the
aforementioned equivocation must be embraced.
(I refrained from making the comparison with the Catholic Church because I
am an evangelical protestant who does not feel qualified to make the
comparison.)
>
> > The atheists---overexcited or not---openly embrace and classify as true
> > such purely materialistic philosophies. I respect them because they
> > apply such philosophies consistently in every epistemological endeavor
> > for which such philosophies have nexus. The modern secular theorists at
> > the National Academy of Sciences and Gould have offered Christians a way
> > out for their failure to consistently apply their opposition to purely
> > materialistic philosophies in other endeavors. They suggest that
> > christians who would accept the modern secular framework of evolutionism
> > should adopt a principle of "respectful noninterference" between their
> > explicit christian opposition to purely materialistic philosophies and
> > their explicit adoption in certain modern secular theories.
>
> I will simply point out here that your assessment of the idea of
> "respectful noninterference" is totally dependent on your interpretation
> of what constitutes a "purely materialistic" theory. For those of us who
> hold a more rational definition of this concept, the conflict does not
> appear to be as obvious.
Would you care to elucidate such a "more rational definition"? Would it
abrogate the basic materialist claim that *all* of reality can be explained
in terms of energy and natural law *alone*?
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> --Mike Dunford
>
--Mike Goodrich
"Man, are you tryin' to jive me?"
- a common saying in the 70s
A Pagano
If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent then his
cry of indignation will get him some mileage. However, if he accepts
the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural selection, and
historical contingency which are offered to explain the lineal
connection between ancestor and descendent populations then his
indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and its
properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The modern
secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent creative
properties and none have been found.
Dunford replied:
Your definition of "pure materialism" differs, I believe, from that used
by most others on this group. Most people here assume that for a theory
to be "purely materialistic," it must *actively exclude* everything but
matter.
Pagano replies:
I use "purely materialistic" as a short-hand label for describing
specific theories which assume that matter and its properties are
sufficient to explain certain creative events---that is events where
complexity-information increase. I don't use "purely materialistic"
simply to mean any theory which refers to apparent regularities of
matter and its properties alone. Perhaps I should use the label "purely
materialistic theory of creation."
*********************************
Dunford continues:
By your definition, it appears that any theory which does not
*specificly include* the supernatural is "purely materialistic." By
your definition, *all* of science is in opposition to the teachings of
the Catholic Church.
Pagano replies:
I see as inconsistent any theory which claims that matter and its
properties are alone sufficient to create---that is to increase
complexity and information. And the Catholic Church teachings seem to
be at odds with very few theories, perhaps only two theories. This is,
of course, my opinion. However, I have not seen a single catholic
theologian or scientist attempt to harmonize the church's objections to
purely materialistic theories of creation and evolutionism, for
example. And lastly, my objections to common descent, faunal
succession, and superposition, for example, having nothing to do with
the Catholic Faith (see my post to Dunford about faunal succession in
this thread).
******************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
The atheists---overexcited or not---openly embrace and classify as true
such purely materialistic philosophies. I respect them because they
apply such philosophies consistently in every epistemological endeavor
for which such philosophies have nexus. The modern secular theorists at
the National Academy of Sciences and Gould have offered Christians a way
out for their failure to consistently apply their opposition to purely
materialistic philosophies in other endeavors. They suggest that
christians who would accept the modern secular framework of evolutionism
should adopt a principle of "respectful noninterference" between their
explicit christian opposition to purely materialistic philosophies and
their explicit adoption in certain modern secular theories.
Dunford replied:
I will simply point out here that your assessment of the idea of
"respectful noninterference" is totally dependent on your interpretation
of what constitutes a "purely materialistic" theory. For those of us who
hold a more rational definition of this concept, the conflict does not
appear to be as obvious.
Pagano responds:
Since I have never referred to every theory which studies apparent
regularities of matter and its properties alone as "purely
materialistic" your conclusion collapses. I use "purely materialistic"
in a very specific way (see above). Next, it was the National Academy
of Sciences and Gould who advocated "respectful noninterference" between
the propositions of specific modern secular theories and specific
chrisitian propositions not I. Since you were more interested in my use
of this label you completely missed the point of my criticism of
"respectful noninterference."
"Respectful noninterference" is suggested as a principle for christians
not for the modern secular theorist. The modern secular theorist sees
no clash because they believe the propositions of christian Faith are
superstitious nonsense with some utilitarian value. On the other hand
the chrisitian is called to believe that the propositions of Faith are
objectively true. If they clash with specific propositions of the
modern secular theorist something has to give. Gould and the NAS
suggest "respectful noninterference"---which simply means the christian
should ignore the clash. This is irrational. Wouldn't you agree?
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
>I see as inconsistent any theory which claims that matter and its
>properties are alone sufficient to create---that is to increase
>complexity and information. And the Catholic Church teachings seem to
>be at odds with very few theories, perhaps only two theories. This is,
>of course, my opinion. However, I have not seen a single catholic
>theologian or scientist attempt to harmonize the church's objections to
>purely materialistic theories of creation and evolutionism, for
>example.
why should the church attempt to reconcile an issue which is not an
issue? the catholic church has stated it has one single restriction on
acceptance of evolution: that it not attempt to describe the evolution
of the 'mind'. evolution does not do that. the catholic church does
not take positions on many issues, for example, biblical literalism.
just because YOU dont like their position does not mean they are wrong
for not having one.
>
>"Respectful noninterference" is suggested as a principle for christians
>not for the modern secular theorist. The modern secular theorist sees
>no clash because they believe the propositions of christian Faith are
>superstitious nonsense with some utilitarian value.
prove it. there is no such thing as a 'modern secular theorist'. its a
meaningless pagano neologism devoid of content...in fact that
describes all your arguments
On the other hand
>the chrisitian is called to believe that the propositions of Faith are
>objectively true.
which does not mean they are
1. provable
2. able to be arrived at via the use of reason
3. demonstrable to the senses.
thus they have no relationship to science
If they clash with specific propositions of the
>modern secular theorist something has to give. Gould and the NAS
>suggest "respectful noninterference"---which simply means the christian
>should ignore the clash. This is irrational. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>
they dont. there are some christians who have invented arbitrary and
capricious views of christianity bordering on pantheism (e.g.
creationism) but this is not a part of mainstream christianity.
but neither christianity nor science is responsible for the beliefs of
christian cults.
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|Pagano replies:
|The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
|to be true a priori.
No more than, say, gravity or electromagnetism is assumed to be
"true", scientifically-speaking.
|Dunford
|Incorrect. The theory of common descent is an adequate explanation for
|fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
|for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
|Wallace, and for various other points of data.
|
| Pagano replies:
|DOES COMMON DESCENT EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION?
|The principle of faunal succession combined with the principle of
|superposition apparently explains that the unobserved history of
|biological change was one of progression from simple to complex.
Nope. Not unless you are talking about the most broad and crude
pattern to it over time -- namely that there were a few billion years of
mostly unicellular organisms followed by half a billion years or so of
diversification of unicellular *and* multicellular organisms that could in
some senses be regarded as more "complex". It is a pretty crude trend
that would only reflect an average over time, because there are still
plenty of bacteria and other "simple" organisms around today. A more
realistic way of looking at it is not as a scale of increasing
"complexity", but a broadening of the range of it -- a diversification --
but even that has been in fits and starts and is not a consistent trend,
assuming that biological "complexity" is something that can be
meaningfully evaluated in the first place.
|However, neither the theory of common descent nor neoDarwinian theory
|predict any such thing.
That is right.
|So I doubt that common descent explains the
|principle of faunal succession.
You do not understand. It does not prohibit the actual pattern
seen in the history of life either, and it can indeed account for many of
its details. Any kind of theory (say, Lamarkism, for example) that
involves derivation of the new from the old through time, and potentially
its diversification, would account for the morphological successions that
are seen (regardless of whether they have any "complexifying" or
"simplifying" gradient to those successions). It would not have to be
neo-Darwinism to account for that much. Common descent is indeed enough
for that item of evidence.
|The principle of faunal succession states that groups of fossil animals
|and plants occur in the geologic record in a definite and determinable
|order
Yes. An order specified by the succession of rocks containing the
fossils, *not* by supposed gradients to "complexity" in the fossils.
|and that a period of geologic time can be recognized by its
|characteristic fossils.
Yes, although they were originally defined the other way around
from the rock.
|This principle has proved, in part, to be a
|useful "instrument" in locating petroleum and mineral deposits;
Yes. Vastly successful, to the point that it is routinely used in
those processes all the time, when dealing with fossiliferous rocks, of
course.
|however,
|its reliability as an "instrument" for commercial geology is not related
|to whether it is consistent with the theory of common descent
Yes. In fact, common descent, or even biological change, wouldn't
really be a requirement (they could be beer cans and golf balls, as long
as they were in a consistent succession in the Earth's geology), but it
does depend upon the existence of a succession of some kind, and that the
succession is extensively sampled and tested, which is why it is so
useful.
|or whether
|together they correspond to actual unobserved history.
Of course. But there is no good reason to believe they are
anything but the fully observable representation of that unwitnessed
biological history, sort of like what happens if you go to the library and
read about historical events or see photographs of events that you did not
personally witness, and for which there are no extant witnesses. You
don't have to believe a particular interpretation of those events, and you
could propose your own interpretation of those events (even if you did
witness them, that would still be the case), but you could interpret
something about the unobserved history.
Other interpretations have been proposed for fossils seen in the
Earth's geology. For example, back in medieval times, some people did not
think fossils were organic remains, and that fossils were instead
something inorganic that was either incipient or failed life, or perhaps
something placed there by powers unknown that were practicing life
creation or for spite to confuse people or play games with them. Not
everyone thought that (Leonardo da Vinci had the right idea), but there
was considerably more diversity of opinion about whether fossils
represented life history over geological time until about sometime in the
1700s.
|There are some other problems with faunal succession. First, so-called
|index fossils often appear out of sequence
Yes, it happens. In which case the stratigraphic distribution of
that fossil would be revised to be consistent with the new data on its
occurrence. However, index fossils tend to be the ones whose
stratigraphic distribution is very well sampled over a long period of
study, so such changes tend to be quite minor, and of interest mainly to
specialists. The whole timescale does not get turned upside down or
something.
There are also a number of confused claims floating about that
post-depositional structures such as folding and faulting produce "out of
sequence" fossil successions, but geologists have plenty of undeformed
successions of strata to look at for comparison, and there is very little
ambiguity about structural deformation in most cases anyway, even without
any fossils. The occurrence of other processes, such as reworking, the
the supposed inability to recognize it versus in situ fossils, is also
greatly exaggerated by some critics. I would be happy to talk about some
of these "out of sequence" fossils in more detail, if you would explain
what you think they are.
|which makes this principle
|more of a utilitarian rule-of-thumb rather than a law-like
|generalization.
It never was anything but that. It is a principle representing
observations that have been made so far. It is not an immutable rule.
The succession of fossils is an interpretation based upon sampling of the
fossil record in the succession of rocks. It is always open to revision.
Of course, some aspects of it are extremely well-sampled and have not been
significantly revised in well over a century (e.g., there are still no
trilobites known from Mesozoic strata, and still no ammonites known from
Cenozoic strata), so it would not be realistic for someone to exaggerate
the significance of the inevitable and usually slight revisions that have
occurred and continue to occur as the faunal succession is refined in
increasingly greater detail and with respect to independent data. It is a
normal, refinable scientific interpretation, just like anything else in
science.
|The second problem is related to the principle of
|superposition. The principle of superposition assumes, in part, that
|layers were essentially horizontal when they were deposited.
Nope. Not at all. You are thinking of another principle, the
principle of original horizontality. The principle of superposition
merely assumes that gravity applies to sediment deposits, and that you
can't suspend soft, unconsolidated "older" sediment in mid-air while
"younger" sediment is stuffed underneath, at least without leaving obvious
indications of the process responsible. Depositional dips of greater than
45 degrees are extremely rare anyway for unconsolidated sediments, because
of the physics of an unconsolidated sediment pile (look up: "angle of
repose"), and most sediments are deposited at depositional angles of less
than 10 degrees, more typically only 2 or 3 degrees from horizontal. None
of this is relevant to determining whether a bed on top -- at any angle
less than 90 degrees (I'm assuming you aren't thinking sediments could be
deposited on a vertical slope) -- is younger than one below that is
supporting it, which is the *only* thing the principle of superposition
encompasses. The original depositional orientation can often be
determined anyway, from structures such as geopetal infill in cavities,
such as sediment partially infilling fossil shells (it works just like the
bubble in the level that carpenters use). The only way those could be
violated is if you suspended gravity somehow, in which case the principle
of superposition would no longer apply anyway, and the point would be
rather moot.
Incidentally, the principle of superposition, and a couple of
other basic geological principles still in use today, was formulated by a
creationist geologist (Steno) back in the 1600s. It is employed
extensively by modern flood geologists too, everytime they interpret one
rock formation as younger than another because it is stratigraphically
higher.
|However,
|reproducible experiments indicate that this assumption is not a
|universally good one for deposition under flowing water.
Let me guess. This must be a reference to Guy Berthault's
much-vaunted stuff, right? His published papers indicate he does not
really understand the principle of superposition as it is actually applied
by geologists. Nothing about his experiments violate the principle of
superposition, unless talking at *microscopic* scale for *individual* sand
laminae. Successive beds or laminae, even in his experiments, in no way
violate the principle of superposition. Not even slightly. He only
claims they do, probably because he shows no indication in his papers of
actually understanding it. He covers a bunch of experiments in his work,
but here is an example of one of them, with crossbedding. The diagram is
shown in vertical cross section. The lines represent bedding laminae --
very slight variations in the composition and grainsize of the sediments,
and corresponding (based upon experimental observation) with former
depositional surfaces. Intervals of deposition are numbered, in sequence,
over time.
----------------------------------------------------water
-----> unidirectional current--------->
=============topset==================
\ \ \ s\ a\ n\ d\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ foreset
\ 1\2 \3 \4 \5 \6 \7 \8 \9 \10\11\12\
==================================================== bottomset
This type of structure typically forms in unidirectional (i.e.
one-directional) current flows. Sediment gets dragged along the "topset"
surface on top, goes over the crest of the structure, and slides down the
angled foreset surfaces and minor amounts of sediment get deposited on the
bottomsets too. The numbers represent the relative depositional age
through time, as directly experimentally observed. The topset surface is
usually erosional, and so represents a former depositional surface that
has a prolonged, amalgamated history (i.e. it is present, and active, all
through times 1 to 12). The angled foreset surfaces within the structure
are successive, but as the structure migrates laterally by adding material
to the foreset surface, there is a lateral and vertical component to the
accumulation. The bottomsets, likewise, represent an apparent
amalgamation of multiple ages at this scale, but with much slower
depositional rates (they are explained in more detail below). Once the
foreset laterally migrates over the top of the bottomsets (a process
geologists call lateral progradation, as opposed to vertical aggradation),
the deposition on that bottomset surface ceases, but until that point,
typically very thin laminae are deposited.
Here is the question: is the principle of superposition violated
anywhere in this structure? In Berthault's published papers, he thinks
so. He thinks that a geologist could, hypothetically, think that the
bottomset, then foresets, then topsets, could be mistaken for successive
beds that are (individually) synchronous (i.e. deposited at the same
time). This is rather bizarre, given that, ordinarily, and even in the
figures that Berthault shows, the dipping foreset surfaces are plainly
seen. No competant geologist would fail to appreciate the significance of
the foreset geometry, and that it indicates lateral progradation over
time, rather than simply vertical aggradation. More importantly, even if
they did not see those structures (let's say they were in desperate need
of glasses, or the sediment was unnaturally and almost impossibly
*perfectly* sorted by grainsize and compositionally homogeneous so that no
laminae formed at all), would the principle of superposition be violated?
Surprisingly, no, because the bottomsets are indeed older, and up to
equivalent in time to, the immediaely overlying foreset beds. Likewise
the topset beds, and anything on top of them. They are *diachronous*
(i.e. not the same age along their lateral extent), but still successive.
This is flagrantly obvious, because there is no point in the formation of
this structure where, for example, forsets are suspended in mid-air (or
mid-water) while younger bottomsets are deposited underneath them. It is
simply impossible if gravity is operating.
What about the non-horizontal geometry and lateral progradation of
the foresets themselves, if it is seen, as is much more likely? Does that
violate the principle of superposition? No again. The foreset
bed/lamination #1 is everywhere always below the contact with #2, whether
you draw a line vertical to present-day gravity, or perpendicular to the
bedding surfaces (which is the convention unless depositional dip is
known). Sure, there are parts of #2 that are "lower" than some parts of
#1, but there is nowhere a place where the contact between #1 and #2 is
inverted (i.e. #2 underneath #1 like a blanket), which is the *only* thing
that matters to establishing that #1 and #2 are successive. It becomes
even more obvious if the bottomsets and foresets are examined in enlarged
detail. The bottomsets are usually continuous with the foresets -- the
foresets simply thin greatly at the toe, and laterally merge into
synchronous bottomset beds, like this:
\ 1 \ 2 \ 3
\ \ \
\ \ \ foresets
\ \ \
\ 1 \ 2 \ 3
\ \ \
\ \ \---3------3---
\ 1 \-------2------2------2---bottomsets
\------------1------1-----1------1---
---------------------------------------------
Notice how no matter where you go in unit #2 (or, if you like, the
sediment deposited during time period #2), there is a #1 somewhere below
it, and a #3 somewhere above it, just like sheets draped over a
non-horizontal, non-planar shape. The principle of superposition is not
violated. The thicknesses of the sediments certainly change radically,
and the geometry of the contacts between the units certainly changes a
great deal, but there are no #3 units sliding beneath #1 anywhere, for
example.
Lest anybody think this is some kind of subtle quirk of
sedimentary geology that geologists are only now becoming familiar with
thanks to Berthault -- no way. This is 1930s and earlier vintage stuff
(e.g., from the work of Gilbert), and people have been experimentally
making crossbedding in sediment-water flumes since at least the 1950s and
1960s. It is a very, very well known sedimentary process. Geologists
simply would not interpret things the way that Berthault thinks they would
or could, because there is too much other evidence that indicates what is
going on, and the structure is so familiar. Berthault does not even use
the conventional terminology (he calls the crossbedding "deltas", which
are much larger scale even if they have some geometrical similarities),
and he cites hardly any previous sedimentological research in his first
two papers on his experiments, despite whole books and entire journals
dedicated to the subject of experimental and modern field sedimentology
since the 1960s. It is pretty clear that Berthault simply did not
understand how geologists were actually using this stuff when he started
out, or how familiar they were with sedimentary bedding structures that
are not a simple "layer cake". It was only when he got a coauthor with a
bit more knowledge that he finally started acknowledging more of the
previous work, yet the way some editorials go on in "young Earth"
creationist literature, you would think this was all earth-shatteringly
new stuff. It isn't. Maybe for "flood geologists", but not for
conventional geologists. It is experimental work like this that allows
geologists to interpret things such as the hydrodynamic regime that could
produce a particular type of crossbedding. The only novel bit, as near as
I can tell, is a part about why the self-segregation of individual
sediment laminae occurs, which could only affect the relative age of
individual grains *within* individual beds or laminae, not between stacks
of them, and which geologists would be unlikely to make assumptions about
anyway. It is also a process that has been studied before, dating back to
the 1960s, and that is well-known, even if the details of why sediment
grains segregate (versus empirically observing that they do) are being
actively studied still. Basically, little of it is novel, and Berthault's
work does not show any of the problems with the principle of superposition
that it purports to.
The only thing it does show is that some sediment depositional
surfaces are not always perfectly horizontal -- already known -- and that
bedding contacts and laminations are not necessarily *exactly* the same
age along their surfaces, such as in situations with lateral progradation
-- again, already known and plainly seen from the topset-foreset-bottomset
geometry of the bedding (a somewhat sinusoidal geometry known as a
"clinoform" geometry). The interpretation that a particular bedding
surface is synchronous is a hypothesis to be tested, not assumed. Some
types of bedding surfaces are reasonably synchronous, some are
spectacularly not. Geologists already know this well, and treat bedding
surfaces with due caution.
|If this is true
It isn't.
|the interpretation that faunal succession and superposition
|represents a history of biological progression is misleading at best and
|false at worst.
Fortunately, it is not subjected to such problems, because
Berthault's experiments, while experimentally valid, do not duplicate
anything of significance that geologists and sedimentologists were not
already familiar with decades ago from their own experimental and field
work, and they do not apply to the actual principle of superposition,
which does not require horizontality of depositional surfaces, or even
their synchroneity, to be valid. In his papers, Berthault is confusing
the principle of superposition with the principle of original
horizontality (whose limitations are also well known) and the principles
used for lateral correlation, which geologists already are suitably
cautious about for good reasons.
If, however, you aren't talking about Berthault's experiments,
then let's hear about what you are talking about.
|***************************************
|Dunford wrote:
|If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
|need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
|
| Pagano replies:
|Common descent has been around in one form or another long before
|Darwin.
Yes, but the fossil evidence in question predates even those forms
of it. The evidence of faunal succession came first, then people started
noticing that the morphological succession through time was not random,
and prposed that the succession of faunas (and floras) were derived from
eachother through time by some process (God's plan, Lamarkian inheritance,
Darwinian natural selection, or whatever). You do indeed have it
completely backwards. Common descent can't be "a priori" to the evidence
that prompted its proposal, can it? People actually started with the "a
priori" assumption that all forms of life were independent creations, and
then unfortunately found that the fossil evidence did not fit that "a
priori" assumption very well, so they tried something else -- common
descent -- to account for it.
|**************************************
|Pagano previously wrote;
|Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has assumed that all living
|things are connected lineally via common
|ancestors.
|
|Dunford replied:
|This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
|that the earth moves around the sun.
|
|
| Pagano replies:
|Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
|repeating.
No it isn't. Are people observing every second, and every
vanishingly-small fraction of a second, of the position of the planets as
they progress in their orbits? I think not. Likewise, we don't have
fossils that sample the existence of every individual organism that ever
existed, or even every species. We only have a representative sample.
The rest is interpretation, however reasonable. These samples can and
have been repeated many times -- every time someone finds yet another
trilobite from stratigraphically far below the occurrence of yet another
dinosaur fossil, they are repeatedly testing the interpretation that those
two organisms were successive in time.
Can someone go back and witness the observation of Pluto's
original position when it was discovered? No. We only have measurements
and photographs documenting the state then -- a "fossil record" of
observations made by people now extinct and no longer available as
witnesses.
|No one had to assume any particular theory.
About the only "theory" you have to assume to establish faunal
succession is basic geometry, the interpretation that fossils represent
ancient life (versus some kind of inorganic process), and the existence of
gravity on Earth. Are you disputing any of these principles?
|Doubters could
|and did make repeated observations, suggested new theories, and tested
|them against the observations.
That is *exactly* what paleontologists and geologists have been
doing for going on 250 years or so of intensive study, Pagano. The
difference is, astronomers use telescopes, and geologists go out and
repeatedly observe the rocks and the fossils within them, right here on
Earth Then, they both interpret their data.
|The hypothetical lineal connections are
|proposed to be unique and non recurring.
Yes -- proposed *and* tested.
|As a result they are
|inaccessible to the scientific method. The difference is like night and
|day.
Night and day on what planet? The difference is in
instrumentation and what is sampled, not in scientific procedure.
Different theories, different data, same procedure to propose hypotheses,
make obsevations, and repeatedly and independently test them.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
[snip]
> Dunford
[snip]
> The theory of common descent is an adequate explanation for
> fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
> for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
> Wallace, and for various other points of data.
>
> Pagano replies:
> DOES COMMON DESCENT EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION?
> The principle of faunal succession combined with the principle of
> superposition apparently explains that the unobserved history of
> biological change was one of progression from simple to complex.
Although a superficial glance at the record might appear to show that to
the casual observer, closer study reveals that this is not actually the
case. There have been periods in the fossil record where the reverse is
true. For one example: at the end of the Cretaceous, there were large
numbers of very complex, highly ornate foraminifera. At the start of the
Tertiary, the forams were exclusively smaller and simpler forms. Similar
trends abound in other taxa and at other times.
> However, neither the theory of common descent nor neoDarwinian theory
> predict any such thing.
This is good, since the apparent development trend of "simple to
complex" is not universal through the fossil record.
There are a number of actual features of the fossil record of faunal
succession which are predicted by common descent. Common descent
predicts that two faunas found stratigraphicly close to each other will
have more common species than two faunas separated by a large distance.
This is a feature of the fossil record. Common descent predicts that the
youngest beds of rock will have the largest percentage of extant
species. This is a feature of the fossil record. These are not the only
predictions, but they should illustrate my point sufficiently.
> So I doubt that common descent explains the principle of faunal succession.
See above. If you wish, I will gladly provide either specifics, more
general predictions, or both.
> The principle of faunal succession states that groups of fossil animals
> and plants occur in the geologic record in a definite and determinable
> order and that a period of geologic time can be recognized by its
> characteristic fossils.
OK.
> This principle has proved, in part, to be a
> useful "instrument" in locating petroleum and mineral deposits; however,
> its reliability as an "instrument" for commercial geology is not related
> to whether it is consistent with the theory of common descent or whether
> together they correspond to actual unobserved history.
I certainly hope that faunal succession is a useful tool. I'd feel
guilty every payday if it weren't.
> There are some other problems with faunal succession. First, so-called
> index fossils often appear out of sequence which makes this principle
> more of a utilitarian rule-of-thumb rather than a law-like
> generalization.
This is incorrect. I cannot name one instance where an index fossil has
been found out of its "correct" position in an undisturbed sequence of
sedimentary strata, and I am willing to bet that you cannot, either. If
faunal succession were merely a "rule-of-thumb," as you claim, then it's
utilitarian value for practical generalizations would be greatly
decreased.
> The second problem is related to the principle of
> superposition. The principle of superposition assumes, in part, that
> layers were essentially horizontal when they were deposited. However,
> reproducible experiments indicate that this assumption is not a
> universally good one for deposition under flowing water.
The instances where this is not the case are well known, and taught in
geology classes, including some at the introductory level. Sedimentation
at the front of a delta is a good example of one of these cases. Sand
dunes provide a second example. These depositional environments have
their own characteristic features which allow them to be easily
identified in the field, and fossil succession holds true in these cases
in the time-equivalent beds.
> If this is
> true the interpretation that faunal succession and superposition
> represents a history of biological progression is misleading at best and
> false at worst.
Actually, your counter examples were misleading at best.
> Dunford wrote:
> If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
> need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Common descent has been around in one form or another long before
> Darwin.
So had fossil succession.
> Pagano previously wrote;
> Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has assumed that all living
> things are connected lineally via common
> ancestors.
>
> Dunford replied:
> This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
> that the earth moves around the sun.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
> repeating. No one had to assume any particular theory.
And this observable and repeating movement for years lent its support to
the geocentric theory.
> Doubters could
> and did make repeated observations, suggested new theories, and tested
> them against the observations.
I would suggest that you look at the history of evolutionary thought.
> The hypothetical lineal connections are proposed to be unique and non
> recurring. As a result they are inaccessible to the scientific method.
I find it difficult to find scientists who argee with you, whether
present or past. Even scientists such as William Thomson (Lord Kelvin),
who disagreed with the conclusions being drawn by uniformitarians and
biological evolutionists agreed that the past was a legitimate topic for
research.
Could it be possible that your definition of the scientific method is in
some way incomplete?
[snip]
--Mike Dunford
A Pagano
[snip]
Pagano wrote to Darren Provine
[A]s a faithful follower of the modern secular framework haven't you
accepted the National Academy of Science's and Gould's principle of "non
overlapping magisteria," and don't you maintain a "respectful
noninterference" between science and your Trinitarian beliefs?
Darren Provine replied:
("Modern secular framework"? It's safe to say that nobody who actually
knows much about me would write such a thing, which supports my
suspicion that Mr Pagano doesn't actually bother to read anything posted
by anyone
else.)
Pagano responds:
The label "modern secular framework" isn't synonomous with atheism. I
have used the label "modern secular framework" and "modern secular
theories" in around 100 recent posts and no one could mistake how I used
it. Since you are rarely here, unless lurking, you wouldn't have read
those posts. I use this label to refer to those scientific frameworks
composed of assumptions, initial conditions, and theories which propose
that matter and its properties are alone sufficient to
create---specifically to create complex objects and systems requiring
information.
I have misunderstood my opponents on a number of occassions. And it is
true that up to this point in his post Provine seems to be limiting his
acceptance of the modern secular framework to the a priori truth of
"common descent." If this is the correct understanding of his position
then I retract my claim that he is believer in the "modern secular
framework." Let's read further in his post.
********************************
Darren Provine continues:
I don't know the text to which you are referring, and I don't recognise
the terms "non overlapping magisteria" and "respectful
noninterference". Maybe I'd accept those positions, and maybe not.
Pagano replies:
In my post to Provine titled, "Re: Doesn't Provine Maintain a
"Respectful Noninterference" Between His Faith and Science?" even the
title makes clear to what this "principle" refers. And in the body of
that post it is made slightly more clear. And if we follow the thread
to which Provine was a party, it is even more clear that the clash to
which "respectful noninterference" hopes to solve was the purely
materialistic theories of creation advocated by the modern secular
theorist versus the opposition to such theories from Provine's
Trinitarian Faith. Come now Professor your claims of ignorance don't
become you.
However, if you limit your acceptance of the modern secular framework to
"common descent" then I retract my characterization of you. The theory
of common descent separated from the modern secular framework can't
clash with much of anything since alone it is quite vacuous.
***************************************
Darren Provine continues:
My view is simply that scientific investigation can uncover some things,
but not everything. In those domains where scientific investigation is
valid, the conclusions of such investigation cannot simply be ignored.
But in those domains where scientific investigation cannot be used, it
should not be cited.
Pagano replies:
This doesn't answer how much of the modern secular framework you accept,
but it is related. In what domains is the scientific method valid? And
in your opinion is the scientific method privileged to uncover the truth
of unique, non recurring events in unobserved history?
***************************************
Provine
Consider the usual "design versus random" discussions. Many people
write as if it's a one-dimensional choice. I think there are two
dimensions: "organised plan <--> random" and "accidental <-->
intentional". That gives
four categories:
A) intentional results accomplished via random methods,
B) accidental results which arose from random activity,
C) intentional results achieved by planned courses of action,
D) accidental results achieved by planned courses of action
(which is either empty, or includes unintended results, depending
on how you want to class unintended results).
The "random" conclusion that evolutionary biologists reach can speak
only
to the first dimension. That is, scientists can rightly say that the
development of species is in "A union B", and not in "C union D". But
having argued for "A union B", the evolutionary biologists have to stop
there: they can't tell whether it's A or B.
When atheists argue that the random nature of development proves there
the results must be unintentional, they are just making a basic
reasoning error. (It's the same error religious people make when they
argue that belief in a Creator rules out evolution, but from the other
side.)
Pagano replies:
Here I get an idea of how Provine harmonizes his Trinitarian Faith's
opposition to pure materialistic philosophy with its presupposition in
the modern secular framework. However, he is very careful not to commit
himself to category (A) for example. Category (A), however, is very old
and implies that, 'God can do anything and He accomplished His Creative
activity just the way the modern secular theorist says it was
accomplished.' But is this a reasonable possibility?
It is true that some probability theorists have employed a propensity
interpretation of probablistic events. Problem is that no one has been
able to demonstrate that random events (or random noise) conjoined to
any known natural mechanism can accumulate the large amounts of
information necessary to create a complex celestial body, a cell, the
human brain, or the eye. There are no random events conjoined with any
natural system which have been observed to accumulate new information.
Kauffman in "The Origin of Order" attempted to show that "order" might
arise from natural irreversible processes, however, order is not
synonomous with information rich complexity. And even Kauffman, based
upon his original research, doubted that "natural selection" was capable
of accomplishing what neoDarwinists claimed.
Again I challenge Provine: (1) Does he accept more of the modern
secular framework than common descent and (2) is category (A) his
solution to the apparent clash between his Trinitarian opposition to
purely materialistic theories of creation and its acceptance by the
modern secular framework.
*******************************************
Provine continues:
If what is meant by "respectful noninterference" is that questions about
existence and intentions of a Creator are left to theologians, and that
scientists will refrain from theological claims, I think that would be a
distinct improvement over the situation we have now. (In which people
such as my aforesaid distant cousin presume to teach theology.)
Pagano replies:
The chrisitan faith opposes purely materialistic theories of creation;
Provine has informed us that the Trinitarians are included in this
opposition. The modern secular theorist claims that their scientific
methodologies are privileged to uncover 4.6 billion years of unique, non
recurring events. Such events are inaccessible to any unadulterated
scientific methodologies. But the modern secular theorist does not
employ an unadulterated scientific method. In order to sustain the
privilege they presuppose, in part, that matter and its properties are
sufficient to explain unique creative events wherein large amounts of
information is accumulated.
The chrisitian opposition to purely materialistic theories of creation
and the modern secular presupposition that matter and its properties are
sufficient to create are in direct opposition. Provine suggests as a
possible solution that intentional creative acts can be accomplished via
random events. Such a claim is fallacious circular reasoning because it
assumes as true exactly what is at issue: that matter and its properties
are sufficient to create. Wouldn't you agree Professor? And no one has
demonstrated that random events conjoined to any natural system or
natural irreversible process has the propensity to accumulate the
information necessary to create.
***********************************
Provine continues:
Have I done anything like answer your question?
Pagano replies:
Nope. Question 1: Do you accept more than common descent from the
modern secular framework of evolutionism? Question 2: Doesn't the claim
that intentional acts of an intelligent agent can be accomplished via
random events assume as true exactly what your Trinitarian Faith
opposes: that matter and its properties are alone sufficient to create?
Question 3: What reproducible experiments have demonstrated that random
events conjoined to any natural system or irreversible process have a
propensity to accumulate information?
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
>Here I get an idea of how Provine harmonizes his Trinitarian Faith's
>opposition to pure materialistic philosophy with its presupposition in
>the modern secular framework. However, he is very careful not to commit
>himself to category (A) for example. Category (A), however, is very old
>and implies that, 'God can do anything and He accomplished His Creative
>activity just the way the modern secular theorist says it was
>accomplished.' But is this a reasonable possibility?
by the very definition of god it is. unless pagano, like most
creationists, think god has to obey his view of biblical
interpretation.
>
>It is true that some probability theorists have employed a propensity
>interpretation of probablistic events. Problem is that no one has been
>able to demonstrate that random events (or random noise) conjoined to
>any known natural mechanism can accumulate the large amounts of
>information necessary to create a complex celestial body, a cell, the
>human brain, or the eye. There are no random events conjoined with any
>natural system which have been observed to accumulate new information.
the known natural mechanism is natural selection. it is not random. it
operates on random events (mutations) to produce non random outcomes.
pagano is ignorant of both christian theology, and science.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>The chrisitan faith opposes purely materialistic theories of creation;
>Provine has informed us that the Trinitarians are included in this
>opposition. The modern secular theorist claims that their scientific
>methodologies are privileged to uncover 4.6 billion years of unique, non
>recurring events. Such events are inaccessible to any unadulterated
>scientific methodologies
incorrect. wrong. science is not a disconnected collection of facts.
science is about drawing conclusions based on evidence...science
builds theories. such theories enable us to state the earth is 4.5
billion yrs old, in spite of pagano's lies about both christian
theology and science.
.. But the modern secular theorist does not
>employ an unadulterated scientific method. In order to sustain the
>privilege they presuppose, in part, that matter and its properties are
>sufficient to explain unique creative events wherein large amounts of
>information is accumulated.
1. that's the way science works
2. it is successful
3 theories incorporating supernatural causes have NEVER been
successful. pagano ignores the fact that supernatural explanations
were, at one time, employed in cosmologies. they failed. absolutely.
every time. always. without fail, and without exception.
science does not use what fails. so what justification does pagano use
for incorporating supernaturalism into science?
the bible, in his view, says science should do so. sorry, that's not
justification. it's rationalization.
>
>The chrisitian opposition to purely materialistic theories of creation
>and the modern secular presupposition that matter and its properties are
>sufficient to create are in direct opposition.
there is no 'purely naturalistic theory of creation' because religion
and science refer to 2 different aspects of creation.
the physical sciences are restricted to theories about the physical
world.
religious creation is concerned with, as the pope himself has said,
metaphysical concepts such as creation of 'minds'. evolution does not
concern itself with this.
pagano thus conflates metaphysical abstract concepts with the physical
world. in doing so he destroys the traditional christian concept that
the physical world is separate from god. he creates a pantheistic
world where physical events are immediately reflections of god's mind.
thus do creationists destroy god in order to save him.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Nope. Question 1: Do you accept more than common descent from the
>modern secular framework of evolutionism?
it is 'secular' only insofar as your arbitrary american cultural
fundamentalism causes you to have beliefs which conflict with science.
science is not politically correct. the cargo cultists have made a god
of the US merchant marine but that does not mean the USMM is god. you
have created a similar view of nature that causes your beliefs to be
in conflict with observations.
thats your problem, not one for science, and not one for christian
theology.
3: What reproducible experiments have demonstrated that random
>events conjoined to any natural system or irreversible process have a
>propensity to accumulate information?
>
>
'accumulate information' is not necessary for evolution. pagano's
strawman definition of evolution has no relationship to the way
evolution is defined by scientists.
no surprise. pagano, like most creationists, is actually a pantheist.
he believes the world is intimately and immediately connected with god
physically. pantheism is not a christian belief.
A Pagano
The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
to be true a priori.
MacRae replied:
No more than, say, gravity or electromagnetism is assumed to be "true",
scientifically-speaking.
Pagano replies:
Dunford and virtually every other secularist in this forum makes this
same flawed analogy. The cause and effect relationships of gravity and
electomagnetism can be observed repeatedly---yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. Such is not the case with common descent. Experiments with
gravity and electromagnetism can be repeated and apparent cause and
effect relationships can be reproduced. The same cannot be said of the
theory of common descent.
Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
NON REPEATING historical events. The purported lineal links between all
living things which existed in prehistory are neither observable nor
reproducible in the laboratory. Because the scientific method has no
privilege to uncover unique history the modern secular theorist ASSUMES
a great deal of these unique events into existence.
**********************************
[snip]
Dunford previously made the same analogy:
This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
that the earth moves around the sun.
Pagano previously replied:
Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
repeating.
MacRae replied:
No it isn't. Are people observing every second, and every
vanishingly-small fraction of a second, of the position of the planets
as they progress in their orbits? I think not.
Pagano replies:
This is hilarious. MacRae suggests that because every second of a
RECURRING, REPEATING, NON UNIQUE, AND OBSERVABLE event is not
observed that this fact makes UNIQUE, NON REPEATING, AND UNOBSERVABLE
events in PREHISTORY analogous and equally accessible to the scientific
method. This is ridiculous.
Someone testing a particular theory about the motion of Mars could make
repeated observations and test them
against the theory. The hypothetical claim for example that a
population of mesonychid transformed over time, in unobserved
prehistory, into populations of bat and whale is neither repeating nor
experimentally reproducible. This sort of misunderstanding is profound.
***********************************
MacRae continues:
Likewise, we don't have fossils that sample the existence of every
individual organism that ever existed, or even every species. We only
have a representative sample. The rest is interpretation, however
reasonable. These samples can and have been repeated many times --
every time someone finds yet another trilobite from stratigraphically
far below the occurrence of yet another dinosaur fossil, they are
repeatedly testing the interpretation that those two organisms were
successive in time.
Pagano replies:
The fossil record shows virtually no evidence of fossil creatures with
nascent structures. There is no non ad hoc explanation for the
characteristic of stasis. For example, the claim that the punctuated
nature of novel transformations means that nascent structures of
transforming populations would never be captured by the fossil record is
neither a prediction of PE nor is it experimentally testable. And the
so-called index fossils are often found out of sequence.
This silent fossil evidence is interpreted in the light of common
descent, neoDarwinism, faunal succession, and superposition. As a
result the "interpretation" can hardly then be used as independent
evidence that
common descent, neoDarwinism, faunal succession, or superposition is
true or even close to the truth without being guilty of fallacious
circular reasoning. But this sort of circular "proof" is common in this
forum.
********************************
MacRae continues:
Can someone go back and witness the observation of Pluto's original
position when it was discovered? No.
Pagano replies:
But the original discovery and original motion of Pluto was OBSERVED and
recorded. And future investigators may repeatedly reproduce the
observations. Common descent has never been observed and according to
its own proponents may never be observed.
*********************************
MacRae continues:
We only have measurements and photographs documenting the state then --
a "fossil record" of observations made by people now extinct and no
longer available as witnesses.
Pagano replies:
The profound difference is that the fossil creatures---even if they
could be correlated via some universal principle of superposition and
universal principle of faunal succession---are the record of unique, non
recurring events. I cannot conduct a reproducible experiment
demonstrating common descent or observe the purported ancestor
populations transform into the purported descendent population via the
modern secular doctrines. I can't test the claim of common descent via
the scientific method because common descent explains unique history not
a genuine regularity of nature. It is assumed a priori. This is almost
indisputable.
**************************************
[snip]
MacRae continues:
About the only "theory" you have to assume to establish faunal
succession is basic geometry, the interpretation that fossils represent
ancient life (versus some kind of inorganic process), and the existence
of gravity on Earth. Are you disputing any of these principles?
Pagano replies:
MacRae accepts the principle of faunal succession as a universal
proposition; however, there are numerous index fossils found out of
sequence which REFUTE the claim that this principle is universal. The
same can be said about the principle of superposition----contradictions
in the geologic record refute its universal character. Once their
universal character is refuted, MacRae hasn't a clue when he can rely on
these "rules of thumb" and when he can't. This is a significant problem
of uncovering unique unobserved history; a problem which the modern
secular theorists ignores because he makes no distinction between his
untestable hypothetical history and actual history.
**********************************
Pagano previously wrote to Dunford:
Doubters could and did make repeated observations, suggested new
theories, and tested them against the observations.
MacRae replied:
That is *exactly* what paleontologists and geologists have been doing
for going on 250 years or so of intensive study, Pagano. The difference
is, astronomers use telescopes, and geologists go out and repeatedly
observe the rocks and the fossils within them, right here on Earth
Then, they both interpret their data.
Pagano responds:
I find it amazing that MacRae fails to see the profound difference
between the two. The astronomer interested in the orbit of Mars, for
example, may repeatedly observe its orbit from the earth's frame of
reference or from the frame of reference of an orbiting telescope. The
astronomer's theories of orbital motion can be tested against the
recurring orbit with direct observations. This is accessible to the
scientific method. On the other hand the observations of the planet
Mars does not privilege the scientific method to help the cosmologist
uncover the unique and non recurring events leading to its creation.
The objects of investigation of the paleontologist are the fossilized
remains of living creatures. These fossilized remains are absolutely
silent about the unique, non recurring and completely unobservable
history which lead to their creation. What scientific methodology can
test the conceivable-but-hypothetical claim of common descent which
describes unique events which occurred once and never again? How does
the scientific method test for 4.6 billion years of unique events which
occurred in prehistory and can never recur?
The paleontologist doesn't test common descent with his objects of
investigation he employs them to interpret those objects. These are
entirely different activities.
********************************
Pagano previously wrote to Dunford:
The hypothetical lineal connections are proposed to be unique and non
recurring.
MacRae replied:
Yes -- proposed *and* tested.
Pagano responds:
How exactly does one employ the scientific method----which is only
privileged to investigate regularities of nature----to test the
verisimilitude of some hypothetical, unique, non recurring series of
contigent events in unobserved history when they will never occur
again? Of course the modern secular theorist does nothing of the sort.
*********************************
Pagano previously wrote to Dunford:
As a result they are inaccessible to the scientific method. The
difference is like night and day.
MacRae replied:
Night and day on what planet? The difference is in instrumentation and
what is sampled, not in scientific procedure. Different theories,
different data, same procedure to propose hypotheses, make obsevations,
and repeatedly and independently test them.
Pagano replies:
When a scientist collects samples during the course of a
**reproducible*** experiment he controls those variables he wants to
control and samples those he finds of interest. He controls the
observable, repeatable, and reproducible history of such experiments and
the sampling of data can be reproduced. The paleontologist collects
samples, but he hasn't done the sampling-----unique history has done
it. The paleontologist has no way of knowing how such creatures were
sampled by the fossil record. And the paleontologist cannot reproduce
this sampling or the unique history within which it occurred; the
scientific method is not privileged in these investigations of
unobserved history. The differences are profound.
What independent tests have been conducted which don't already assume
the truth of common descent?
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
>
>Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
>NON REPEATING historical events.
incorrect. we see evolution, including speciation happen. we see it
form new species. we thus conclude that evolution can do this. it's a
law of nature.
unless creationists believe the universe is based on random chance,
there is no principle in science that says we cant apply the laws of
nature to past events.
The purported lineal links between all
>living things which existed in prehistory are neither observable nor
>reproducible in the laboratory.
we can establish links in the lab with organisms today. thus unless
nature is based on random chance, a theory, such as darwins, which
stated this happened in the past is scientific
creationism isnt. it is has no mechanism, and no description of the
origin of species. it is based on random chance...
>
>
>Pagano previously replied:
>Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
>repeating.
this cannot, however, be repeated by US. we cannot move heavenly
bodies. we theorize that they move under the influence of gravity
because we have formulated a theory about gravity. just as we do for
evolution.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Someone testing a particular theory about the motion of Mars could make
>repeated observations and test them
>against the theory.
just as we can do for evolution.
The hypothetical claim for example that a
>population of mesonychid transformed over time, in unobserved
>prehistory, into populations of bat and whale is neither repeating nor
>experimentally reproducible. This sort of misunderstanding is profound.
we can, and have, caused speciation. we have seen it. so pagano's
concept that evolution is wrong on this basis fails.
>
>> Pagano replies:
>The fossil record shows virtually no evidence of fossil creatures with
>nascent structures.
let's give pagano the benefit of the doubt and say he's right.
thus, he's wrong about evolution. he says so himself. 'virtually' is
NOT equivalent to NONE. even ONE transitional form falsifies
creationism and since it's predicted by evolution, verifies that
theory.
so if pagano is right, he's wrong. his slippery use of language hangs
him.
>
> Pagano replies:
>But the original discovery and original motion of Pluto was OBSERVED and
>recorded. And future investigators may repeatedly reproduce the
>observations. Common descent has never been observed and according to
>its own proponents may never be observed.
since speciation has been observed, so has common descent.
creationists dont like this data because it demonstrates common
descent is an observable, natural event. they prefer to handwave the
data away. that's why it's a religious, not a scientific belief.
> Pagano replies:
>The profound difference is that the fossil creatures---even if they
>could be correlated via some universal principle of superposition and
>universal principle of faunal succession---are the record of unique, non
>recurring events. I cannot conduct a reproducible experiment
>demonstrating common descent
sure you can. it's done every day. bacterial resistance is an example
of common descent. the descendent population of the resistant strain
is an example of common descent from the parent population.
pagano argues that there is no such thing as bacterial resistance...a
novel application of creationism.
>
> Pagano responds:
>I find it amazing that MacRae fails to see the profound difference
>between the two. The astronomer interested in the orbit of Mars, for
>example, may repeatedly observe its orbit from the earth's frame of
>reference or from the frame of reference of an orbiting telescope.
he cannot reproduce it. he cannot test it in the lab. he can
experiment with moving bodies, and draw conclusions about moving
bodies which he develops into theories about moving bodies that he
cannot test.
evolutionists test evolution in the lab. they then draw conclusions
about common descent based on these observations, and observations in
nature. exactly as the astronomer does.
either neither is science, or both are.
creationists are thus required to conclude that science does not
exist.
The
>astronomer's theories of orbital motion can be tested against the
>recurring orbit with direct observations. This is accessible to the
>scientific method. On the other hand the observations of the planet
>Mars does not privilege the scientific method to help the cosmologist
>uncover the unique and non recurring events leading to its creation.
unfortunately for pagano we see accretion disks around stars. we can
see them collapsing. we, again, draw conclusions about these leading
to theories about the creation of planets.
and creationists have no explanation at all. none. nada. zip. zilch.
that's why pagano is jealous of science.
> Pagano responds:
>How exactly does one employ the scientific method----which is only
>privileged to investigate regularities of nature----to test the
>verisimilitude of some hypothetical, unique, non recurring series of
>contigent events in unobserved history when they will never occur
>again? Of course the modern secular theorist does nothing of the sort.
if pagano can show that evolution isnt happening today, he's welcome
to do so
if he can show where creation is happening today, he's likewise
welcome to do so. creation is a non-recurring event that never
happened.
>
> Pagano replies:
>When a scientist collects samples during the course of a
>**reproducible*** experiment he controls those variables he wants to
>control and samples those he finds of interest.
if all science was good for was laboratory studies, it wouldnt be
applicable to anything at all. few things in the world behave as
nicely as they (sometimes) do in the lab...and even then it's damn
difficult to control things, as any scientist will testify.
nature is messier. nature has lots of variables that cant be
controlled. however, science is not a disconnected collection of
facts, but a practice of drawing conclusions about the world's
workings based on lab work. that's why it's useful. pagano ignores
this.
He controls the
>observable, repeatable, and reproducible history of such experiments and
>the sampling of data can be reproduced. The paleontologist collects
>samples, but he hasn't done the sampling-----unique history has done
>it. The paleontologist has no way of knowing how such creatures were
>sampled by the fossil record. And the paleontologist cannot reproduce
>this sampling or the unique history within which it occurred; the
>scientific method is not privileged in these investigations of
>unobserved history. The differences are profound.
as it is in chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy...and other
sciences, like evolutionary biology.
>
>What independent tests have been conducted which don't already assume
>the truth of common descent?
bacterial resistance.
i might ask the same question about creationism.
pagano, however, routinely refuses to answer. creationists dont like
to be embarrassed by such questions.
Neil W Rickert
>Pagano previously wrote:
>The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
>to be true a priori.
>MacRae replied:
>No more than, say, gravity or electromagnetism is assumed to be "true",
>scientifically-speaking.
> Pagano replies:
>Dunford and virtually every other secularist in this forum makes this
>same flawed analogy. The cause and effect relationships of gravity and
>electomagnetism can be observed repeatedly---yesterday, today, and
>tomorrow. Such is not the case with common descent. Experiments with
>gravity and electromagnetism can be repeated and apparent cause and
>effect relationships can be reproduced. The same cannot be said of the
>theory of common descent.
Pagano is confused.
Biology is all about descent. Visit the maternity ward, and they
will tell you that babies arise from descent. The same thing at the
seed farm, or the fish pond. We do see descent every day, and the
descent relationships can easily be reproduced.
If you extrapolate, you admittedly come to conclusions that are not
so easy to reproduce. But that also happens when you extrapolate
with gravity.
>Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
>NON REPEATING historical events.
No, not so. It is creations which is about unobserved unique (if it
ever occured) non-repeating mythical events.
ZenIsWhen
>Pagano previously wrote:
>The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
>to be true a priori.
>
>MacRae replied:
>No more than, say, gravity or electromagnetism is assumed to be "true",
>scientifically-speaking.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Dunford and virtually every other secularist in this forum makes this
>same flawed analogy. The cause and effect relationships of gravity and
>electomagnetism can be observed repeatedly---yesterday, today, and
>tomorrow. Such is not the case with common descent. Experiments with
>gravity and electromagnetism can be repeated and apparent cause and
>effect relationships can be reproduced. The same cannot be said of the
>theory of common descent.
Where is the flaw?
Evidence is available, and plentiful, to support gravity, electromagnetism and
evolution.
Don't you even understand that simple point? Or is your mind that corrupt and
dishonest that you even try to elude that simple truth?
>
>Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
>NON REPEATING historical events.
BASED ON EVIDENCE!
The purported lineal links between all
>living things which existed in prehistory are neither observable nor
>reproducible in the laboratory.
They damn sure are observable - through fossils.
Because the scientific method has no
>privilege to uncover unique history the modern secular theorist ASSUMES
>a great deal of these unique events into existence.
And you assume that your continuous ignorance will somehow be passed as
knowledge. Not Likely!
(hefty sized crap snip)
Elmer Bataitis
> Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
> NON REPEATING historical events.
Ahh, Back to Tony's claim that murderers cannot be convicted by the
weight of the evidence.
Tony, name *any* event that exactly repeats.
> What independent tests have been conducted which don't already assume
> the truth of common descent?
Where did you come from Tony? Were you placed on this planet ex nihilo?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> I see as inconsistent any theory which claims that matter and its
> properties are alone sufficient to create---that is to increase
> complexity and information.
Tony, are snowflakes "created" from water vapor or not?
Elmer Bataitis
> Pagano responds:
> The label "modern secular framework" isn't synonomous with atheism. I
> have used the label "modern secular framework" and "modern secular
> theories" in around 100 recent posts and no one could mistake how I used
> it.
Yup. Tony uses "modern secular framework" to mean something he doesn't
like.
> Pagano replies:
> This doesn't answer how much of the modern secular framework you accept,
> but it is related. In what domains is the scientific method valid? And
> in your opinion is the scientific method privileged to uncover the truth
> of unique, non recurring events in unobserved history?
You know it is Tony. You just don't like the conclusions it reaches.
> It is true that some probability theorists have employed a propensity
> interpretation of probablistic events. Problem is that no one has been
> able to demonstrate that random events (or random noise) conjoined to
> any known natural mechanism can accumulate the large amounts of
> information necessary to create a complex celestial body, a cell, the
> human brain, or the eye.
Some has Tony. His name was Darwin. Try reading his books.
> Pagano replies:
> The chrisitan faith opposes purely materialistic theories of creation;..
John 3:12!
Mike Dunford
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> Mike Dunford <mdun...@impop.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:387FABB3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> > posted and emailed
> > --==--
> >
> > A Pagano wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Pagano replies:
> > > The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
> > > to be true a priori.
> >
> > Incorrect. The theory of common descent is an adequate explanation
>
> A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions, predictions,
> etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and found to hold in light
> such carefull testing. The common descent hypothesis has never achieved
> such a status, and as such remains merely a hypothesis.
So you say. I would say that there have been more than enough tests,
especially genetic comparisons, but also including fossil record
evidence, to establish common descent as more than just a mere
hypothesis.
I am somewhat curious as to why you feel that common descent fails to
meet the requirements you list for a theory.
> A hypothesis is by itself not "adequate" to explain a matter. Unless one
> holds to a shockingly low standard of "adequacy".
See above.
> > for
> > fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the Beagle,
> > for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
> > Wallace, and for various other points of data.
> >
> > If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it would
> > need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
> >
>
> "A priori" here means "taken in front of", or "assumed beforehand". The
> common descent hypothesis is routinely taken as true by the modern secular
> theorist and then the "evidence" is ostensibly "explained" in light of this
> assumption. This is an unacceptable circular pattern of reasoning.
> Unacceptable to the rational that is.
That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists. This
is similar to someone working in quantum mechanics taking the
uncertainty principle as true. new evidence in either case could lead to
a reassessment of underlying theory.
> > > Since Darwin the modern secular theorist has
> > > assumed that all living things are connected lineally via common
> > > ancestors.
> >
> > This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
> > that the earth moves around the sun.
> >
>
> Carefull here. Since Galileo, investigators have availed themselves of the
> opportunity to put Galileo's and Newton's claims to a carefull testing out
> process. Important non-intuitive siuations can be contrived so as to
> further verify very risky and easily/obviously falsifiable predictions,
> descriptions, etc. You are making a huge unwarranted leap by attempting
> this weak analogy. The common descent hypothesis is not even really
> classifiable as this kind of science.
I would say that there are a large number of potential observations
which could falsify common descent. I could find a Smilodon (sabre-tooth
cat) skull tomorrow in the middle of the Chemung (Devonian) formation. I
could find a T-rex in the Beekmantown limestone (Cambrian) I could find
Archaeopteryx in the Burgess shale, or Homo Sapiens in the Pound
Quartzite. There are thousands of more examples -- in fact, a near
infinite number of them, and that's only the evidence from the fossil
record. I could cite almost as many exaples of genetic findings that
could falsify common descent.
I think common descent has been subjected to a far more rigorous
investigation than you are aware of.
> It could only qualify as a proposed
> historical "reconstruction" - it must not be even labled as "scientific"
> lest the uninitiated assume it has been validated by rigorous scientific
> investigation - the way Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were.
Careful here -- science is not limited to physics. The methods used by
physics do not apply to all areas of science, but that does not mean
that anything that isn't physics is not science. In fact, physics
suffers from its own set of limitations. For a good example of this,
look at the debate between Kelvin and numerous geologists over the age
of the earth.
> In this
> sense, Darwin's work does not belong in the same classification as the work
> of these men. The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much
> less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the way a
> forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only help us
> understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the actual
> historical development.
If I were a defense attorney for a capital case, I would want you and
Pagano on the jury. By the logic of your arguments, I would expect that
you would aquit automaticly in the absense of an eyewitness, no matter
how strong the circumstancial case against my client.
As you point out, there are a number of similarities between the work of
a detective and the work of a scientist in any of the historical
sciences. I would point out that the work of a detective is often good
enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> > > If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent
> > > then his cry of indignation will get him some mileage. However, if he
> > > accepts the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural
> > > selection, and historical contingency which are offered to explain the
> > > lineal connection between ancestor and descendent populations then his
> > > indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
> > > materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and its
> > > properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The modern
> > > secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent creative
> > > properties and none have been found.
> >
> > Your definition of "pure materialism" differs, I believe, from that used
> > by most others on this group.
>
> So what???
This is part of a seconary discussion that has been going on for some
time, involving the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution. It
isn't directly involved with the discussion above.
> >Most people here assume that for a theory
> > to be "purely materialistic," it must *actively exclude* everything but
> > matter. By your definition, it appears that any theory which does not
> > *specificly include* the supernatural is "purely materialistic."
>
> Partially true, but you overstate.
Which part do you feel is true, and how do I overstate?
[rest snipped]
--Mike Dunford
Mike Goodrich
In article <3882A9B3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
mdun...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
A comparison is not a test, as no active dynamics are witnessed. In
any case, I stand by my claim that
" A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions,
predictions,
etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and found to
hold in light
such carefull testing. The common descent hypothesis has
never achieved
such a status, and as such remains merely a hypothesis"
I am speaking scientifically here. If you want to say that common
descent is a *forensic* hypothesis, well then that is an entirely
different matter. I am opposed to any labeling of c.d. as a "scientifc
hypothesis" - because it is a gilded and misleading - even deceptive -
label. Truth in advertising that's what I say. Especially to the good
people out there who pay for it. Especially so that the young school
children will not be deceived by the indulgences of adults who should
know better. Shame on them for deceiving and openly propogandizing the
very impressionable young minds before they have an opportunity to
prepare themselves against an open and subversive propoganda campaign.
> I am somewhat curious as to why you feel that common descent fails to
> meet the requirements you list for a theory.
>
See above.
> > A hypothesis is by itself not "adequate" to explain a matter.
Unless one
> > holds to a shockingly low standard of "adequacy".
>
> See above.
>
> > > for
> > > fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the
Beagle,
> > > for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
> > > Wallace, and for various other points of data.
> > >
> > > If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it
would
> > > need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
> > >
> >
> > "A priori" here means "taken in front of", or "assumed
beforehand". The
> > common descent hypothesis is routinely taken as true by the modern
secular
> > theorist and then the "evidence" is ostensibly "explained" in light
of this
> > assumption. This is an unacceptable circular pattern of reasoning.
> > Unacceptable to the rational that is.
>
> That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
> evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
Where is the skeptic that will not stand for taking someones word for
it just because it tickles their ears, and the speaker thinks his word
should be taken for it?
>This
> is similar to someone working in quantum mechanics taking the
> uncertainty principle as true. new evidence in either case could lead
to
> a reassessment of underlying theory.
It is not at all similar, for I may *confirm* the uncertainty principle
via a *carefull testing out process*. Why do you make such glib
statements?
That is not an observation. It is the discovery of an artifact - quite
a different thing. It is logically fallacious to reason thusly:
"I claim there is a process X.
I claim that process X has been operative.
I claim that process X is capable of producing artifacts Y.
I have discovered artifact Y, therefore I have proved that:
process X has been operative,
process X *actually* did produce artifact Y.
This is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and all the insiders
give their approval.
So why is there any debate?
It is required that the little children be told only this and
all criticism of this approach be excluded."
>I could cite almost as many exaples of genetic findings that
> could falsify common descent.
Their absence does not support c.d. beyond reasonable doubt.
It is entirely reasonable to understand genetic findings as evidence
for the application of common design principles.
>
> I think common descent has been subjected to a far more rigorous
> investigation than you are aware of.
>
> > It could only qualify as a proposed
> > historical "reconstruction" - it must not be even labled
as "scientific"
> > lest the uninitiated assume it has been validated by rigorous
scientific
> > investigation - the way Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were.
>
> Careful here -- science is not limited to physics. The methods used by
> physics do not apply to all areas of science
I think that is a debatable issue.
>, but that does not mean
> that anything that isn't physics is not science.
That's also debatable. Physics is the field I am most schooled and
experienced in. IMHO, any science which is utlimately materialistic is
utltimately about physics.
That said, I would be the first to admit that, because of my training,
I am accustomed and essentially demanding of a certain rigor in
scientific endeavors that is quite obviously not shared by
evolutionists (to use a broad term). I am reluctant to let anything
pass as "science" which does not "tow the line".
To see what is substituted for "science" by evolutionists concerns me
greatly. Tony has explicated this at length. The integrity of science
is at stake. Present and future generations of impressionable school
children are at stake. To much to give it a free pass. Where are the
skeptics of the age?
> In fact, physics
> suffers from its own set of limitations. For a good example of this,
> look at the debate between Kelvin and numerous geologists over the age
> of the earth.
Nether of which could be certain what the correct answer is, thus make
no compelling point.
>
> > In this
> > sense, Darwin's work does not belong in the same classification as
the work
> > of these men. The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by
a much
> > less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the
way a
> > forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only help
us
> > understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the actual
> > historical development.
>
> If I were a defense attorney for a capital case, I would want you and
> Pagano on the jury. By the logic of your arguments, I would expect
that
> you would aquit automaticly in the absense of an eyewitness, no matter
> how strong the circumstancial case against my client.
You would be making a grave error. For I beleive I can speak for both
Tony and myself (with apologies to Tony if that is not the case) when I
say that both of us seem to be keenly aware of and share a well founded
concern over the distinction between *scientifically* vs *forensically*
acquired knowledge. Thus I am compelled to restate:
"The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much
less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability -
the way a
forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only
help us
understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the
actual
historical development."
Thus only actual empirical testing can determine the scope of descent
with modification in terms of providing a rational account of how much
of the entire history of life's development *even could* be accounted
for by this mechanism. Your comparison methodoly cited above is
hopelessly insidiously/incestuously contaminated with circular
reasoning in the aforementioned a priori manner.
>
> As you point out, there are a number of similarities between the work
of
> a detective and the work of a scientist in any of the historical
> sciences. I would point out that the work of a detective is often good
> enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
Indeed. And while an essential endeavor, ONE MUST NEVER CLAIM THAT
THIS WORK IS SCIENTIFIC. Do you agree with me then that the history of
life is in reality a forensic/historical proposition?
(Note: while the term "forensic science" is with us, I would not
consider it a "science" as such. It is more a methodology - for lack
of a better word.)
> > > > If Provine limits his assent to the theory of common descent
> > > > then his cry of indignation will get him some mileage.
However, if he
> > > > accepts the empircial biological doctrines of mechanism, natural
> > > > selection, and historical contingency which are offered to
explain the
> > > > lineal connection between ancestor and descendent populations
then his
> > > > indignation is wasted since these are explicity and purely
> > > > materialistic. That is, these theories assume that matter and
its
> > > > properties are alone necessary and sufficient to create. The
modern
> > > > secular theorist does not propose that matter has any inherent
creative
> > > > properties and none have been found.
> > >
> > > Your definition of "pure materialism" differs, I believe, from
that used
> > > by most others on this group.
> >
> > So what???
>
> This is part of a seconary discussion that has been going on for some
> time, involving the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution. It
> isn't directly involved with the discussion above.
>
I understand and was not attempting to speak for Tony or anyone else on
this issue. I responded this way because I interpreted your comment to
be another appeal to the gallery. Being somewhat of a stickler on the
consistent (and by all means correct) use of terms, I decided to make
this comment. Perhaps it would have been better left out.
> > >Most people here assume that for a theory
> > > to be "purely materialistic," it must *actively exclude*
everything but
> > > matter. By your definition, it appears that any theory which does
not
> > > *specificly include* the supernatural is "purely materialistic."
> >
> > Partially true, but you overstate.
>
> Which part do you feel is true, and how do I overstate?
> [rest snipped]
>
Well, "purely materialistic" equating to "*actively exclude* everything
but matter" is true essentially by definition.
But I do not agree with your second statement.
That said, it depends somewhat on the precise comparison of "natural"
with "material". Material I feel is obvious enough, in my view, as it
equates to energy + natural law alone. Natural is not quite so
obvious, since I do not equate thought or independant initiative with
the stricktly material, and believe that e.g., the animals exhibit
these behaviours.
> --Mike Dunford
>
>
I hope I have been clear,
--Mike Goodrich
--
"Could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by a
process we cannot completely specify? The intellectually responsible
answer is that we do not know -- we have no way of knowing. But that
is not the answer evolutionary theorists accept."
--David Berlinski
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich wrote in message <85vsk6$p57$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Why is witnessing active dynamics (whatever that means) necessary
for a test?
> In
>any case, I stand by my claim that
>
> " A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions,
>predictions,
> etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and found to
>hold in light
> such carefull testing. The common descent hypothesis has
>never achieved
> such a status, and as such remains merely a hypothesis"
>
>I am speaking scientifically here. If you want to say that common
>descent is a *forensic* hypothesis, well then that is an entirely
>different matter.
Why is forensics not science?
>I am opposed to any labeling of c.d. as a "scientifc
>hypothesis" - because it is a gilded and misleading - even deceptive -
>label. Truth in advertising that's what I say. Especially to the good
>people out there who pay for it. Especially so that the young school
>children will not be deceived by the indulgences of adults who should
>know better. Shame on them for deceiving and openly propogandizing the
>very impressionable young minds before they have an opportunity to
>prepare themselves against an open and subversive propoganda campaign.
I can think of few things more deceptive than the above redifinition
of science merely to feel good about ignoring scientific results.
[snip]
>> > > for
>> > > fossil succession, which was known before Darwin set foot on the
>Beagle,
>> > > for the biogeographical points independently noted by Darwin and
>> > > Wallace, and for various other points of data.
>> > >
>> > > If the theory of common descent were an a priori assumption, it
>would
>> > > need to predate the discovery of the evidence listed above.
>> > >
>> >
>> > "A priori" here means "taken in front of", or "assumed
>beforehand". The
>> > common descent hypothesis is routinely taken as true by the modern
>secular
>> > theorist and then the "evidence" is ostensibly "explained" in light
>of this
>> > assumption. This is an unacceptable circular pattern of reasoning.
>> > Unacceptable to the rational that is.
Well, the hypothesis did not a priori precede the observations used to
establish it. You do not argue against it, instead devolving to a weaker
statement. That now most people are taught common descent before
the facts used to establish it, so it is not a priori for them. Big deal!
Given how science is taught, you could say that for ALL theories.
>> That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
>> evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
>This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
>well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
I should hope that scientists have *expertise* whereas the John on the
street does not. Why do you think papers are sent to *PEER* review?
Is that elitist or an appeal to authority?
John the plumber should reralize that, yes, while he may have an
opinion on some science-related question, he should not delude
himself.
>Where is the skeptic that will not stand for taking someones word for
>it just because it tickles their ears, and the speaker thinks his word
>should be taken for it?
Science if *filled* with those people! It is like pulling teeth to get
others
to actually read some science (it's too hard). How much easier to say
"It must all be supposition, therefore my opinion is just as good or
better."
>>This
>> is similar to someone working in quantum mechanics taking the
>> uncertainty principle as true. new evidence in either case could lead
>to
>> a reassessment of underlying theory.
>It is not at all similar, for I may *confirm* the uncertainty principle
>via a *carefull testing out process*. Why do you make such glib
>statements?
Similarly, one could reassess the evidence that led to common descent
being accepted, maybe find some more on their own.
Not really. Observations can be made on artifacts.
> It is logically fallacious to reason thusly:
> "I claim there is a process X.
There is always a reason given. That is, claiming process X is not the
first
step. You declined to argue that with respect to common descent. It makes
one wonder why we need to continue.
> I claim that process X has been operative.
Again, why?
> I claim that process X is capable of producing artifacts Y.
Why?
> I have discovered artifact Y, therefore I have proved that:
> process X has been operative,
> process X *actually* did produce artifact Y.
Nope, only that process X *could have* made Y.
> This is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and all the insiders
>give their approval.
Sorry. Very little would be accepted on the basis of just one
observation. What would be indicated is if more reasons
(particularly unforeseen) to think process X produced artifact Y,
with no conceivable alternatives.
> So why is there any debate?
You think common descent, evolution, *anything* in science was
accepted with no debate?
There are even now points of acrimoniuos debate, but usually
about things that require the basics to be understood.
> It is required that the little children be told only this and
>all criticism of this approach be excluded."
This little scenario is *quite* different than what science does, even
forensics. I agree that children should be told the truth. Please
stay away from them.
>>I could cite almost as many exaples of genetic findings that
>> could falsify common descent.
>Their absence does not support c.d. beyond reasonable doubt.
>It is entirely reasonable to understand genetic findings as evidence
>for the application of common design principles.
Start doing so. For example, why do silent mutations follow the same
tree required by common descent?
Do you even know what I am referring to?
>> I think common descent has been subjected to a far more rigorous
>> investigation than you are aware of.
>>
>> > It could only qualify as a proposed
>> > historical "reconstruction" - it must not be even labled
>as "scientific"
>> > lest the uninitiated assume it has been validated by rigorous
>scientific
>> > investigation - the way Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were.
>>
>> Careful here -- science is not limited to physics. The methods used by
>> physics do not apply to all areas of science
>I think that is a debatable issue.
Well, debate it then! I just wrote a rather long post which essentially
said
there is no single scientific method. The only constraint is that natural
law
be used and that alternative natural explanations considered and eliminated.
One only needs to see how difficult a time the philosophers of science have
had.
Experiments are a nice way to do this, but not the sole way. There are
whole fields of physics that are theoretical. They ARE science.
>>, but that does not mean
>> that anything that isn't physics is not science.
>That's also debatable. Physics is the field I am most schooled and
>experienced in. IMHO, any science which is utlimately materialistic is
>utltimately about physics.
The simplicity of physics may have mislead you into thinking that the
approaches physicists use are necessary for all of science. 'Tain't so.
>That said, I would be the first to admit that, because of my training,
>I am accustomed and essentially demanding of a certain rigor in
>scientific endeavors that is quite obviously not shared by
>evolutionists (to use a broad term). I am reluctant to let anything
>pass as "science" which does not "tow the line".
This is merely prejudice. I could say that physics is inadequate to
describe biological systems because it can't be done now.
Therefore it can't "tow the line", and therefore will not be science (yet).
They can't even describe something as simple as water!
>To see what is substituted for "science" by evolutionists concerns me
>greatly. Tony has explicated this at length. The integrity of science
>is at stake. Present and future generations of impressionable school
>children are at stake. To much to give it a free pass. Where are the
>skeptics of the age?
To see what is substituted for thinking by creationists concerns me greatly.
>> In fact, physics
>> suffers from its own set of limitations. For a good example of this,
>> look at the debate between Kelvin and numerous geologists over the age
>> of the earth.
>
>Nether of which could be certain what the correct answer is, thus make
>no compelling point.
I think that history has quite made the point. That queen of the sciences
was wrong and that field that can't "tow the line" got it right.
>> > In this
>> > sense, Darwin's work does not belong in the same classification as
>the work
>> > of these men. The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by
>a much
>> > less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the
>way a
>> > forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only help
>us
>> > understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the actual
>> > historical development.
>>
>> If I were a defense attorney for a capital case, I would want you and
>> Pagano on the jury. By the logic of your arguments, I would expect
>that
>> you would aquit automaticly in the absense of an eyewitness, no matter
>> how strong the circumstancial case against my client.
>You would be making a grave error. For I beleive I can speak for both
>Tony and myself (with apologies to Tony if that is not the case) when I
>say that both of us seem to be keenly aware of and share a well founded
>concern over the distinction between *scientifically* vs *forensically*
>acquired knowledge. Thus I am compelled to restate:
without justification
> "The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much
> less certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability -
>the way a
> forensic or historical investigation might. Science can only
>help us
> understand what is credible/tenable; it cannot identify the
>actual
> historical development."
Credibility only depends on the strengths of the arguments made,
and that alone. There is no magic distinction between scientific
processes that study items forensically vs. seeing the event
in real time. Tony (and apparently you) do not realize that there are
many scientific fields that experiments (as you define them) on the
objects of study are not done or are not possible. Are these scientific?
Now, do you wish to discuss how good the arguments are based on their
merits, or just assert the inferiority of forensic methods? Many are not
buying that.
>Thus only actual empirical testing can determine the scope of descent
>with modification in terms of providing a rational account of how much
>of the entire history of life's development *even could* be accounted
>for by this mechanism. Your comparison methodoly cited above is
>hopelessly insidiously/incestuously contaminated with circular
>reasoning in the aforementioned a priori manner.
You have *NOT* addressed the a priori issue. Therfore there is no
circular reasoning, as you assert. If you would actually make an
argument, you may see it for yourself.
>> As you point out, there are a number of similarities between the work
>of
>> a detective and the work of a scientist in any of the historical
>> sciences. I would point out that the work of a detective is often good
>> enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>Indeed. And while an essential endeavor, ONE MUST NEVER CLAIM THAT
>THIS WORK IS SCIENTIFIC. Do you agree with me then that the history of
>life is in reality a forensic/historical proposition?
Yes. But why is forensics not science?
>(Note: while the term "forensic science" is with us, I would not
>consider it a "science" as such. It is more a methodology - for lack
>of a better word.)
Gee, just like science is a methodology? Let us look at ballistics.
From multiple observations (experiments) different guns leave
different groove patterns. Hypothesis now theory: Similar groove
patterns are extremely unlikely to have arisen from different guns.
This is so well established that there is no controversy - the Johnnie
Cochrans of this world would certainly made use of any. So how is this
process of elimination uncertain?
Now let us look at astrophysics (science - yes, no?) - the idea that
fusion is responsible. There is currently no quantitative model that
accounts for all observations. So how is this much more certain than
that unreliable unscientific (so you say) forensics method?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Dunford
Mike Goodrich wrote:
> mdun...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> > Mike Goodrich wrote:
> > > Mike Dunford <mdun...@impop.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> > > news:387FABB3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> > > > posted and emailed
> > > > --==--
> > > >
> > > > A Pagano wrote:
[snip]
> > So you say. I would say that there have been more than enough tests,
> > especially genetic comparisons, but also including fossil record
> > evidence, to establish common descent as more than just a mere
> > hypothesis.
>
> A comparison is not a test, as no active dynamics are witnessed.
This is a definition of test that I am not familiar with. In my
understanding of the term, from both my background in science and my
course work in philosophy of science, I have found "test" to mean a
falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.
> In any case, I stand by my claim that
>
> " A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions,
> predictions, etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and
> found to hold in light such carefull testing. The common descent
> hypothesis has never achieved such a status, and as such remains
> merely a hypothesis"
>
> I am speaking scientifically here.
You have given me no reason to accept your definition of test as being
the correct "scientific" definition.
> If you want to say that common
> descent is a *forensic* hypothesis, well then that is an entirely
> different matter. I am opposed to any labeling of c.d. as a "scientifc
> hypothesis" - because it is a gilded and misleading - even deceptive -
> label.
With all due respect, I would sat that the crux of our disagreement in
this matter is over the question of why a "forensic" hypothesis is (or
is not) science. You obviously feel that it is not. Supporting this
argument, you have at present only your own assertion that forensic
hypotheses are not testable because tests require the witnessing of
"active dynamics."
On the other hand, I argue that as long as a statement is capable of
being proven false it is scientific. This argument comes from the
definitions of science given by several philosophers of science,
including Popper and Ruse, among others. This, in your mind, might
constitute only another argument from authority, so I will elaborate
further.
A long recognized problem in philosophy has been the problem of
induction: that is, how it is possible within logic to draw general
conclusions from specific observations. This is a key issue in the
philosophy of science, because in order for a theory to be verified (or
proven true), there must be a legitimate way to draw general conclusions
from limited observation. At one time, there were a large number of
philosophers attempting to solve the problem of induction and to develop
a verificationist model of science. Karl Popper pointed out that the
problem of induction remains, and cannot be solved: you cannot logically
prove a general statement from limited observations because you cannot
know for certain that the next observation will not disprove the theory.
Popper suggested that instead of attempting to *verify* a theory,
scientists actually are trying to *disprove* or *falsify* the theory.
That is, a sound scientific theory makes predictions which are capable
of being definitely proven false.
This is admittedly a gross oversimplification of the issue, and others
have illustrated the problems with a naive falsificationism, but it
should do to illustrate my point.
> Truth in advertising that's what I say. Especially to the good
> people out there who pay for it. Especially so that the young school
> children will not be deceived by the indulgences of adults who should
> know better. Shame on them for deceiving and openly propogandizing the
> very impressionable young minds before they have an opportunity to
> prepare themselves against an open and subversive propoganda campaign.
Ah, the education question. Yes, let's look at that for a minute. I have
no problems -- in fact I think it would be a damn good thing -- with
teaching more science, and especially more scientific methodology than
we do. By all means, let's start off 7th or 9th graders with a mandatory
course in scientific methodology. Let's teach them the methods of
physics, and the methods of geology. Let's show them how those methods
differ. Let's also teach them some philosophy of science, and let them
see that although methods differ, the different sciences are really
doing the same thing.
[snip]
> > That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
> > evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
>
> This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
> well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
Beg pardon. I will refrain for the moment for space reasons, but I will
be more than happy to outline the case in a separate post if you wish.
[snip]
> > This is similar to someone working in quantum mechanics taking the
> > uncertainty principle as true. new evidence in either case could lead
> > to a reassessment of underlying theory.
>
> It is not at all similar, for I may *confirm* the uncertainty principle
> via a *carefull testing out process*. Why do you make such glib
> statements?
Be careful with the accusations of glib statements. As I have pointed
out above, it is *impossible* to confirm any statement in science. In
fact, it will remain impossible to do so unless someone can develop a
precise method of predicting the future with absolute certainty.
As an aside, I would wonder exactly what methodology one might use to
experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand it,
the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and the
position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously. If this
is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven, but
all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't do it
yet.
[snip]
> > > Carefull here. Since Galileo, investigators have availed
> > > themselves of the opportunity to put Galileo's and Newton's
> > > claims to a carefull testing out process. Important non-intuitive
> > > siuations can be contrived so as to further verify very risky and
> > > easily/obviously falsifiable predictions, descriptions, etc. You
> > > are making a huge unwarranted leap by attempting this weak analogy.
> > > The common descent hypothesis is not even really classifiable as
> > > this kind of science.
> >
> > I would say that there are a large number of potential observations
> > which could falsify common descent. I could find a Smilodon (sabre-
> > tooth cat) skull tomorrow in the middle of the Chemung (Devonian)
> > formation. I could find a T-rex in the Beekmantown limestone (Cambrian)
> > I could find Archaeopteryx in the Burgess shale, or Homo Sapiens in the
> > Pound Quartzite. There are thousands of more examples -- in fact, a near
> > infinite number of them, and that's only the evidence from the fossil
> > record.
>
> That is not an observation. It is the discovery of an artifact - quite
> a different thing.
I'm sorry, in what way are those not potentially falsifying "discoveries
of artifacts" for common descent? How is the prediction that there will
never be a Homo sapiens skeleton found preserved in the Pound Quartzite
not, "very risky and
easily/obviously falsifiable?" How is the statement that there will
never be a trilobite found in the Calvert formation not, "very risky and
easily/obviously falsifiable? How is the declaration that there will
never be a Tyrannosaurus found in the Chemung formation not, "very risky
and easily/obviously falsifiable?"
> It is logically fallacious to reason thusly:
>
> "I claim there is a process X.
> I claim that process X has been operative.
> I claim that process X is capable of producing artifacts Y.
> I have discovered artifact Y, therefore I have proved that:
> process X has been operative,
> process X *actually* did produce artifact Y.
I agree that your statement is logically fallacious. That is not the
argument I am making, however.
[snip]
> >I could cite almost as many exaples of genetic findings that
> > could falsify common descent.
>
> Their absence does not support c.d. beyond reasonable doubt.
> It is entirely reasonable to understand genetic findings as evidence
> for the application of common design principles.
Yes, let's look at "common design" for a moment. "Common design" really
doesn't care what the genetic evidence looks like. They can easily claim
any result as supporting evidence. "Common design" does not take risks
the way common descent does. Falsifications for "common design" are not
being sought. Risky predictions are not being made. Common descent makes
risky predictions about the genetic evidence.
[snip]
> > > It could only qualify as a proposed historical "reconstruction" -
> > > it must not be even labled as "scientific" lest the uninitiated assume
> > > it has been validated by rigorous scientific investigation - the way
> > > Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were.
> >
> > Careful here -- science is not limited to physics. The methods used by
> > physics do not apply to all areas of science
>
> I think that is a debatable issue.
Then by all means debate the issue. To date, you have not done so. You
have made a few assertions, but have not supported them with anything
more substantial than comments like the one above.
If you want me to consider your argument, at a bare minimum you must
explain what "active dynamics" are and why they are necessary for a
test. Also, you must explain why physics is more certain than "forensic
science."
> >, but that does not mean
> > that anything that isn't physics is not science.
>
> That's also debatable.
Again, please feel free to debate it. Why isn't something that is not
pure physics science?
> Physics is the field I am most schooled and
> experienced in. IMHO, any science which is utlimately materialistic is
> utltimately about physics.
That does not mean that the same methods can be applied. To this point,
physics is not great at working with highly complex and variable systems
-- like ecosystems or weather.
> That said, I would be the first to admit that, because of my training,
> I am accustomed and essentially demanding of a certain rigor in
> scientific endeavors that is quite obviously not shared by
> evolutionists (to use a broad term). I am reluctant to let anything
> pass as "science" which does not "tow the line".
I am insulted by this statement on a number of separate grounds. First
of all, you assume that there is not the same level of "rigor" in the
scientific activities of those who are unfortunate enough not to be
physicists. I have spent my share of time in physics labs, and I have
spent time in paleontology labs. I have not personally noticed a
difference in the level of "rigor." You seem to be suggesting that "if
it ain't math, it ain't science." If this is the case, I suggest you
spend some time really looking at the way work is done in other labs.
Second, you imply that anything that doesn't meet your criteria as a
physicist doesn't qualify as science at all. That statement is both
arrogant and condescending. Simultaneously, it is unsupported by
anything more reliable than your own bald assertions. If that is the
level of "rigor" which you demand for your lab proofs, your work is in
sad shape indeed. I again invite you to explain to me what precisely
makes the results of physics more certain to be true than common
descent.
[snip]
> > In fact, physics
> > suffers from its own set of limitations. For a good example of this,
> > look at the debate between Kelvin and numerous geologists over the age
> > of the earth.
>
> Nether of which could be certain what the correct answer is, thus make
> no compelling point.
That is one of my points. Physics is no more certain than geology. Nor
is it any less certain.
My other point is that a number of geologists in that debate recognized
the precision of Kelvin's math. At the same time, they recognized that
there was no way within the known physical laws to explain the rock
record in the amount of time Kelvin allowed. They suggested that one of
Kelvin's assumptions must have been incorrect. Kelvin, quite naturally,
disagreed. The debate continued beyond the deaths of many of the initial
participants until the heat from radioactive decay was identified as
Kelvin's missing assumption. The corrected age figures were within the
range of predictions the geological data gave.
In this case, although geology did not use the "correct" methods in the
perspective of the physicists, the geological method successfully
predicted that one of Kelvin's assumptions was incorrect.
[snip]
> > If I were a defense attorney for a capital case, I would want you and
> > Pagano on the jury. By the logic of your arguments, I would expect
> > that you would aquit automaticly in the absense of an eyewitness, no
> > matter how strong the circumstancial case against my client.
>
> You would be making a grave error. For I beleive I can speak for both
> Tony and myself (with apologies to Tony if that is not the case) when I
> say that both of us seem to be keenly aware of and share a well founded
> concern over the distinction between *scientifically* vs *forensically*
> acquired knowledge. Thus I am compelled to restate:
>
> "The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much less
> certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the way a
> forensic or historical investigation might.
On what grounds do you argue that forensics is "much less certain?"
Please outline the basis for your opinion that the results of physics
are more certain.
[snip]
> > As you point out, there are a number of similarities between the work
> > of a detective and the work of a scientist in any of the historical
> > sciences. I would point out that the work of a detective is often good
> > enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> >
>
> Indeed. And while an essential endeavor, ONE MUST NEVER CLAIM THAT
> THIS WORK IS SCIENTIFIC.
You have yet to give a reason that claim should not be made. Forensic
statements are falsifiable. Unless you can demonstrate that the
conclusions of physics are definitely, necessarily, and universally more
certain than forensic conclusions, I think the claim is quite valid.
> Do you agree with me then that the history of
> life is in reality a forensic/historical proposition?
I do not agree that "forensic/historical propositions" are unscientific.
> (Note: while the term "forensic science" is with us, I would not
> consider it a "science" as such. It is more a methodology - for lack
> of a better word.)
Actually, you picked a pretty good word. Forensics is a methodology for
making falsifiable statements about physical events which have taken
place in the natural world. Physics is also a methodology for making
falsifiable statements about physical events which have taken place in
the natural world.
[snip]
[I have removed the rest of the response which discussed "pure
materialism" for space reasons, since it really isn't relevant to the
discussion above. If you are interested, email me and I'll send you a
response on that, also.]
--Mike Dunford
Zeus Thibault
> Pagano previously wrote:
> The theory of common descent is assumed by the modern secular theorist
> to be true a priori.
>
> MacRae replied:
> No more than, say, gravity or electromagnetism is assumed to be "true",
> scientifically-speaking.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Dunford and virtually every other secularist in this forum makes this
> same flawed analogy. The cause and effect relationships of gravity and
> electomagnetism can be observed repeatedly---yesterday, today, and
> tomorrow.
Only in a limited sense. For instance, we cannot observe today any past
event that was a result of gravity or electromagnetism (excepting for the
fact that all events are actually observed after they actually happened due
to the noninfinite speed of light). One example would be the moon's
craters. Also, many evolutionary phenomena can be observed today - natural
selection in the wild, artificial selection, mutations, extinctions, etc.
> Such is not the case with common descent.
We have observed speciations, a fundamental part of common descent.
> Experiments with
> gravity and electromagnetism can be repeated and apparent cause and
> effect relationships can be reproduced. The same cannot be said of the
> theory of common descent.
Actually, many phenomena due to gravity or electromagnetism cannot be
repeated. We can never repeat experimentally the recent impact of a comet
into Jupiter. We probably will never be able to experimentally recreate a
planet orbiting the Sun.
> Common descent is an assumption about the course of UNOBSERVED, UNIQUE,
> NON REPEATING historical events.
It is not an assumption - it is a hypothesis that explains much otherwise
unrelated data via one unifying principle, it makes many predictions that
have been observed, and it is open to falsification. Just like any other
good hypothesis.
> The purported lineal links between all
> living things which existed in prehistory are neither observable nor
> reproducible in the laboratory.
So? Phenomena don't have to be "reproducible in the laboratory" to be
scientific. If that were the case, we'd have to throw out most of science.
How do we know the hydorogen/helium composition of the Sun? We can never
repeat that one in the lab.
> Because the scientific method has no
> privilege to uncover unique history the modern secular theorist ASSUMES
> a great deal of these unique events into existence.
> **********************************
You state that the scientific method cannot "uncover unique history" - but
can you give any arguments why that must be so? If you are right, then
forensics is merely metaphysics. So is archaeology. So is all of history.
Remember, Pagan, everything is history except for the present, and the
present turns into the past pretty darn fast. Thus, all of science is
actually about uncovering unique historical events. Period.
> [snip]
>
> Dunford previously made the same analogy:
> This is similar to saying that since Galileo, scientists have *assumed*
> that the earth moves around the sun.
>
> Pagano previously replied:
> Not quite. The movement of the celestial bodies is observable and
> repeating.
>
> MacRae replied:
> No it isn't. Are people observing every second, and every
> vanishingly-small fraction of a second, of the position of the planets
> as they progress in their orbits? I think not.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is hilarious. MacRae suggests that because every second of a
> RECURRING, REPEATING, NON UNIQUE, AND OBSERVABLE event is not
> observed that this fact makes UNIQUE, NON REPEATING, AND UNOBSERVABLE
> events in PREHISTORY analogous and equally accessible to the scientific
> method. This is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is your assertion that some events are recurring and
repeating. Every event occupies a unique position in time and space. Any
event that has consequences, whether it is happening now or whether it
happened in the past is observable. "Observation" is never actually
observing the very event in question, it is always observation of secondary
consequences of the event later in time. How is common descent
unobservable? If it happened, it had consequences, and we should be able to
observe these consequences. And we do.
> Someone testing a particular theory about the motion of Mars could make
> repeated observations and test them
> against the theory.
The same is true about the evolution of whales, or any other organism.
> The hypothetical claim for example that a
> population of mesonychid transformed over time, in unobserved
> prehistory, into populations of bat and whale is neither repeating nor
> experimentally reproducible. This sort of misunderstanding is profound.
> ***********************************
We cannot recreate the events that led to any particular moon crater,
either. So what? Hypothesizing that mesonychids transformed over time into
whales makes many specific predictions about what should be found in the
fossil record. And these predictions have been observed.
> MacRae continues:
> Likewise, we don't have fossils that sample the existence of every
> individual organism that ever existed, or even every species. We only
> have a representative sample. The rest is interpretation, however
> reasonable. These samples can and have been repeated many times --
> every time someone finds yet another trilobite from stratigraphically
> far below the occurrence of yet another dinosaur fossil, they are
> repeatedly testing the interpretation that those two organisms were
> successive in time.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The fossil record shows virtually no evidence of fossil creatures with
> nascent structures.
What nascent structures do you want to see in the fossil record? Whales
with small legs unusable for walking? They've been observed. What else?
> There is no non ad hoc explanation for the
> characteristic of stasis.
There are several explanations for stasis. Genetic constraint and balancing
selection are two possible ones. Why do you think the observation of stasis
is a falsification of common descent? The theory of common descent does not
predict that we should not observe stasis.
> For example, the claim that the punctuated
> nature of novel transformations means that nascent structures of
> transforming populations would never be captured by the fossil record is
> neither a prediction of PE nor is it experimentally testable.
Then why do you even mention it?
> And the
> so-called index fossils are often found out of sequence.
>
> This silent fossil evidence is interpreted in the light of common
> descent, neoDarwinism, faunal succession, and superposition. As a
> result the "interpretation" can hardly then be used as independent
> evidence that
> common descent, neoDarwinism, faunal succession, or superposition is
> true or even close to the truth without being guilty of fallacious
> circular reasoning. But this sort of circular "proof" is common in this
> forum.
> ********************************
And gravity is "circular reasoning" since all celestial movements are
interpreted in the light of gravity. You clearly do not understand
scientific reasoning.
> MacRae continues:
> Can someone go back and witness the observation of Pluto's original
> position when it was discovered? No.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But the original discovery and original motion of Pluto was OBSERVED and
> recorded.
So? Maybe the observer was lying or incorrect. How can we test whether the
observer was truthful and/or correct? Only based on present observations
and inference. Just like common descent.
> And future investigators may repeatedly reproduce the
> observations. Common descent has never been observed and according to
> its own proponents may never be observed.
> *********************************
Speciation has been observed. That is common descent.
> MacRae continues:
> We only have measurements and photographs documenting the state then --
> a "fossil record" of observations made by people now extinct and no
> longer available as witnesses.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The profound difference is that the fossil creatures---even if they
> could be correlated via some universal principle of superposition and
> universal principle of faunal succession---are the record of unique, non
> recurring events.
So are the observations of people in the past.
> I cannot conduct a reproducible experiment
> demonstrating common descent or observe the purported ancestor
> populations transform into the purported descendent population via the
> modern secular doctrines. I can't test the claim of common descent via
> the scientific method because common descent explains unique history not
> a genuine regularity of nature.
Sure you can test the claim. Common descent underwent the most stringent
test when we began to sequence proteins and DNA. And it passed.
> It is assumed a priori. This is almost
> indisputable.
> **************************************
You say so, but you never give proof that it is assumed. I have shown you
numerous ways that common descent could be falsified. Something that can be
falsified cannot be assumed true.
What about the comet that slammed into Jupiter? Was that due to gravity or
not?
> On the other hand the observations of the planet
> Mars does not privilege the scientific method to help the cosmologist
> uncover the unique and non recurring events leading to its creation.
Why not? Won't gravity cause interstellar dust to condense into something
more dense, like planet?
> The objects of investigation of the paleontologist are the fossilized
> remains of living creatures. These fossilized remains are absolutely
> silent about the unique, non recurring and completely unobservable
> history which lead to their creation. What scientific methodology can
> test the conceivable-but-hypothetical claim of common descent which
> describes unique events which occurred once and never again? How does
> the scientific method test for 4.6 billion years of unique events which
> occurred in prehistory and can never recur?
Perhaps you should read my series on the "proofs" of macroevolution, where I
specifically address, in detail, these questions. Or you could just read an
evolutionary textbook.
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550425113
> The paleontologist doesn't test common descent with his objects of
> investigation he employs them to interpret those objects.
Actually, he/she does both.
> These are
> entirely different activities.
> ********************************
In science, they usually coincide. Due to the theory dependence of
observation (ala Kuhn), one could argue that they *always* coincide.
> Pagano previously wrote to Dunford:
> The hypothetical lineal connections are proposed to be unique and non
> recurring.
>
> MacRae replied:
> Yes -- proposed *and* tested.
>
> Pagano responds:
> How exactly does one employ the scientific method----which is only
> privileged to investigate regularities of nature----to test the
> verisimilitude of some hypothetical, unique, non recurring series of
> contigent events in unobserved history when they will never occur
> again? Of course the modern secular theorist does nothing of the sort.
> *********************************
Baloney. See -
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550425113
> Pagano previously wrote to Dunford:
> As a result they are inaccessible to the scientific method. The
> difference is like night and day.
>
> MacRae replied:
> Night and day on what planet? The difference is in instrumentation and
> what is sampled, not in scientific procedure. Different theories,
> different data, same procedure to propose hypotheses, make obsevations,
> and repeatedly and independently test them.
>
> Pagano replies:
> When a scientist collects samples during the course of a
> **reproducible*** experiment he controls those variables he wants to
> control and samples those he finds of interest. He controls the
> observable, repeatable, and reproducible history of such experiments and
> the sampling of data can be reproduced.
Strictly, no experiments can be reproduced exactly, since all experiments
are unique in time and space.
> The paleontologist collects
> samples, but he hasn't done the sampling-----unique history has done
> it. The paleontologist has no way of knowing how such creatures were
> sampled by the fossil record.
There are many ways to ascertain how organisms were sampled by the fossil
record. Floods, volcanoes, and stream beds all leave tell tale signs.
> And the paleontologist cannot reproduce
> this sampling or the unique history within which it occurred; the
> scientific method is not privileged in these investigations of
> unobserved history.
You keep stating this - even if the differences were profound (they aren't),
you have never explained why the scientific method cannot investigate them.
Do you what the scientific method is? Tell us, and then it should be
obvious why it doesn't work for "unique, nonrecurring, historical events."
> The differences are profound.
>
> What independent tests have been conducted which don't already assume
> the truth of common descent?
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550425113
Read it, and you will know.
Zeus
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Mike Dunford wrote:
> That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
> evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
Mike Goodrich replied:
> This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
> well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
I'm sorry, but perhaps I misunderstand. Mr Dunford has observed that most
people who are trained in scientific study, and who have looked at the
evidence relevant to the issue of common descent, accept that the evidence
supports common descent.
Is it your position that the opinions of people untrained in the scientific
method should carry the same weight as those trained? Or is it your
position that the people who have not looked at the evidence should have
the same authority as those who have?
Consider, for example, medical treatment: when you or a loved one needs
medical advice, do you seek opinions from trained professionals who have
studied medicine, or do you just go ask tradesmen what they think? And do
you want the problem to be examined by the physician, or do you just want
his opinion about treatment for a problem he has not personally even seen?
Giving tradesmen the respect they are due: if your car was malfunctioning,
would you take it to someone who has studied cars, and ask him to look at
it? Or would you just go up to people who aren't trained in auto
mechanics, and ask them for an opinion on what's wrong with a car they
haven't even looked at?
In general, we give greater weight on a subject to those who have studied
the subject and who are familiar with the evidence. You seem to be arguing
that acknowledging expertise and study is not a reasonable way for us to
proceed. Is that really your view? Do you actually apply it consistently
across domains other than evolutionary biology? If not, on what grounds do
you single out evolutionary biology, except that you don't happen to like
evolution?
Hackux
>John 3:12!
>
Job 38:4.
--Mike Goodrich
Hackux
>posted and emailed
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> mdun...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>> > Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> > > Mike Dunford <mdun...@impop.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:387FABB3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
>> > > > posted and emailed
>> > > > --==--
>> > > >
>> > > > A Pagano wrote:
>[snip]
>> > So you say. I would say that there have been more than enough tests,
>> > especially genetic comparisons, but also including fossil record
>> > evidence, to establish common descent as more than just a mere
>> > hypothesis.
>>
>> A comparison is not a test, as no active dynamics are witnessed.
>
>This is a definition of test that I am not familiar with.
See 'empirical'.
> In my
>understanding of the term, from both my background in science and my
>course work in philosophy of science, I have found "test" to mean a
>falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.
And it has never been done in a way that does not assume the point which is in
dispute, provides independent objective substantiation, etc, i.e., is not
circular.
I.e., this type of 'prediction' is not valuated by objective critirea, is
insufficiently precise, the underlying hypothesis/theory to be tested makes an
AMBIGUOUS claim on the result, and is not a true PREdiction and what is in
reality an obvious postdiction. I could say much more, but really, you must
admit that there is a rather obvious qualitative difference in testing say a
theory of physics and the 'testing' of evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc,
as you have insinuated.
>
>> In any case, I stand by my claim that
>>
>> " A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's claims, descriptions,
>> predictions, etc, are capable of being carefully tested out, and
>> found to hold in light such carefull testing. The common descent
>> hypothesis has never achieved such a status, and as such remains
>> merely a hypothesis"
>>
>> I am speaking scientifically here.
>
>You have given me no reason to accept your definition of test as being
>the correct "scientific" definition.
I would certainly hope you would grant that it is a pretty good
characterization of an *empirical* test. The term 'scientific' strikes me as a
dangerous term. It is vague, has no well formed definition, and is therefore
suggestive of an authority by fiat.
>
>> If you want to say that common
>> descent is a *forensic* hypothesis, well then that is an entirely
>> different matter. I am opposed to any labeling of c.d. as a "scientifc
>> hypothesis" - because it is a gilded and misleading - even deceptive -
>> label.
>
>With all due respect, I would sat that the crux of our disagreement in
>this matter is over the question of why a "forensic" hypothesis is (or
>is not) science. You obviously feel that it is not. Supporting this
>argument, you have at present only your own assertion that forensic
>hypotheses are not testable because tests require the witnessing of
>"active dynamics."
Your are guilty of broadbrushing my characterization of testing. I only claim
that it is not *empirically* testable not that it is not testable via some
other method. Further I originally objected to the use of the label
'scientifc' for reasons I have suggested.
>
>On the other hand, I argue that as long as a statement is capable of
>being proven false it is scientific.
I find that a distressing, and dangerously broad working definition. I am
concerned it conveys a rigor, and a confidence in the unambiguous reliability
of the resulting conclusion of the 'test' that is not in keeping with truly
rigorous and empirical test methodology, in short not worthy of the "seal of
approval" of science as especially the uniniated public perceive it.
>This argument comes from the
>definitions of science given by several philosophers of science,
>including Popper and Ruse, among others. This, in your mind, might
>constitute only another argument from authority, so I will elaborate
>further.
>
>A long recognized problem in philosophy has been the problem of
>induction: that is, how it is possible within logic to draw general
>conclusions from specific observations. This is a key issue in the
>philosophy of science, because in order for a theory to be verified (or
>proven true), there must be a legitimate way to draw general conclusions
>from limited observation. At one time, there were a large number of
>philosophers attempting to solve the problem of induction and to develop
>a verificationist model of science. Karl Popper pointed out that the
>problem of induction remains, and cannot be solved: you cannot logically
>prove a general statement from limited observations because you cannot
>know for certain that the next observation will not disprove the theory.
>Popper suggested that instead of attempting to *verify* a theory,
>scientists actually are trying to *disprove* or *falsify* the theory.
>That is, a sound scientific theory makes predictions which are capable
>of being definitely proven false.
>
>This is admittedly a gross oversimplification of the issue, and others
>have illustrated the problems with a naive falsificationism, but it
>should do to illustrate my point.
>
I recognize these as legimate concerns. I am not asking for ironclad
guarantees. The concept of reasonable doubt is an operating principle I am
comfortable with and realize is practical. All possibilities cannot be tested
(empirically). One is justified in ANY empirical testing been done in the
area of evolutionary biology?
In my view there is no 'reasonable' doubt about gravitation, electromagnetism,
etc.
Common descent? Plenty of *reasonable* doubt, such as no empirical results.
Materialistic abiogenesis? Plenty of reasonable doubt, such as no empirical
findings, search spaces like 10^40000 - what kind of "science" could this even
be? The whole thing is almost entirely made up of stories, imaginative
hypothetical scenarios, and very favorable yet circular interpretations of
artifacts and certain curiosities of genetic comparisons. It sounds like a
mythology. It sounds like what Dick Feynman called "cargo cult science".
You may want to take issue with what I consider worthy of being called
"science" - recognize that those who claim as a science something done without
solid unambiguous objective empirical underpinnings are practicing something
very soft and subjective in my view, in short an ISM.
>> Truth in advertising that's what I say. Especially to the good
>> people out there who pay for it. Especially so that the young school
>> children will not be deceived by the indulgences of adults who should
>> know better. Shame on them for deceiving and openly propogandizing the
>> very impressionable young minds before they have an opportunity to
>> prepare themselves against an open and subversive propoganda campaign.
>
>Ah, the education question. Yes, let's look at that for a minute. I have
>no problems -- in fact I think it would be a damn good thing -- with
>teaching more science, and especially more scientific methodology than
>we do. By all means, let's start off 7th or 9th graders with a mandatory
>course in scientific methodology. Let's teach them the methods of
>physics, and the methods of geology. Let's show them how those methods
>differ. Let's also teach them some philosophy of science, and let them
>see that although methods differ, the different sciences are really
>doing the same thing.
But we must even more so and before hand teach them critical thinking skills,
such as how to spot flawed arguments, flawed procedures, and flawed
methodologies so that they will be able to evaluate the validity and scope of
the methodologies employed. They will be able to separate true objective
empirical methodologies from other studies which are in reality subjective and
seek to ride the coattails of the real thing.
>
>[snip]
>> > That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
>> > evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
>>
>> This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
>> well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
>
>Beg pardon. I will refrain for the moment for space reasons, but I will
>be more than happy to outline the case in a separate post if you wish.
>[snip]
>
>> > This is similar to someone working in quantum mechanics taking the
>> > uncertainty principle as true. new evidence in either case could lead
>> > to a reassessment of underlying theory.
>>
>> It is not at all similar, for I may *confirm* the uncertainty principle
>> via a *carefull testing out process*. Why do you make such glib
>> statements?
>
>Be careful with the accusations of glib statements. As I have pointed
>out above, it is *impossible* to confirm any statement in science. In
>fact, it will remain impossible to do so unless someone can develop a
>precise method of predicting the future with absolute certainty.
>
You are arguing for some kind of absolutism. It is not necessary. I would be
happy to stipulate any idea which had been proven (via objective empiricism)
beyond a "reasonable" doubt.
When I find that a methodology is practically question begging and is any case
guilty of assuming the point in dispute, then I do not consider it
"reasonable".
>As an aside, I would wonder exactly what methodology one might use to
>experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand it,
>the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and the
>position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously. If this
>is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven, but
>all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't do it
>yet.
You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your position, my
friend.
First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity' only
momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not exist in the
quantum domain.) In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices upon which to do
a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered perhaps is
better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
**What a concept**
Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually doing the
delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he found it! He
had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
>
>[snip]
>> > > Carefull here. Since Galileo, investigators have availed
>> > > themselves of the opportunity to put Galileo's and Newton's
>> > > claims to a carefull testing out process. Important non-intuitive
>> > > siuations can be contrived so as to further verify very risky and
>> > > easily/obviously falsifiable predictions, descriptions, etc. You
>> > > are making a huge unwarranted leap by attempting this weak analogy.
>> > > The common descent hypothesis is not even really classifiable as
>> > > this kind of science.
>> >
>> > I would say that there are a large number of potential observations
>> > which could falsify common descent. I could find a Smilodon (sabre-
>> > tooth cat) skull tomorrow in the middle of the Chemung (Devonian)
>> > formation. I could find a T-rex in the Beekmantown limestone (Cambrian)
>> > I could find Archaeopteryx in the Burgess shale, or Homo Sapiens in the
>> > Pound Quartzite. There are thousands of more examples -- in fact, a near
>> > infinite number of them, and that's only the evidence from the fossil
>> > record.
>>
>> That is not an observation. It is the discovery of an artifact - quite
>> a different thing.
>
>I'm sorry, in what way are those not potentially falsifying "discoveries
>of artifacts" for common descent?
In your haste, you've carelessly assumed that these artifacts ARE the product
of c.d. This is a direct example of the "process X, artifact Y" fallacy I
cited to you!
>How is the prediction that there will
>never be a Homo sapiens skeleton found preserved in the Pound Quartzite
>not, "very risky and
>easily/obviously falsifiable?" How is the statement that there will
>never be a trilobite found in the Calvert formation not, "very risky and
>easily/obviously falsifiable? How is the declaration that there will
>never be a Tyrannosaurus found in the Chemung formation not, "very risky
>and easily/obviously falsifiable?"
>
>> It is logically fallacious to reason thusly:
>>
>> "I claim there is a process X.
>> I claim that process X has been operative.
>> I claim that process X is capable of producing artifacts Y.
>> I have discovered artifact Y, therefore I have proved that:
>> process X has been operative,
>> process X *actually* did produce artifact Y.
>
>I agree that your statement is logically fallacious. That is not the
>argument I am making, however.
>
But you are making exactly that argument in your above example of the
"potentially falsifying".
>[snip]
>
>> >I could cite almost as many exaples of genetic findings that
>> > could falsify common descent.
>>
>> Their absence does not support c.d. beyond reasonable doubt.
>> It is entirely reasonable to understand genetic findings as evidence
>> for the application of common design principles.
>
>Yes, let's look at "common design" for a moment. "Common design" really
>doesn't care what the genetic evidence looks like.
This is just an assertion - one I reject. Common design simply recognizes that
similar organisms will likely be found to have similar construction, systems,
etc, including onboard instructions i.e, genetic makeup.
>They can easily claim
>any result as supporting evidence. "Common design" does not take risks
>the way common descent does. Falsifications for "common design" are not
>being sought. Risky predictions are not being made.
Nor are they necessary, since one is not claiming that natural law alone is
responsible. A designer has leeway that natural law does not. What's at issue
here is not so much prediction-confirmation as what is reasonable/tenable in
terms of origins.
>Common descent makes
>risky predictions about the genetic evidence.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > > It could only qualify as a proposed historical "reconstruction" -
>> > > it must not be even labled as "scientific" lest the uninitiated assume
>> > > it has been validated by rigorous scientific investigation - the way
>> > > Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's were.
>> >
>> > Careful here -- science is not limited to physics. The methods used by
>> > physics do not apply to all areas of science
>>
>> I think that is a debatable issue.
>
>Then by all means debate the issue. To date, you have not done so. You
>have made a few assertions, but have not supported them with anything
>more substantial than comments like the one above.
I feel I have done so at this point.
>
>If you want me to consider your argument, at a bare minimum you must
>explain what "active dynamics" are and why they are necessary for a
>test. Also, you must explain why physics is more certain than "forensic
>science."
Also, I feel, addressed.
>
>> >, but that does not mean
>> > that anything that isn't physics is not science.
>>
>> That's also debatable.
>
>Again, please feel free to debate it. Why isn't something that is not
>pure physics science?
>
>> Physics is the field I am most schooled and
>> experienced in. IMHO, any science which is utlimately materialistic is
>> utltimately about physics.
>
>That does not mean that the same methods can be applied. To this point,
>physics is not great at working with highly complex and variable systems
>-- like ecosystems or weather.
Actually it is although the models are rough and statistical in nature. There
is also the issue of nonlinear dynamics. Indeed physics is all we have for
these examples, so I think your argument has collapsed.
>
>> That said, I would be the first to admit that, because of my training,
>> I am accustomed and essentially demanding of a certain rigor in
>> scientific endeavors that is quite obviously not shared by
>> evolutionists (to use a broad term). I am reluctant to let anything
>> pass as "science" which does not "tow the line".
>
>I am insulted by this statement on a number of separate grounds. First
>of all, you assume that there is not the same level of "rigor" in the
>scientific activities of those who are unfortunate enough not to be
>physicists. I have spent my share of time in physics labs, and I have
>spent time in paleontology labs. I have not personally noticed a
>difference in the level of "rigor."
I find that an amazing statement. Certainly you cannot argue that something
observered in the present both process and artifact accompanyed by a precise
unambiguous mathmatical description of both is to be compared with an unseen -
indeed only hypothesized - process with artifacts that are only *presumed* to
have been created by said hypothetical process, with no accompanying *precise
unambiguous mathmatical description* of either one.?????
>You seem to be suggesting that "if
>it ain't math, it ain't science." If this is the case, I suggest you
>spend some time really looking at the way work is done in other labs.
>
>Second, you imply that anything that doesn't meet your criteria as a
>physicist doesn't qualify as science at all. That statement is both
>arrogant and condescending.
I find your offense to be misplaced. It is a statement about what is necessary
to prevent indulgences in speculation trading as the real thing.
>Simultaneously, it is unsupported by
>anything more reliable than your own bald assertions. If that is the
>level of "rigor" which you demand for your lab proofs, your work is in
>sad shape indeed. I again invite you to explain to me what precisely
>makes the results of physics more certain to be true than common
>descent.
I trust I have done so at this point.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > In fact, physics
>> > suffers from its own set of limitations. For a good example of this,
>> > look at the debate between Kelvin and numerous geologists over the age
>> > of the earth.
>>
>> Nether of which could be certain what the correct answer is, thus make
>> no compelling point.
>
>That is one of my points. Physics is no more certain than geology.
Don't be silly. Physics is as certain as a science *can* be, in my view, for
the reasons I have cited.
>Nor
>is it any less certain.
>
>My other point is that a number of geologists in that debate recognized
>the precision of Kelvin's math. At the same time, they recognized that
>there was no way within the known physical laws to explain the rock
>record in the amount of time Kelvin allowed. They suggested that one of
>Kelvin's assumptions must have been incorrect. Kelvin, quite naturally,
>disagreed. The debate continued beyond the deaths of many of the initial
>participants until the heat from radioactive decay was identified as
>Kelvin's missing assumption. The corrected age figures were within the
>range of predictions the geological data gave.
What do you mean the "corrected" age figures? Ascertained by what methodology?
Radioisotope dating? Don't get me started...
See how much is asssumed in such little space and time, Mike?
>
>In this case, although geology did not use the "correct" methods in the
>perspective of the physicists, the geological method successfully
>predicted that one of Kelvin's assumptions was incorrect.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > If I were a defense attorney for a capital case, I would want you and
>> > Pagano on the jury. By the logic of your arguments, I would expect
>> > that you would aquit automaticly in the absense of an eyewitness, no
>> > matter how strong the circumstancial case against my client.
>>
>> You would be making a grave error. For I beleive I can speak for both
>> Tony and myself (with apologies to Tony if that is not the case) when I
>> say that both of us seem to be keenly aware of and share a well founded
>> concern over the distinction between *scientifically* vs *forensically*
>> acquired knowledge. Thus I am compelled to restate:
>>
>> "The common descent hypothesis can only be judged by a much less
>> certain process of elimination/credibility/tenability - the way a
>> forensic or historical investigation might.
>
>On what grounds do you argue that forensics is "much less certain?"
Because it is about unseen, non recurring, unique, historical events.
An empirical lab science in my view, is about seen, recurring, non-unique
events whose dynamics are witnessed in the present - a huge difference in
quality of result and the confidence that can be placed in it.
>Please outline the basis for your opinion that the results of physics
>are more certain.
>
I trust I have done so.
>[snip]
>
>> > As you point out, there are a number of similarities between the work
>> > of a detective and the work of a scientist in any of the historical
>> > sciences. I would point out that the work of a detective is often good
>> > enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed. And while an essential endeavor, ONE MUST NEVER CLAIM THAT
>> THIS WORK IS SCIENTIFIC.
>
>You have yet to give a reason that claim should not be made. Forensic
>statements are falsifiable. Unless you can demonstrate that the
>conclusions of physics are definitely, necessarily, and universally more
>certain than forensic conclusions, I think the claim is quite valid.
>
I am claiming just that and I thinks it's actually obvious for the reasons I
have cited.
>> Do you agree with me then that the history of
>> life is in reality a forensic/historical proposition?
>
>I do not agree that "forensic/historical propositions" are unscientific.
>
>> (Note: while the term "forensic science" is with us, I would not
>> consider it a "science" as such. It is more a methodology - for lack
>> of a better word.)
>
>Actually, you picked a pretty good word. Forensics is a methodology for
>making falsifiable statements about physical events which have taken
>place in the natural world.
Not quite right. It is fundamentally about post construction of typically
unwitnessed historical events.
>Physics is also a methodology for making
>falsifiable statements about physical events which have taken place in
>the natural world.
>
>[snip]
>[I have removed the rest of the response which discussed "pure
>materialism" for space reasons, since it really isn't relevant to the
>discussion above. If you are interested, email me and I'll send you a
>response on that, also.]
>
>--Mike Dunford
>
>
--Mike Goodrich
Matt Silberstein
[snip
|Common descent? Plenty of *reasonable* doubt, such as no empirical results.
Common Descent has three major independent lines of evidence for it.
Can you *name* those lines? I am not asking you to defend or attack
them, just tell me what lines of evidence science presents.
[snip]
[snip]
|This is just an assertion - one I reject. Common design simply recognizes that
|similar organisms will likely be found to have similar construction, systems,
|etc, including onboard instructions i.e, genetic makeup.
Yet similar organisms like the shark, dolphin, and penguin have very
different internal structures. And organisms like H.s. and bonobos
share not only lots of DNA, but share the DNA that does not do
anything.
[snip]
|What do you mean the "corrected" age figures? Ascertained by what methodology?
|Radioisotope dating? Don't get me started...
Please do get started. Tell us what is wrong with the methods and how
old you think the Earth is.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's
back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are
self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there
ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I
believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas
morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that
last three days. [pause] Goodnight.
Crash Davis
hrgr...@my-deja.com
hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> posted and emailed
<snip>
> >As an aside, I would wonder exactly what methodology one might use to
> >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand it,
> >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and the
> >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously. If
this
> >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven, but
> >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't do it
> >yet.
>
> You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
position, my
> friend.
Well, let's see.
> First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity' only
> momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
exist in the
> quantum domain.)
Do you really want to claim that dq/dt = -ih[H,q] is not a self-adjoint
operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it is
an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
Your claim is refuted.
In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
> when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices upon
which to do
> a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered
perhaps is
> better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
> **What a concept**
Well, it was not as simple as that. A few theoretical concepts like
commutators, expectation values etc. were necessary as well. Do you
claim he *deduced* the u.p. from observations of spectra ?
> Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually
doing the
> delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he
found it! He
> had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
And Darwin had no pretext either - his theory fell out as a direct
result of 20 years of careful studies.
HRG.
<snip>
Mike Goodrich
It might be best to hold off your comments a bit.
In reading over my latest post, I noticed a few word ommissions
which tend to obscure my statements so that they may not convey their
intended meaning. I would like to to make a few small edits, I will try
to highlight them if you wish or you can just take the 2nd version and
ignore the first. It will probably this evening...
--Mike Goodrich
Mike Goodrich
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> > posted and emailed
> <snip>
to
> > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand
it,
> > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and the
> > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously. If
> this
> > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven,
but
> > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't do
it
> > >yet.
> >
> > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
> position, my
> > friend.
>
>
> > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
only
> > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
> exist in the
> > quantum domain.)
>
adjoint
> operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
is
> an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
> commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
> Your claim is refuted.
Not the same thing. Succesive measurements of position, will be found
to be discontinuous, thus the limit you implied by the above expression
*will not exist*. The fact that the position operator commutes with
the Hamiltonian, thus allowing simultaneous observables of position and
total energy does not repeat *does not* imply that the limit exists.
You need the think more about what the above expression actually means.
It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the commutation
implies an integration.
If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average of q
is stationary.
>
> In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
> > when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices upon
> which to do
> > a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered
> perhaps is
> > better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
> > **What a concept**
>
> Well, it was not as simple as that. A few theoretical concepts like
> commutators, expectation values etc. were necessary as well.
Of course, so what?
> Do you
> claim he *deduced* the u.p. from observations of spectra ?
>
Essentially. The "deduction" was more a recognition of something in
the actual empirical data.
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07b.htm
Now folks, this is REAL SCIENCE. The kind we can teach our children
without worrying about making them to tow the line on some
philosophical ISM. Q.E.D.
> > Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually
> doing the
> > delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he
> found it! He
> > had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
>
> And Darwin had no pretext either - his theory fell out as a direct
> result of 20 years of careful studies.
>
> HRG.
> <snip>
>
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
--Mike Goodrich
--
"Could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by a
process we cannot completely specify? The intellectually responsible
answer is that we do not know -- we have no way of knowing. But that
is not the answer evolutionary theorists accept." --David Berlinski
Hackux
>From: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" kil...@copland.rowan.edu
>Date: Wed, 19 January 2000 12:09 PM EST
>Message-id: <8645.94...@copland.rowan.edu>
>
>
posted and e-mailed:
>Mike Dunford wrote:
>> That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by the
>> evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
>
>Mike Goodrich replied:
>> This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
>> well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
>
>I'm sorry, but perhaps I misunderstand. Mr Dunford has observed that most
>people who are trained in scientific study, and who have looked at the
>evidence relevant to the issue of common descent, accept that the evidence
>supports common descent.
And I and especially Tony Pagano have obsevered that history has shown us that
we must
have no confidence at all in that fact.
It isn't about what people accept. Historically people have accepted all sorts
of egregiously fallacious and shamefull things like racism.
It's about a methodology that protects us all from what people would like to
beleive,
and establishes what they have *good reason* to beleive, because the way it is
established has nothing to do with *what they beleive*.
>
>Is it your position that the opinions of people untrained in the scientific
>method should carry the same weight as those trained?
It is my position *THAT OPINION MUST HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT* - in as much
as that is humanly achievable.
>Or is it your
>position that the people who have not looked at the evidence should have
>the same authority as those who have?
It is my position that *AUTHORITY MUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT* - not when
the whole endeavor is supposed to be about what can be objectively established
apart from what ANYONE thinks or would like to beleive.
>
>
>Consider, for example, medical treatment: when you or a loved one needs
>medical advice, do you seek opinions from trained professionals who have
>studied medicine, or do you just go ask tradesmen what they think?
You evidently misunderstood my original post because in this example the
doctors
are the tradesman.
And of course in medicine, we are dealing with something that is not an exact
science.
Likewise when we attempt to reconstruct historical events for which we may have
no
witnesses.
> And do
>you want the problem to be examined by the physician, or do you just want
>his opinion about treatment for a problem he has not personally even seen?
>Giving tradesmen the respect they are due: if your car was malfunctioning,
>would you take it to someone who has studied cars, and ask him to look at
>it? Or would you just go up to people who aren't trained in auto
>mechanics, and ask them for an opinion on what's wrong with a car they
>haven't even looked at?
>
>
You are making a lot of useless analogies. The simple fact is, is that science
is suppose to be an endeavor which is above all else OBJECTIVE. An opinion is
subjective. Only the evidence is actually objective. Interpretations of
evidence
while subjective, can be scrutinized to see just how tenable they actually are.
The danger is that those who have a prediliction for some world view will go
beyond
what is warranted by the actual available evidence, and misuse their cultural
authority.
That they will assume an air of authority whereby their 'informed opinion'
becomes
a substitute for an objective proving out process.
>In general, we give greater weight on a subject to those who have studied
>the subject and who are familiar with the evidence. You seem to be arguing
>that acknowledging expertise and study is not a reasonable way for us to
>proceed.
Expertise is fine, but it is no substitute for objectivity.
>Is that really your view? Do you actually apply it consistently
>across domains other than evolutionary biology?
I see. So you accept what (name your least favorite politician here) says?
After all,
he has studied these things more than you have hasn't he? I mean you wouldn't
want to
be inconsistent about this would you? See where this argument from authority
gets you?
>If not, on what grounds do
>you single out evolutionary biology, except that you don't happen to like
>evolution?
>
I do not particularly single out evolution. I started some years ago being
concerned
about bad science in general. This lead me of course to evolutionism. This is
the worst
abuse of science that I know of.
I started out being concerned about scientists who were found to have been
guilty of faking
their data. FAKING THEIR DATA ???? Why would a "scientist" EVER need to fake
his data ????
I mean, they wouldn't do that - WOULD THEY?? Aren't they only intereseted in
what is ACTUALLY happening? Quite obviously not.
>
>Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
>
>
interested in only *really good* science - because bad science has far to great
a potential for harm,
--Mike Goodrich
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
I asked Mike Goodrich to clarify his position on authorities, noting
that we tend to give greater weight to people who are experts and who have
studied issues. He replied:
> The simple fact is, is that science is suppose to be an endeavor which is
> above all else OBJECTIVE. An opinion is subjective. Only the evidence
> is actually objective. Interpretations of evidence while subjective, can
> be scrutinized to see just how tenable they actually are.
>
> The danger is that those who have a prediliction for some world view will
> go beyond what is warranted by the actual available evidence, and misuse
> their cultural authority. That they will assume an air of authority
> whereby their 'informed opinion' becomes a substitute for an objective
> proving out process.
In that case, why did you recently advise someone else:
> You can check out the works of Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William
> Dembski, William Lane Craig, Mark Hartwig, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson,
> Nancy Pearcey, Jonathan Wells, etc. Lots of stuff by these folks can be
> found on the 'net by just searching for it.
All you have done is refer that other poster to a bunch of authorities who
will give their interpretations, bolstered by nothing but their authority.
None of your references is to any primary source. None of them are
recognisable authors of books about logic and reasoning.
Many of them, such as Phillip Johnson, abuse their cultural authority:
Johnson, highly trained in law, postures as one trained in logic and
science. (If you believe law is logical, you should read _An Introduction
to Legal Reasoning_, by Edward H Levi. It will make clear the wisdom of
Scriptural injunctions to settle disputes before you get to court.)
None of your books are to mainstream works or to primary sources. Why is
that?
Were I wanting to recommend books for someone who's interested in why I
reject "scientific creationism", I would certainly include on my list works
such as _Scientific Creationism_, by Henry Morris, and _The Collapse of
Evolution_, by Scott Huse. I think the best way to let someone understand
the total emptiness of the "scientific creationist" position is for them to
see creationist "reasoning" for themselves. I'd add in some mainstream
books, such as _Science and Earth History_, by Arthur Strahler, one of Koza
or Michaelwicz's books on evolutionary programming (which will show up just
how stupid and incompetent Scott Huse is -- neither of his evolution
programs works) and _Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric_, by Howard Kahane
(this last is just about how to spot stupid arguments, and doesn't mention
evolution or creation at all). I would also include more balanced books,
such as _The Biblical Flood_, by Davis Young (who rejects evolution but
accepts geological conclusions), and _How To Think About Creation/
Evolution_, by L Duane Thurmon (who rejects evolution, I think, but it's
hard to tell), so as to present people sorta in the middle there.
The reason I would make that list is that I believe a wide look at the
topic will demonstrate how ridiculous creationism is. Giving a listen to
people on the extremes, people writing only about logic, and people not on
the extremes who write with balance, will let you see which voices have
something worth saying. I encourage people to get some training in logic
and reasoning, and then read all the creationist works they can get hold
of.
If you really think that authority is so bad, and that we want objectivity,
you should either refer people only to primary sources, or you should be
sure to include books on all sides in an effort to dilute out any of the
authoritarian interpretations which the authors you cite are going to be
pushing. If you think the mainstream position is so awful, then the best
anti-Darwin book would be any book which takes the mainstream position.
Why not just let them hang themselves?
I certainly believe that the best anti-Creationist books were written by
Creationists. One who understands Darwinian theory and computer
programming can see Scott Huse for an incompetent moron just by reading
over the programs in the back of his book. One who sees Henry Morris
present an argument that the earth is only 100 years old will recognise
just how clueless he is.
As for good pro-Creationist books, I don't know of any; the ones I've read
are all pretty dumb. There's certainly nothing I know of which makes a
simple, clear pro-Creationist position in any respectable way. You or Tony
Pagano or somebody could write a simple netnews post taking such a position
in only 200 lines, if such a position existed. (But we both know it
doesn't, don't we?)
You keep writing as if you think the mainstream scientific opinion is all
rubbish; but if that's the case, why didn't you just recommend to the nice
poster that she read some mainstream books and discover they're rubbish for
herself?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Television? Isn't that like a computer terminal without a keyboard?"
-- Gregory Newman
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> > > posted and emailed
> > <snip>
use
> to
> > > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand
> it,
> > > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and
the
> > > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously.
If
> > this
> > > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven,
> but
> > > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't
do
> it
> > > >yet.
> > >
> > > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
> > position, my
> > > friend.
> >
> >
> > > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
> only
> > > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
> > exist in the
> > > quantum domain.)
> >
> adjoint
> > operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
> is
> > an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
> > commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
> > Your claim is refuted.
>
> Not the same thing. Succesive measurements of position, will be found
> to be discontinuous, thus the limit you implied by the above
expression
> *will not exist*.
Please tell me where you learned your quantum mechanics: time
evolution, Heisenberg representation vs. Schrödinger representation and
all that (I taught this at university level).
The fact that the position operator commutes with
> the Hamiltonian,
What fact ? q does not commute with H.
thus allowing simultaneous observables of position and
> total energy does not repeat *does not* imply that the limit exists.
> You need the think more about what the above expression actually
means.
I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
(=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
> It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the
commutation
> implies an integration.
??? commutation => integration ??? Please explain ....
I was talking about h-bar=h/2pi, but my keyboard lacked the bar ;-)
> If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average of q
> is stationary.
But they don't.
> >
> > In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
> > > when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices
upon
> > which to do
> > > a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered
> > perhaps is
> > > better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
> > > **What a concept**
> >
> > Well, it was not as simple as that. A few theoretical concepts like
> > commutators, expectation values etc. were necessary as well.
>
> Of course, so what?
>
> > Do you
> > claim he *deduced* the u.p. from observations of spectra ?
> >
>
> Essentially. The "deduction" was more a recognition of something in
> the actual empirical data.
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07b.htm
You mean every matrix element of p and q was measured, and then the
infinite sum was calculated by hand ?
> Now folks, this is REAL SCIENCE. The kind we can teach our children
> without worrying about making them to tow the line on some
> philosophical ISM. Q.E.D.
The irony in your claim is unbelievable. The philosophical
interpretation of QM is full of ambiguities (Copenhagen interpretation,
Reichenbachs 3-valued logic, Everett's multiuniverses, Wigner's etc.
etc. ), while the theory evolution, as every theory real science, is
only based on the working assumption of methodological naturalism.
HRG.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
> > > Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually
> > doing the
> > > delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he
> > found it! He
> > > had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
> >
> > And Darwin had no pretext either - his theory fell out as a direct
> > result of 20 years of careful studies.
> >
> > HRG.
>
> --Mike Goodrich
<sigsnip>
Joe Cummings
<kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
>I asked Mike Goodrich to clarify his position on authorities, noting
>that we tend to give greater weight to people who are experts and who have
>studied issues. He replied:
>
Big snip to save bandwidth.
>
>The reason I would make that list is that I believe a wide look at the
>topic will demonstrate how ridiculous creationism is. Giving a listen to
>people on the extremes, people writing only about logic, and people not on
>the extremes who write with balance, will let you see which voices have
>something worth saying. I encourage people to get some training in logic
>and reasoning,
I second this, and would add that it is also possible to find
some literature on scientific method.
A number of books come to mind:
The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem,
Very clear, and written from a Catholic standpoint, but don't let that
put you off.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Conjectures and
Refutations, both by Karl Popper.
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, by Lakatos and
Musgrave.
The Structure of Scientific Revoltions by Thomas Kuhn.
London University used to have an A-level (for 18+ year-olds)
exam on Logic and Scientific Method , but in an act of unadulterated
vandalism decided to do away with it.
In view of what is happening in the creation debate in the US
I think the educational system is great need of its reintroduction
internationally.
Have fun,
Joe cummings
ro...@my-deja.com
hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: "Noninterference" (apparently about me)
> >From: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" kil...@copland.rowan.edu
> >Date: Wed, 19 January 2000 12:09 PM EST
> >Message-id: <8645.94...@copland.rowan.edu>
> >
> >
>
> posted and e-mailed:
>
> >Mike Dunford wrote:
> >> That is not quite the case. Common descent has been established by
the
> >> evidence beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of most scientists.
> >
> >Mike Goodrich replied:
> >> This is just an egregious appeal to authority. I suppose we may as
> >> well run science by the popular opinion of the tradesman?
> >
> >I'm sorry, but perhaps I misunderstand. Mr Dunford has observed
that most
> >people who are trained in scientific study, and who have looked at
the
> >evidence relevant to the issue of common descent, accept that the
evidence
> >supports common descent.
>
> And I and especially Tony Pagano have obsevered that history has
shown us that
> we must
> have no confidence at all in that fact.
Really? You are saying that airplanes don't fly, spaceships don't
orbit, atomic bombs don't go off?
Science (including biology and evolution) is so powerful because it
works! The method works and the pratical applications work.
Just because it's conclusions do not fit into your fantasy world does
not take away from science.
>
> It isn't about what people accept. Historically people have accepted
all sorts
>
> of egregiously fallacious and shamefull things like racism.
Don't forget the flat earth and geocentricism.
Remind me, who corrected the error?
Science did.
>
> It's about a methodology that protects us all from what people would
like to
> beleive,
> and establishes what they have *good reason* to beleive, because the
way it is
> established has nothing to do with *what they beleive*.
Exactly!
>
> >
> >Is it your position that the opinions of people untrained in the
scientific
> >method should carry the same weight as those trained?
>
> It is my position *THAT OPINION MUST HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT* - in
as much
> as that is humanly achievable.
Sure. That is why the honest christians of the 19th century gave up on
the Young Earth and Flood Geology.
They started out with an opinion, and they allowed the facts to change
those opinions.
Good scientist, good honest people.
>
> >Or is it your
> >position that the people who have not looked at the evidence should
have
> >the same authority as those who have?
>
> It is my position that *AUTHORITY MUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT* -
not when
> the whole endeavor is supposed to be about what can be objectively
established
> apart from what ANYONE thinks or would like to beleive.
Sure, and that is why all the objective facts point to evolution and a
very old earth with no "global flood".
>
> >
> >
> >Consider, for example, medical treatment: when you or a loved one
needs
> >medical advice, do you seek opinions from trained professionals who
have
> >studied medicine, or do you just go ask tradesmen what they think?
>
> You evidently misunderstood my original post because in this example
the
> doctors
> are the tradesman.
>
> And of course in medicine, we are dealing with something that is not
an exact
> science.
What would you call an exact science?
Sometimes my car won't start, the electricity goes out, airplanes crash.
We still know they work, we look for the reason out of the ordinary for
the breakdown. We are then doing science.
>
> Likewise when we attempt to reconstruct historical events for which
we may have
> no
> witnesses.
We do this all the time.
Look at criminal trials.
We reconstruct the past. We are pretty good at it; but the process is
not perfect. When errors are found, they are corrected. That is science.
>
> > And do
> >you want the problem to be examined by the physician, or do you just
want
> >his opinion about treatment for a problem he has not personally even
seen?
> >Giving tradesmen the respect they are due: if your car was
malfunctioning,
> >would you take it to someone who has studied cars, and ask him to
look at
> >it? Or would you just go up to people who aren't trained in auto
> >mechanics, and ask them for an opinion on what's wrong with a car
they
> >haven't even looked at?
> >
> >
>
> You are making a lot of useless analogies. The simple fact is, is
that science
>
> is suppose to be an endeavor which is above all else OBJECTIVE. An
opinion is
> subjective. Only the evidence is actually objective.
There is a lot of objective evidence for evolution, none for creation.
>Interpretations of
> evidence
> while subjective, can be scrutinized to see just how tenable they
actually are.
But when the interpretations can be tested and found to be accurate,
and this is done over and over in repeated experiments, and the results
are consistant, the interpretation is accepted.
This is science.
>
> The danger is that those who have a prediliction for some world view
will go
> beyond
> what is warranted by the actual available evidence, and misuse their
cultural
> authority.
> That they will assume an air of authority whereby their 'informed
opinion'
> becomes
> a substitute for an objective proving out process.
Sounds like creationist.
You do know that the 19th century naturalist were all creationist?
That they were convinced by the objective evidence that the earth was
very old, and that evolution took place.
They started out with a different view, and changed it, because they
saw the facts, and were honest enough to accept them.
>
> >In general, we give greater weight on a subject to those who have
studied
> >the subject and who are familiar with the evidence. You seem to be
arguing
> >that acknowledging expertise and study is not a reasonable way for
us to
> >proceed.
>
> Expertise is fine, but it is no substitute for objectivity.
The expertise is based on objectivity.
>
> >Is that really your view? Do you actually apply it consistently
> >across domains other than evolutionary biology?
>
> I see. So you accept what (name your least favorite politician here)
says?
> After all,
> he has studied these things more than you have hasn't he? I mean you
wouldn't
> want to
> be inconsistent about this would you? See where this argument from
authority
> gets you?
Nowhere.
His point was, do you apply your view of science to all fields, or just
to evolutionary biology?
>
> >If not, on what grounds do
> >you single out evolutionary biology, except that you don't happen to
like
> >evolution?
> >
>
> I do not particularly single out evolution. I started some years ago
being
> concerned
> about bad science in general. This lead me of course to
evolutionism. This is
> the worst
> abuse of science that I know of.
Yes, the creationist who abuse evolutionary biology are one of the
worst cases.
Did you ever compare them to the flat earhters, or the geocentricist?
They are exactly the same.
>
> I started out being concerned about scientists who were found to have
been
> guilty of faking
> their data. FAKING THEIR DATA ???? Why would a "scientist" EVER
need to fake
> his data ????
Some are dishonest.
Who catches them?
Other scientist!
Scientist who follow the method, who read the results of others, and
follow up on the results. If the results are not accurate, a comparison
is made.
This is why people who cheat or make mistakes in their research are
caught. Even Einstein was corrected when he made math errors.
Pltdown was found out by scientis doing research, testing the claims of
others. That is the way to make a name for yourself in science.
Disprove or correct someone else.
>
> I mean, they wouldn't do that - WOULD THEY?? Aren't they only
intereseted in
> what is ACTUALLY happening? Quite obviously not.
And it is scientist who catch them.
Greed can play a part, but scientis know their work will be tested by
others. It is a great deterrent.
>
> >
> >Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu !
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
> >
> >
>
> interested in only *really good* science - because bad science has
far to great
>
> a potential for harm,
>
> --Mike Goodrich
Yes.
Creationist are the worst. They lie cheat and steal, all the while
telling you how religious they are. What a bunch of scoundrals.
Rod #613
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich wrote in message <8686r6$te1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>> hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
>> > posted and emailed
>> <snip>
>to
>> > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand
>it,
>> > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and the
>> > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously. If
>> this
>> > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven,
>but
>> > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't do
>it
>> > >yet.
>> >
>> > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
>> position, my
>> > friend.
>>
>>
>> > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
>only
>> > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
>> exist in the
>> > quantum domain.)
>>
>adjoint
>> operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
>is
>> an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
>> commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
>> Your claim is refuted.
>Not the same thing. Succesive measurements of position, will be found
>to be discontinuous, thus the limit you implied by the above expression
>*will not exist*.
So? You said *definite velocity* could not exist. What does *measurement*
of anything (much less something not velocity ) have to do
with that?
> The fact that the position operator commutes with
>the Hamiltonian, thus allowing simultaneous observables of position and
>total energy does not repeat *does not* imply that the limit exists.
I think you miss the point. What he gave was the velocity operator.
For example, the free particle can have definite momenta, and
therefore definite velocities from p/m (valid also for spin)
Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, pp 61-63.
What limit are you speaking about? HRG said nothing about a limit,
nor was any implied.
>You need the think more about what the above expression actually means.
>
>It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the commutation
>implies an integration.
No, commutators do not.
>If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average of q
>is stationary.
I thought the subject was velocity, not position.
>> In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
>> > when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices upon
>> which to do
>> > a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered
>> perhaps is
>> > better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
>> > **What a concept**
>>
>> Well, it was not as simple as that. A few theoretical concepts like
>> commutators, expectation values etc. were necessary as well.
>
>
>Of course, so what?
"As an aside, I would wonder exactly what methodology one might use
to experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle."
That is the "what" that started this! The last 5 words.
>> Do you
>> claim he *deduced* the u.p. from observations of spectra ?
>Essentially. The "deduction" was more a recognition of something in
>the actual empirical data.
>
>http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07b.htm
This web site does not give enough detail to support your argument.
Some things I did not know but always wondered about (matrix mechanics)
were answered. Perhaps you can give more detail, being careful to
point out where no theory comes into play, or if it does, in what way.
>Now folks, this is REAL SCIENCE. The kind we can teach our children
>without worrying about making them to tow the line on some
>philosophical ISM. Q.E.D.
Evolution is not an ISM, and is as much science as quantum mechanics.
>> > Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually
>> doing the
>> > delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he
>> found it! He
>> > had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
Was this the same RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY that was used to
come up with the theories that QM replaced?
>> And Darwin had no pretext either - his theory fell out as a direct
>> result of 20 years of careful studies.
What, no response?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy P. Hamilton
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <868r92$bkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>> > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
>> > > posted and emailed
>> > <snip>
>use
>> to
>> > > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand
>> it,
>> > > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and
>the
>> > > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously.
>If
>> > this
>> > > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven,
>> but
>> > > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't
>do
>> it
>> > > >yet.
>> > >
>> > > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
>> > position, my
>> > > friend.
>> >
>> >
>> > > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
>> only
>> > > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
>> > exist in the
>> > > quantum domain.)
>> >
>> adjoint
>> > operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
>> is
>> > an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
>> > commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
>> > Your claim is refuted.
>>
>> Not the same thing. Succesive measurements of position, will be found
>> to be discontinuous, thus the limit you implied by the above
>expression
>> *will not exist*.
>
>evolution, Heisenberg representation vs. Schrödinger representation and
>all that (I taught this at university level).
>
>> the Hamiltonian,
>
Ooops! I missed that.
>thus allowing simultaneous observables of position and
>> total energy does not repeat *does not* imply that the limit exists.
>> You need the think more about what the above expression actually
>means.
>I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
>(=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
>Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
>exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
What about definite v for a free particle (aka particle in a box with no
box)?
>> It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the
>commutation
>> implies an integration.
>
>??? commutation => integration ??? Please explain ....
>
>I was talking about h-bar=h/2pi, but my keyboard lacked the bar ;-)
>
>> If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average of q
>> is stationary.
>
>But they don't.
d<q>/dt is stationary, *IF* <v> = 0, i.e. if the *expectation value* of the
commutator is zero. As you point out the commutator is not zero.
You knew that, of course, I'm just putting my 0.02 euros in.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Peter Nyikos
wf...@ptd.net writes:
>On 14 Jan 2000 23:12:16 -0500, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>>I see as inconsistent any theory which claims that matter and its
>>properties are alone sufficient to create---that is to increase
>>complexity and information. And the Catholic Church teachings seem to
>>be at odds with very few theories, perhaps only two theories. This is,
>>of course, my opinion. However, I have not seen a single catholic
>>theologian or scientist attempt to harmonize the church's objections to
>>purely materialistic theories of creation and evolutionism, for
>>example.
And the belief that one's conscious is purely the result of
material foces, and has nothing to do with any putative
immortal soul [a possibility hardly ever mentioned these days], is
one of those purely materialistic theories.
>why should the church attempt to reconcile an issue which is not an
>issue? the catholic church has stated it has one single restriction on
>acceptance of evolution: that it not attempt to describe the evolution
>of the 'mind'.
That's a huge topic right there since it concerns one's own
very self.
> evolution does not do that.
But materialists do. And nowadays most people are reflexive
materialists on the subject of "mind", i.e. the conscious self.
It is considered an established fact, for instance, that
higher animals are self-aware.
Your fellow materialists have done their work well.
> the catholic church does
>not take positions on many issues, for example, biblical literalism.
>just because YOU dont like their position does not mean they are wrong
>for not having one.
>>"Respectful noninterference" is suggested as a principle for christians
>>not for the modern secular theorist. The modern secular theorist sees
>>no clash because they believe the propositions of christian Faith are
>>superstitious nonsense with some utilitarian value.
>prove it. there is no such thing as a 'modern secular theorist'. its a
>meaningless pagano neologism devoid of content...in fact that
>describes all your arguments
Do you deny the existence of magazines like _The Humanist_?
Of the two versions of the Humanist Manifesto?
>On the other hand
>>the chrisitian is called to believe that the propositions of Faith are
>>objectively true.
>which does not mean they are
>1. provable
...otherwise everyone would be a Catholic.
>2. able to be arrived at via the use of reason
>3. demonstrable to the senses.
>thus they have no relationship to science
Logical non sequitur.
> If they clash with specific propositions of the
>>modern secular theorist something has to give. Gould and the NAS
>>suggest "respectful noninterference"---which simply means the christian
>>should ignore the clash. This is irrational. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>
>they dont. there are some christians who have invented arbitrary and
>capricious views of christianity bordering on pantheism (e.g.
>creationism) but this is not a part of mainstream christianity.
>but neither christianity nor science is responsible for the beliefs of
>christian cults.
Like the cult of Teilhard De Chardin? I agree.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos and the unanswered question
References: <3888BC...@frontiernet.net>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <868r92$bkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8686r6$te1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> >> > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> >> > > posted and emailed
> >> > <snip>
> >use
> >> to
> >> > > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I
understand
> >> it,
> >> > > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and
> >the
> >> > > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known
simultaneously.
> >If
> >> > this
> >> > > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively
disproven,
> >> but
> >> > > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we
can't
> >do
> >> it
> >> > > >yet.
> >> > >
> >> > > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to
your
> >> > position, my
> >> > > friend.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not
have 'velocity'
> >> only
> >> > > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does
not
> >> > exist in the
> >> > > quantum domain.)
> >> >
Then p = momentum (and hence v) has a continous spectrum (the whole of
momentum space).
The "eigenfunctions" exp(-ip.x/hbar) are not square-integrable and thus
are not bona fide members of Hilbert space. That's why one
constructs "wave packets" ...
> >> It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the
> >commutation
> >> implies an integration.
> >
> >??? commutation => integration ??? Please explain ....
> >
> >I was talking about h-bar=h/2pi, but my keyboard lacked the bar ;-)
> >
> >> If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average
of q
> >> is stationary.
> >
> >But they don't.
>
> d<q>/dt is stationary, *IF* <v> = 0, i.e. if the *expectation value*
of the
> commutator is zero. As you point out the commutator is not zero.
> You knew that, of course, I'm just putting my 0.02 euros in.
Of course, in a stationary state (an eigenstate of H) all expectation
values are constant.
You knew that, of course, I'm just putting my 0.02 euros in :-)
Regards,
HRG.
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>CC: Pagano
>
>wf...@ptd.net writes:
>
>>why should the church attempt to reconcile an issue which is not an
>>issue? the catholic church has stated it has one single restriction on
>>acceptance of evolution: that it not attempt to describe the evolution
>>of the 'mind'.
>
>That's a huge topic right there since it concerns one's own
>very self.
>
>> evolution does not do that.
>
>But materialists do.
really?
prove it. if you can prove that statement we'd certainly be much
obliged. merely stating your opinion on the subject is irrelevant w/o
the facts.
And nowadays most people are reflexive
>materialists on the subject of "mind", i.e. the conscious self.
\
which has to do with brains, not minds. big difference
>
>>prove it. there is no such thing as a 'modern secular theorist'. its a
>>meaningless pagano neologism devoid of content...in fact that
>>describes all your arguments
>
>Do you deny the existence of magazines like _The Humanist_?
>Of the two versions of the Humanist Manifesto?
do you deny the existence of theoretical physics? your position is
irrelevant. pagano is referring to all scientists as 'secular
theorists' because they dont accept his view of biblical literalism
>
>>On the other hand
>>>the chrisitian is called to believe that the propositions of Faith are
>>>objectively true.
>
>>which does not mean they are
>
>>1. provable
>
>...otherwise everyone would be a Catholic.
>
>>2. able to be arrived at via the use of reason
>>3. demonstrable to the senses.
>
>>thus they have no relationship to science
>
>Logical non sequitur.
if you can find anywhere the RCC says science, via empirical
measurements says god exists, please do so.
>
>>>
>>they dont. there are some christians who have invented arbitrary and
>>capricious views of christianity bordering on pantheism (e.g.
>>creationism) but this is not a part of mainstream christianity.
>
>>but neither christianity nor science is responsible for the beliefs of
>>christian cults.
>
>Like the cult of Teilhard De Chardin? I agree.
>
de chardin is irrelevant. his views are accepted neither by the
catholic church nor scientists.
Mike Goodrich
trying to say.
posted and emailed
>posted and emailed
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> mdun...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>> > Mike Goodrich wrote:
>> > > Mike Dunford <mdun...@impop.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:387FABB3...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
>> > > > posted and emailed
>> > > > --==--
>> > > >
>> > > > A Pagano wrote:
>[snip]
>> > So you say. I would say that there have been more than enough tests,
>> > especially genetic comparisons, but also including fossil record
>> > evidence, to establish common descent as more than just a mere
>> > hypothesis.
>>
>> A comparison is not a test, as no active dynamics are witnessed.
>
>This is a definition of test that I am not familiar with.
See 'empirical'.
> In my
>understanding of the term, from both my background in science and my
>course work in philosophy of science, I have found "test" to mean a
>falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.
And it has never been done ### in the field of evolutionary biology ### in a
other method ### - whatever that might mean. Whatever it means it is a
weaker standard
than empirical. ### Further I originally objected to the use of the label
(empirically). One is justified in ### asking when has ### ANY empirical
A Pagano
I asked Mike Goodrich to clarify his position on authorities, noting
that we tend to give greater weight to people who are experts and who
have studied issues. He replied:
Goodrich replied:
The simple fact is, is that science is suppose to be an endeavor which
is above all else OBJECTIVE. An opinion is subjective. Only the
evidence is actually objective. Interpretations of evidence while
subjective, can be scrutinized to see just how tenable they actually
are. The danger is that those who have a prediliction for some world
view will go beyond what is warranted by the actual available evidence,
and misuse
their cultural authority. That they will assume an air of authority
whereby their 'informed opinion' becomes a substitute for an objective
proving out process.
Darren Provine responded:
In that case, why did you recently advise someone else: [Goodrich
apparently wrote] "You can check out the works of Phillip Johnson,
Michael Behe, William Dembski, William Lane Craig, Mark Hartwig, Stephen
Meyer, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, Jonathan Wells, etc. Lots of stuff
by these folks can be found on the 'net by just searching for it." [END
QUOTE] All you have done is refer that other poster to a bunch of
authorities who will give their interpretations, bolstered by nothing
but their authority. None of your references is to any primary source.
None of them are recognisable authors of books about logic and
reasoning.
Pagano responds:
In and of itself Goodrich's quote simply refers the reader to
credentialed authors whose interpretation of the evidence disagrees and
contradicts the modern secular consensus opinion. The quote in no way
indicates that Goodrich employs the weak argument from authority.
***************************************************
Darren Provine wrote:
Many of them, such as Phillip Johnson, abuse their cultural authority:
Johnson, highly trained in law, postures as one trained in logic and
science. (If you believe law is logical, you should read _An
Introduction to Legal Reasoning_, by Edward H Levi. It will make clear
the wisdom of Scriptural injunctions to settle disputes before you get
to court.)
Pagano replies:
First off Johnson has never claimed authority over the truth about any
aspect of reality let alone over culture (Anyone have a clue what the
label "cultural authority" means?). Provine might be quilty of
misrepresentation with his use of the word "postures." All legal
training includes detailed instruction in the use of, construction of,
and disassembly of all forms of arguments. That Johnson chose to
specialize and develop an expertise in this aspect of the law could
hardly be characterized as posturing. And such an expertise can be used
to analyze any written work. As near as I can tell Johnson is being
taken quite seriously by most of his opponents because of the strength
of his criticism not because of some artificial and hollow "political"
posturing.
*************************************
Darren Provine continues:
None of your books are to mainstream works or to primary sources. Why
is that?
Pagano replies:
Perhaps it is to let some of the uniniformed know that there are
credentialed people who disagree with the modern secular opinion and
have offered their arguments and interpretations in written form. One
wouldn't know that such works exist by searching at most public
libraries or at probably many university libraries.
The primary problem with exclusive review of modern secular works for
the uninformed is that problems with the consensus framework---if they
are discussed at all---are minimized or answered in ad hoc fashion. Such
problems are rarely discussed in popular works, and rarely discussed in
the classroom or in the general media. As pointed out in a recent
"Science" editorial by Greenwood, it is apparently the opinion of many
in the modern secular scientific community that opinions and
interpretations which are skeptical or could lead to skepticism should
be reserved for the ears and eyes of those in the scientific community
with the proper understanding. This should explain why Goodrich
presented the list of references.
****************************************
Provine continues:
Were I wanting to recommend books for someone who's interested in why I
reject "scientific creationism", I would certainly include on my list
works
such as _Scientific Creationism_, by Henry Morris, and _The Collapse of
Evolution_, by Scott Huse. I think the best way to let someone
understand
the total emptiness of the "scientific creationist" position is for them
to
see creationist "reasoning" for themselves. I'd add in some mainstream
books, such as _Science and Earth History_, by Arthur Strahler, one of
Koza
or Michaelwicz's books on evolutionary programming (which will show up
just
how stupid and incompetent Scott Huse is -- neither of his evolution
programs works) and _Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric_, by Howard Kahane
(this last is just about how to spot stupid arguments, and doesn't
mention
evolution or creation at all). I would also include more balanced
books,
such as _The Biblical Flood_, by Davis Young (who rejects evolution but
accepts geological conclusions), and _How To Think About Creation/
Evolution_, by L Duane Thurmon (who rejects evolution, I think, but it's
hard to tell), so as to present people sorta in the middle there.
Pagano replies:
Provine criticized Goodrich for offering references to readers which are
exclusively competing and contradict the modern secular orthodoxy. Was
it necessary for Goodrich to offer "mainstream" references? In a
word---"NO." Since the early 1950s the modern secular theories have
been taught in the schools as fact from 6th through graduate level
education. The modern secular opinion has been propagated as fact in
the media for the same period of time. Typing the word "creationism"
and "creationist" into my large public library's computer index (and
probably many others throughout the country) produced only anti
creationist works. And if the common man has heard anything about
creationism it is likely to have been the historic "monkey trial" where
the creationists were ridiculed as believing in superstitious nonsense.
Taken in the context of history Provine's criticism of Goodrich is
profoundly mistaken.
Provine's laundry list of references explains nothing about his reasons
for rejecting scientific creationism since there is not a single
included substantive argument. I for one would be very interested to
see Provine's rational, substantive arguments about why he rejects
scientific creationism based upon his reading of the works in his above
list.
**************************************
Provine continues:
The reason I would make that list is that I believe a wide look at the
topic will demonstrate how ridiculous creationism is. Giving a listen
to people on the extremes, people writing only about logic, and people
not on the extremes who write with balance, will let you see which
voices have something worth saying. I encourage people to get some
training in logic and reasoning, and then read all the creationist works
they can get hold
of.
Pagano replies:
Scientific reationism has been taken more seriously lately than it has
since the "Scopes Trial" in 1925. Many may still think it mistaken, but
many are changing their minds about whether it is ridiculous,
particularly christians. I suspect that Provine couldn't even prove the
weak, subjective, and fleeting claim that scientific creationism was
ridiculous. Often in history new theories proposed by the minority
which contradicted the orthodoxy were ridiculed only for history to
prove them more truth-like than the orthodoxy.
Those who truly want a balanced opinion almost have to read creationist
works. The *popular modern secular* works either (1) ignore completely
the problems with evolutionism, (2) suggest that the problems are
insufficiently contradictory, (3) consider the problems to be anomolies
that don't logically effect the framework's truth or falsity, (4) answer
them in ad hoc fashion, or (5) they waive the problems away as only
apparent (rather than genuine) because of incomplete information. The
mainstream scientific works (as opposed to the ones written for the
general public) do often include the problems but are written in arcane
language and often treat the problems similarly to the popular secular
works. Creationists don't claim authority over the truth nor do they
claim to know the objective truth about the history of unobserved events
containing our origin. They are merely searching and investigating.
They do claim that Genesis has a literal sense which (1) corresponds to
the objective reality of unobserved history and (2) the Inspiration of
the Holy Spirit guarantees the truth of this correspondence.
******************************************
Provine continues:
If you really think that authority is so bad, and that we want
objectivity, you should either refer people only to primary sources, or
you should be sure to include books on all sides in an effort to dilute
out any of the authoritarian interpretations which the authors you cite
are going to be pushing.
Pagano replies:
The argument from authority isn't bad; it is weak because authorities
have no special insight into the objective truth about the unknown,
particularly about unobserved, unique, and non recurring history.
Authorities have mastered some detail and the testimony of authorities
is often relied upon, however, such people have no authority over the
objective truth and their scientific methodology has no privilege to
uncover unique, non recurring historical events.
Again since (1) everyone has been indoctrinated since the 1950s with the
"fact" of evolution, (2) the modern secular framework is propagated in
virtually every media outlet since the 1950s, (3) it can be found in
virtually every library in the country, and (4) because mainstream
sources ignore or downplay problems with their evolutionary framework
Goodrich's offering of a few representative references exclusively
critical of the modern secular orthodoxy is hardly the sin Provine
claims.
***************************************
Provine continues:
If you think the mainstream position is so awful, then the best
anti-Darwin book would be any book which takes the mainstream position.
Why not just let them hang themselves?
Pagano replies:
Phillip Johnson, for example, has done exactly what Provine suggests in
"Darwin On Trial." Michael Denton, who is hardly a creationist, did the
same thing in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." Richard Milton, who was
a science journalist, did the same thing in "Shattering the Myths of
Darwinism." These authors haven't "hung" modern secular theorists, but
they have shown their arguments to be criticizable, weak, and
demonstrated that it was well within the realm of possibility that the
modern secular arguments are false.
Many of us have done enough reading in a wide variety of disciplines
where we are marginally competent enough (not necessarily to falsify
evolutionary arguments and claims but) to show rationally that some of
the presuppositions, initial conditions, hypothetical historical
statements, and conjectures within the framework are not near as strong
as claimed and that some can hardly be characterized as objective fact.
********************************
Provine continues:
I certainly believe that the best anti-Creationist books were written by
Creationists. One who understands Darwinian theory and computer
programming can see Scott Huse for an incompetent moron just by reading
over the programs in the back of his book.
Pagano replies:
Here Provine uses the personal attack which is qualitatively weaker than
the argument from authority. Perhaps Provine could offer substantive
arguments to demonstrate how Huse's simple computer models didn't
demonstrate what they claimed to demonstrate. Perhaps while Provine was
at it he could critique Dawkins's computer model found in the back of
"The Blind Watchmaker." Dawkins's model inserts the decisions of an
intelligent agent into a model which is supposed to demonstrate how the
lack of an intelligent agent can accumulate information and create novel
structures. Huse may indeed be mistaken, but the claim that he is a
moron is weak and childish. And it gives me no small pleasure to point
this out.
****************************
Provine continues:
One who sees Henry Morris present an argument that the earth is only 100
years old will recognise just how clueless he is.
Pagano replies:
I'll assume for the sake of argument that Provine meant 10,000 years.
Again Provine doesn't offer the substantive arguments by which he bases
"his" understanding of and asserts the objective truth about what
happened during a unique, non recurring history of the earth's origin
and the life on it. How exactly does he know that Morris is not closer
to the truth than he is? Provine never says; he simply resorts to
childish name calling.
*********************************
Provine continues:
As for good pro-Creationist books, I don't know of any; the ones I've
read are all pretty dumb.
Pagano replies:
Which ones have you read and please offer some "dumb" quotes so that we
all may see where we have gone astray.
*********************************
Provine continues:
There's certainly nothing I know of which makes a simple, clear
pro-Creationist position in any respectable way. You or Tony Pagano or
somebody could write a simple netnews post taking such a position in
only 200 lines, if such a position existed. (But we both know it
doesn't, don't we?)
Pagano replies:
The mistake here is that we attempt to persuade Prof. Provine about
anything. We simply use his posts as an opportunity to criticize the
weaknesses of the modern secular framework. In this post Provine uses
the argument from authority and the personal attack. I think Goodrich
and I have shown briefly how weak and childish these arguments are
respectively. We have attempted to provide to the uninformed lurker or
the confused christian that such arguments are extremely weak and that
there are credentialed people who can and have presented rational,
strong arguments about origins which presume the intelligent design of a
Creator in opposition to purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
I suspect that Goodrich or I could present the creationist position in
far fewer than 200 lines. While the intelligent design community is
distinct from young earth creationists they are both opposed to the
purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
********************************
Provine continues:
You keep writing as if you think the mainstream scientific opinion is
all rubbish;
Pagano replies:
This is Provine's style of childish argument not Goodrich's. Goodrich
implies that the modern secular arguments are weak and may be mistaken,
but he hasn't (as far as I know) stated or implied that such arguments
were rubbish. These are entirely different claims.
*******************************
Provine finishes:
...but if that's the case, why didn't you just recommend to the nice
poster that she read some mainstream books and discover they're rubbish
for herself?
Pagano replies:
Already asked and answered.
Regards.
T Pagano
Wesley R. Elsberry
[...]
DP>One who sees Henry Morris present an argument that the earth
DP>is only 100 years old will recognise just how clueless he is.
AP>I'll assume for the sake of argument that Provine meant
AP>10,000 years.
[...]
It is nice to see that Pagano is consistent in being ignorant.
Not only does Pagano avoid knowing stuff about biology, he
also works hard at not knowing stuff about SciCre. Henry
Morris presents table of 'chronometers' of the earth's age
in "The Scientific Case for Creation" starting on page 55
and continuing to page 59. On page 58, entry 55 reads
[Quote]
55. Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers 100 years [Ref.] 41
[End Quote - HM Morris, The Scientific Case for Creation, p. 58]
Provine knows what he is talking about here. Pagano, as usual,
is out to lunch.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Raise your can of beer on high\And seal your fate forever" - BOC
Mike Goodrich
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:868r92$bkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8686r6$te1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> > > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
> > > > posted and emailed
> > > <snip>
> > > > >As an aside, I would wonder exactly what methodology one might
> use
> > to
> > > > >experimentally confirm the uncertainty principle. As I understand
> > it,
> > > > >the uncertainty principle indicates that both the velocity and
> the
> > > > >position of a subatomic particle cannot be known simultaneously.
> If
> > > this
> > > > >is the case, than that statement might be definitively disproven,
> > but
> > > > >all that a confirming observation demonstrates is that we can't
> do
> > it
> > > > >yet.
> > > >
> > > > You may have unwittingly chosen a disadvantageous example to your
> > > position, my
> > > > friend.
> > >
> > > Well, let's see.
> > >
> > > > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
> > only
> > > > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
> > > exist in the
> > > > quantum domain.)
> > >
> > > Do you really want to claim that dq/dt = -ih[H,q] is not a self-
> > adjoint
> > > operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
> > is
> > > an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
> > > commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
> > > Your claim is refuted.
> >
> > Not the same thing. Succesive measurements of position, will be found
> > to be discontinuous, thus the limit you implied by the above
> expression
> > *will not exist*.
>
> Please tell me where you learned your quantum mechanics: time
> evolution, Heisenberg representation vs. Schrödinger representation and
> all that
No need to get nasty.
>(I taught this at university level).
Well you've got me on this one. I have only been a student of the subject
(at the graduate level). You may well know more about the subject than I
do.
>
> The fact that the position operator commutes with
> > the Hamiltonian,
>
> What fact ? q does not commute with H.
>
Quite right. My mistake. You were talking about the components of the
velocity commuting, meaning all could be known simultaneously. There was no
need for my leaping to the case where q and H commute.
> thus allowing simultaneous observables of position and
> > total energy does not repeat *does not* imply that the limit exists.
> > You need the think more about what the above expression actually
> means.
>
> I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
> (=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
> Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
> exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
>
Does this mean its just a surogate expression for a momentum measurement? I
ask this not because I'm taking issue with you necessarily, but because
quite frankly I am unaccustomed to conceptualizing about a 'velocity'
measurement as having some kind of independent significance.
> > It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the
Another mistake, I meant to write
d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)<[H,q] >
or actually
d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)<[q,H] > (isn't there a minus sign problem
in your original expression?)
having left the angle brackets out.
> commutation
> > implies an integration.
>
> ??? commutation => integration ??? Please explain ....
Plain incorrect as stated. "as the commutation is to be integrated in the
above expression" is what I should have said.
Now I am comfortable with the expression
d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)<[H,q] >
as it relates to the idea of empirical measurement (of position here) which
is where I was coming from originally. Strictly speaking, of course this
expression implies statistics done on a set of individual measurements.
That said, I don't know that I would consider your refutation valid at this
point without further study on the matter. It will be frank with you and
say that I am not sure that the expression you cited
dq/dt = -ih[H,q]
passes to the classical limit as velocity, as does the expression for
momentum (to momentum). As Landau and Lifshitz discuss, no smooth curve
(path) from which the classical velocity is identified exists in the
quantum domain. So wether you have shown a good expression which rebutes my
statement that there is no velocity (which passes to the classical limit) I
am frankly not sure about. I suspect it does not, but I can't really say
that you are right or wrong at this point until I ponder this some more. I
am certainly willing to say that I could be wrong - but I am frankly not
certain at this point, and wouldn't simply take your word for it (which
doesn't mean you aren't right of course).
Consider this: classically you may simultaneously have x(t), and v(t) (and
therfore p(t)) which allows you write v(x) (or p(x)).
But you may not do this in Q.M. Do you agree?
If so, how does one have a meaningfull Q.M. expression for velocity? Or
perhaps I should ask it this way: If you have some expression for
'velocity' what does it really mean (or what does it add)? I.e., what is
it's dynamical significance?
>
> I was talking about h-bar=h/2pi, but my keyboard lacked the bar ;-)
I know, I wasn't taking issue with you on this. ;-)
>
> > If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average of q
> > is stationary.
>
> But they don't.
>
Again, my mistake. I am guilty of not carefully reading what you said, and
I think I let myself get fixated on the idea of q and H commuting - which
again I agree is clearly not what you said.
> > >
> > > In fact, Werner Heisenberg actually *discovered* the u.p.
> > > > when he organized a number of EMPIRICAL findings into matrices
> upon
> > > which to do
> > > > a comparative analysis. He actually discovered . (or uncovered
> > > perhaps is
> > > > better) the u.p as an feature of the empirical results!
> > > > **What a concept**
> > >
> > > Well, it was not as simple as that. A few theoretical concepts like
> > > commutators, expectation values etc. were necessary as well.
> >
> > Of course, so what?
> >
> > > Do you
> > > claim he *deduced* the u.p. from observations of spectra ?
> > >
> >
> > Essentially. The "deduction" was more a recognition of something in
> > the actual empirical data.
> >
> > http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07b.htm
>
> You mean every matrix element of p and q was measured, and then the
> infinite sum was calculated by hand ?
Of course not. Any real set of measurements is necessarily finite of
course. Not sure what
you are getting at here unless you are trying to say that "we can't measure
everything" (which I
agree)??
>
> > Now folks, this is REAL SCIENCE. The kind we can teach our children
> > without worrying about making them to tow the line on some
> > philosophical ISM. Q.E.D.
>
> The irony in your claim is unbelievable.
No irony really. I think you are going beyond what is warranted. I simply
meant that what we have is a product of empirical results and as such can be
trusted regardless of philosophical bent. Whatever philosophical framework
you care to come from, the u.p. is still true as it relates to measurement.
I say it this way because Bohm, et. al., have formulated a deterministic
Q.M., albiet with non-locality as a required feature. Which brings up a
very good point. Why do universities almost entirely teach the Copenhagen
interpretation as the standard philosophical view and do not teach e.g., the
pilot wave formulation? J.S Bell has certainly lamented this. I.e., why
aren't they CAREFULLY philosophically neutral?
>The philosophical
> interpretation of QM is full of ambiguities (Copenhagen interpretation,
> Reichenbachs 3-valued logic, Everett's multiuniverses, Wigner's etc.
> etc. ),
This much I completely agree with you. I think J.S. Bell has had some
interesting things to say about this, as well as David Bohm, and perhaps L.
DeBroglie.
>while the theory evolution, as every theory real science, is
> only based on the working assumption of methodological naturalism.
>
I do not agree with this. There are still in my view plenty of ambiguities.
And I think it would be better to say "methodological materialism", as I
would not equate naturalism with materialism. I also claim that evolution
is not a theory but a (low-grade) hypothesis. But of course, what that
statment means (and yours of course) is dependent on what definition of that
slipperest-of-terms evolution you happen to be using.
> HRG.
> Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
>
> > > > Now this is a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. It was by actually
> > > doing the
> > > > delta calculations on the matrices of the empirical tests that he
> > > found it! He
> > > > had no pretext - it fell out as a direct result.
> > >
> > > And Darwin had no pretext either - his theory fell out as a direct
> > > result of 20 years of careful studies.
> > >
> > > HRG.
>
> >
> > --Mike Goodrich
>
> <sigsnip>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Well, HRG, I suppose this is the best I can do in the time I am willing to
devote to this. The truth is I would rather discuss origins (or I would be
over in sci.physics). I apologies for being sloppy - and not paying
attention to what you had actually said. I don't mean by this that I am
going to do some hit-and-run. If you care to respond to some of the
points/questions I raised, I will certainly read them with interest.
How/when I would respond is hard to say, depends on how much is going on I
suppose, as their are some other threads I need to devote time to and I am
concerned that an extended discussion about Q.M. could go on for some and
realistically be off track.
--Mike Goodrich
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
All legal
>training includes detailed instruction in the use of, construction of,
>and disassembly of all forms of arguments. That Johnson chose to
>specialize and develop an expertise in this aspect of the law could
>hardly be characterized as posturing.
since johnson himself states he became opposed to science only after
his conversion to christianity, it's apparent he has a bias and is
applying his legal training to support a bias in favor of christian
fundamentalism
And such an expertise can be used
>to analyze any written work. As near as I can tell Johnson is being
>taken quite seriously by most of his opponents because of the strength
>of his criticism not because of some artificial and hollow "political"
>posturing.
if he's taken seriously, please cite any reference to peer reviewed
science journals indicating his position has support. he is taken
seriously by those who have already established an antiscience bias.
period.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Perhaps it is to let some of the uniniformed know that there are
>credentialed people who disagree with the modern secular opinion and
>have offered their arguments and interpretations in written form. One
>wouldn't know that such works exist by searching at most public
>libraries or at probably many university libraries.
science is science. there is not 'secular' science and 'religious'
science. thus all science is secular in that it does not address god
at all. those who say it does are merely expressing their own
arbitrary cultural beliefs ABOUT science, NOT science itself.
.. Such
>problems are rarely discussed in popular works, and rarely discussed in
>the classroom or in the general media.
paranoia. conspiracy theorism. evolutionists under every bed scenario.
typical creationist. since the public is overwhelmingly ignorant of
science in general, and evolution in particular, it's obvious
creationism, not science, has more public knowledge and support.
> Pagano replies:
Typing the word "creationism"
>and "creationist" into my large public library's computer index (and
>probably many others throughout the country) produced only anti
>creationist works.
so? you expect astrology, voodoo, creationism and other superstitions
to be given favorable reviews by science? why?
And if the common man has heard anything about
>creationism it is likely to have been the historic "monkey trial" where
>the creationists were ridiculed as believing in superstitious nonsense.
since at least 40% of the american public, according to the latest CNN
poll, believes in creationism, this statement of pagano's is another
creationist fantasy. creationists are good at making stuff up, not in
addressing facts.
>
> Pagano replies:
>
>Those who truly want a balanced opinion almost have to read creationist
>works.
dont forget astrology and voodoo. if creationism is science, so is
astrology
The *popular modern secular* works either (1) ignore completely
>the problems with evolutionism,
wrong. in fact, in the february, 2000 issue of scientific american
there are 2 articles dealing with revised theories of the development
of life on earth. if pagano thinks science is ignoring evidence, he
has no evidence to back it up, besides creationist paranoia.
.. The
>mainstream scientific works (as opposed to the ones written for the
>general public) do often include the problems but are written in arcane
>language and often treat the problems similarly to the popular secular
>works.
bizarre. absolutely bizarre. has pagano ever read a science which
DIDNT employ 'arcane' language? ever read physics? string theory? you
want arcane language...but pagano, since he is paranoid about science,
sees this as evidence of conspiracy when employed by biologists.
it's ultimately a circular argument.
Creationists don't claim authority over the truth nor do they
>claim to know the objective truth about the history of unobserved events
>containing our origin. They are merely searching and investigating.
>They do claim that Genesis has a literal sense which (1) corresponds to
>the objective reality of unobserved history and (2) the Inspiration of
>the Holy Spirit guarantees the truth of this correspondence.
what they claim is that this is, a priori true, and evidence must be
distorted or ignored to comply with this. thats not science.
> Pagano replies:
>Again since (1) everyone has been indoctrinated since the 1950s with the
>"fact" of evolution,
since the CNN poll contradicts this, we, again, see pagano making up
facts. which parts of his argument are true and which false? because
he routinely lies about the facts, only he knows
(2) the modern secular framework is propagated in
>virtually every media outlet since the 1950s, (3) it can be found in
>virtually every library in the country, and (4) because mainstream
>sources ignore or downplay problems with their evolutionary framework
>Goodrich's offering of a few representative references exclusively
>critical of the modern secular orthodoxy is hardly the sin Provine
>claims.
if you think the media downplays disputes in evolution, check, again,
the february 2000 issue of 'scientific american'. pagano is wrong.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Phillip Johnson, for example, has done exactly what Provine suggests in
>"Darwin On Trial." Michael Denton, who is hardly a creationist, did the
>same thing in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."
denton's book was written 10 yrs ago...and it supported design. since
then he's written another book which phillip johnson trashed in a
review because it was not politically correct enough for creationists
>
>Many of us have done enough reading in a wide variety of disciplines
>where we are marginally competent enough (not necessarily to falsify
>evolutionary arguments and claims but) to show rationally that some of
>the presuppositions, initial conditions, hypothetical historical
>statements, and conjectures within the framework are not near as strong
>as claimed and that some can hardly be characterized as objective fact.
except, as shown above, you routinely distort such basic facts as the
percentage of the population which accepts creationism. if thats your
view of competency, your position is in VERY bad shape.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I'll assume for the sake of argument that Provine meant 10,000 years.
>Again Provine doesn't offer the substantive arguments by which he bases
>"his" understanding of and asserts the objective truth about what
>happened during a unique, non recurring history of the earth's origin
>and the life on it. How exactly does he know that Morris is not closer
>to the truth than he is? Provine never says; he simply resorts to
>childish name calling.
and pagano never says anything about the basis of his argument: that
all scientists are secular, pursuing secular purposes, to destroy
creationism.
why would the worlds scientific community do this?
pagano never says. he calls others on the carpet, but he himself never
rises to standards he sets for others...typical creationist hypocrisy.
> Pagano replies:
>The mistake here is that we attempt to persuade Prof. Provine about
>anything. We simply use his posts as an opportunity to criticize the
>weaknesses of the modern secular framework. In this post Provine uses
>the argument from authority and the personal attack. I think Goodrich
>and I have shown briefly how weak and childish these arguments are
>respectively. We have attempted to provide to the uninformed lurker or
>the confused christian that such arguments are extremely weak and that
>there are credentialed people who can and have presented rational,
>strong arguments about origins which presume the intelligent design of a
>Creator in opposition to purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
except there are principled christians, like pope john paul II who
accept evolution while not considering it a threat to faith. and we
see fundamentalists like phillip johnson impugning the faith of
christians who do so. creationism is, essentially, antichristian
bigotry. ironic.
>
>I suspect that Goodrich or I could present the creationist position in
>far fewer than 200 lines. While the intelligent design community is
>distinct from young earth creationists they are both opposed to the
>purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
they are opposed to materialism in science. since science is,
necessarily, materialistic (thats part of the definition of the
physical sciences) such a position would destroy science.
and that's a goal of creationism. creationism, based on christian
fundamentalism, is an authoritarian ideology. it will not stand for
any challenge, any independent thought, any creativity. it is both
anti-science AND anti christian.
Chaver09
news:3889EE35...@fast.net...
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> I asked Mike Goodrich to clarify his position on
> authorities, noting that we tend to give greater weight
> to people who are experts and who have studied
> issues.
The same Mike Goodrich also claimed he was one who found Pagano's arguments
convincing. Unfortunately at that time I did not get to challenge that and
I notice that no one else did either, so I challenge Goodrich to tell us
which of Pagano's arguments he finds convincing and why.
> He replied:
>
> Goodrich replied:
> The simple fact is, is that science is suppose to be an
> endeavor which is above all else OBJECTIVE.
As much as is possible in any human endeavor, yes.
> An opinion is subjective.
A frequent creationist tactic is to refer to the statements of scientists or
supporters of evolution as "just an opinion," as if that opinion carries no
more weight than the opinion of the typical "man on the street."
This is wrong, of course, and even constitutes misrepresentation.
> Only the evidence is actually objective.
Pagano says we can't interpret evidence objectively and that it never stands
alone in determining "truth." He has been shown to be wrong about that more
than once but that doesn't stop "unteachable" Pagano from endlessly and
tirelessly repeating himself in print.
> Interpretations of evidence while subjective, can be
> scrutinized to see just how tenable they actually
> are. The danger is that those who have a prediliction
> for some world view will go beyond what is warranted
> by the actual available evidence, and misuse their
> cultural authority. That they will assume an air of authority
> whereby their 'informed opinion' becomes a substitute
> for an objective proving out process.
This is typical vague creationist posturing and can be effectively
challenged by asking the creationist to provide an example of a piece of
evidence used to support evolution and then explaining where the errors in
"interpretation" with respect to the rules of science have occurred.
It is no wonder Goodrich seems to like Pagano's arguments. He essentially
make the same arguments himself and they are every bit as invalid.
> Darren Provine responded:
> In that case, why did you recently advise someone
> else: [Goodrich apparently wrote] "You can check
> out the works of Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William
> Dembski, William Lane Craig, Mark Hartwig, Stephen
> Meyer, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, Jonathan Wells, etc.
> Lots of stuff by these folks can be found on the 'net by
> just searching for it." [END QUOTE] All you have done
> is refer that other poster to a bunch of authorities who
> will give their interpretations, bolstered by nothing
> but their authority.
Absolutely. This is especially true of Johnson, a clueless poseur who is,
in fact, not an expert at all. He is a lawyer. What authority does he have
with respect to science?
Answer: Nil.
> None of your references is to any primary source.
Right.
> None of them are recognisable authors of books about
> logic and reasoning.
Or science. Not really.
Now let's see how Pagano "answers" this.
> Pagano responds:
Sort of...
> In and of itself Goodrich's quote simply refers the
> reader to credentialed authors whose interpretation
> of the evidence disagrees and contradicts the modern
> secular consensus opinion.
Two things. First, the "modern secular consensus opinion" is Paganospeak
for "the current scientific understanding." Don't be fooled. Second, it is
likely that Pagano has never read anything substantially by any of the
authors listed.
> The quote in no way indicates that Goodrich
> employs the weak argument from authority.
"The weak argument from authority?" As opposed to "the STRONG argument from
authority?" No, this is more Paganospeak. Pagano must declare arguments
from authority "weak" because all reasonable "authority" shows him to be in
almost-constant error. Meanwhile Pagano himself frequently argues from
authority - his own. Unfortunately, Pagano possesses no authority.
Goodrich does indeed argue from authority and Pagano, himself,
surreptitiously does so by slyly pointing out in his response that Goodrich
refers to "credentialed" authors. Whether or not these "credentials" are
appropriate or meaningful with respect to the subject under discussion is
irrelevant to Pagano and is, in fact, probably unknown by him. He simply
reveals a degree of hypocrisy.
[More "harsh criticism" of Paganoisms to come as time permits]
Tracy P. Hamilton
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <86bjej$bhb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <86a0el$h2p$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>,
> "Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
>>
>> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in message <868r92$bkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> > Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>> >> > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
>> >> > > posted and emailed
>> >> > <snip>
[mucho snippo]
>> >I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
>> >(=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
>> >Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
>> >exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
>>
>> What about definite v for a free particle (aka particle in a box with
>no
>> box)?
>
>Then p = momentum (and hence v) has a continous spectrum (the whole of
>momentum space).
>The "eigenfunctions" exp(-ip.x/hbar) are not square-integrable and thus
>are not bona fide members of Hilbert space. That's why one
>constructs "wave packets" ...
I guess my next question "Is this right?" I understand the eigenfunctions
are not square integrable, but they do have sharp eigenvalues and satisfy a
time dependent Schrodinger Equation. I know how wave packets get
around this, even imparting a group velocity.
Remember that the original question was about velocities having a definite
value.
If you take the limit as a wave packet spreads, you have an *arbitrarily*
small
spread in velocity. Not only that, but it is not clear that the velocity
spread
is for a single particle or for an ensemble of identical systems. QM *is*
statistical, after all.
The square integrablility requirement is a demand of the interpretation
aspect only,
not the computational one.
How do the physicists answer this nowadays?
>> >> It should have been written d<q>/dt = -i(h/2pi)[H,q] as the
>> >commutation
>> >> implies an integration.
>> >
>> >??? commutation => integration ??? Please explain ....
>> >
>> >I was talking about h-bar=h/2pi, but my keyboard lacked the bar ;-)
>> >
>> >> If H,q commute then both sides are zero meaning that the average
>of q
>> >> is stationary.
>> >
>> >But they don't.
>>
>> d<q>/dt is stationary, *IF* <v> = 0, i.e. if the *expectation value*
>of the
>> commutator is zero. As you point out the commutator is not zero.
>> You knew that, of course, I'm just putting my 0.02 euros in.
>
>Of course, in a stationary state (an eigenstate of H) all expectation
>values are constant.
>You knew that, of course, I'm just putting my 0.02 euros in :-)
Steering this back to Heisenberg, this is an example of the following, which
I will illustrate with the better known example in angular momentum.
Lx and Ly do not commute (its commutator is i hbar Lz - or minus, not
important), therefore you can't have arbitrarily precise values for them.
Or so it seems.
For L=0, lx and ly *must* be zero, and
so have no uncertainty, thus *appearing to violate the Heisenberg
Uncertainty.
The key is that you take the expecation value of the commutator.
Even though the commutator is not zero, in some cases its expectation
value is. Or constant in the above example, so d<q>/dt = 0 for some
states.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich wrote in message ...
>O.K. folks time to me to fess up to some sloppy mistakes: See below.
>
><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:868r92$bkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8686r6$te1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Mike Goodrich <rog...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <866h7r$ktt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > In article <20000119221349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>> > > hac...@aol.com (Hackux) wrote:
>> > > > posted and emailed
>> > > <snip>
[snip]
>> > > > First a few fine points. Quantum particles do not have 'velocity'
>> > only
>> > > > momentum. (Velocity implies a definite trajectory which does not
>> > > exist in the
>> > > > quantum domain.)
Should I point out here that momentum has direction, too? There are all
sorts
of uncertainties in QM.
>> > > Do you really want to claim that dq/dt = -ih[H,q] is not a self-
>> > adjoint
>> > > operator on a suitable domain ? If it is a self-adjoint operator, it
>> > is
>> > > an observable. In the absence of a magnetic field, its components
>> > > commute, thus simultaneous (approximate) eigenstates can be formed.
>> > > Your claim is refuted.
For HRG: Are they square integrable though? Or are you referring to
an arbitrarily spread wave packet?
>> Please tell me where you learned your quantum mechanics: time
>> evolution, Heisenberg representation vs. Schrödinger representation and
>> all that
>
>No need to get nasty.
>
>>(I taught this at university level).
>
>Well you've got me on this one. I have only been a student of the subject
>(at the graduate level). You may well know more about the subject than I
>do.
Well, some teach it better than others, and that may not be your fault.
However, you should always realize that different professor have different
philosophies about presenting or hiding difficult concepts.
>> I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
>> (=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
>> Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
>> exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
>>
>
>Does this mean its just a surogate expression for a momentum measurement?
I
>ask this not because I'm taking issue with you necessarily, but because
>quite frankly I am unaccustomed to conceptualizing about a 'velocity'
>measurement as having some kind of independent significance.
This question may be an indication of a possible problem. (I do not have
a clear enough grasp to know.) When Heisenberg U.P. is presented,
many times discussion of the uncertainties is in terms of measurement
uncertainties, or the measurement having a certain minimum affect
of the measured system that imparts such uncertainties. The Heisenberg
U.P. is more fundamental than that - even if we were able the make the
measurement without physical disturbance, the effects remain. If
uncertainty is not due to measurement, then what is it related to?
[snip]
>That said, I don't know that I would consider your refutation valid at this
>point without further study on the matter. It will be frank with you and
>say that I am not sure that the expression you cited
>
> dq/dt = -ih[H,q]
>
>passes to the classical limit as velocity,
That is irrelevant. The expression above is a mathematical fact.
If it does not pass to the classical limit as velocity, then there is
a problem for the correspondence principle - which may I add
is not necessarily thought to be a requirement on QM (IIRC).
Perhaps you can remember what the original point was.
*Experimental* verification of Heisenberg U. P. ?
[snip]
[snip question for later consideration]
>No irony really. I think you are going beyond what is warranted. I simply
>meant that what we have is a product of empirical results and as such can
be
>trusted regardless of philosophical bent. Whatever philosophical framework
>you care to come from, the u.p. is still true as it relates to measurement.
As it relates to everything.
Why is a mathematical result more trustworthy? Was classical mechanics
pre-QM trustworthy? No, not for the purposes of studying small systems.
Mathematical beuaty and nicety are just that. It is *your* philosophical
bent that makes you take an area whose results you don't like and uses
methods that you don't use (just like chemists don't do things the same
way as physicists), tag them untrustworthy, and then search about for
differences and assert them as the arbiters.
As a chemist, let me ask this question. A good deal of chemistry is
explaining
reactions in terms of mechanisms. If two types of compounds groups come
together in identical reaction conditions (say alcohols and carboxylic acids
to make esters) many times such that a synthesis of a new ester is
attempted.
It frequently does not work. Is that a failure of chemistry? Perhaps
unscientific?
>>while the theory evolution, as every theory real science, is
>> only based on the working assumption of methodological naturalism.
>>
>
>I do not agree with this. There are still in my view plenty of
ambiguities.
>And I think it would be better to say "methodological materialism", as I
>would not equate naturalism with materialism.
What is the difference? Does physics use methodological materialism?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich
Tracy P. Hamilton <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote in message
news:86d9sb$mob$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
Only a requirement for bound states, no?
> >> Please tell me where you learned your quantum mechanics: time
> >> evolution, Heisenberg representation vs. Schrödinger representation and
> >> all that
> >
> >No need to get nasty.
> >
> >>(I taught this at university level).
> >
> >Well you've got me on this one. I have only been a student of the
subject
> >(at the graduate level). You may well know more about the subject than I
> >do.
>
>
> Well, some teach it better than others, and that may not be your fault.
> However, you should always realize that different professor have different
> philosophies about presenting or hiding difficult concepts.
>
Boy is that ever the truth. I never could understand why some professors
wanted to be coy about diffucult material. It is one reason I have always
greatly enjoyed the books by Landau & Lifshitz, David Bohm, and David Saxon.
>
> >> I've thought about it (several times, actually). It means that dq/dt
> >> (=p/m in the absence of a magnetic field) exists as an observable.
> >> Nothing more, nothing less. No sharp eigenstates exist (unless you
> >> exclose the system in a box), but they don't exist for q either.
> >>
> >
> >Does this mean its just a surogate expression for a momentum measurement?
> I
> >ask this not because I'm taking issue with you necessarily, but because
> >quite frankly I am unaccustomed to conceptualizing about a 'velocity'
> >measurement as having some kind of independent significance.
>
>
> This question may be an indication of a possible problem. (I do not have
> a clear enough grasp to know.) When Heisenberg U.P. is presented,
> many times discussion of the uncertainties is in terms of measurement
> uncertainties, or the measurement having a certain minimum affect
> of the measured system that imparts such uncertainties. The Heisenberg
> U.P. is more fundamental than that - even if we were able the make the
> measurement without physical disturbance, the effects remain. If
> uncertainty is not due to measurement, then what is it related to?
>
I beleive that this is exactly the point Einstein was making in EPR, namely
the inability of Q.M. to provide a complete description of the system, or
more specifically, by chosing a particular representation, one has "chosen"
which dynamical variables one can describe. Einstein took the view that the
excluded ones surely existed, Bohr would have said the way you choose to
measure something determined what you could describe and was traceble to the
qunatized interaction between 'appartus' and system. Bohm, I beieve, really
gives the most lucid discussion of this conumdrum, especially because the
'apparatus' is always a classical object (it seems).
> [snip]
>
> >That said, I don't know that I would consider your refutation valid at
this
> >point without further study on the matter. It will be frank with you and
> >say that I am not sure that the expression you cited
> >
> > dq/dt = -ih[H,q]
> >
> >passes to the classical limit as velocity,
>
> That is irrelevant. The expression above is a mathematical fact.
Granted. Which is why I enquired about it's dynamical significance. I.e.,
what exactly is being measured?
If a definite path does not exist as L&L argue, what is the dynamical
property being measured?
> If it does not pass to the classical limit as velocity, then there is
> a problem for the correspondence principle - which may I add
> is not necessarily thought to be a requirement on QM (IIRC).
>
True of purlely quantum effects it is commonly said. But that's just the
thing that is I suppose utlimately bothering me. For if it does not pass,
is it 'velocity'? I honestly don't know.
> Perhaps you can remember what the original point was.
> *Experimental* verification of Heisenberg U. P. ?
>
> [snip]
>
> [snip question for later consideration]
>
>
> >No irony really. I think you are going beyond what is warranted. I
simply
> >meant that what we have is a product of empirical results and as such can
> be
> >trusted regardless of philosophical bent. Whatever philosophical
framework
> >you care to come from, the u.p. is still true as it relates to
measurement.
>
> As it relates to everything.
>
> Why is a mathematical result more trustworthy?
Carefull here. It's not JUST a 'mathematical result' it is an EMPIRICAL
result which LEADS us to a mathematically precise description free of all
but the most fundamental and (mostly) non-controversial inferences - exactly
my original point!
>Was classical mechanics
> pre-QM trustworthy? No, not for the purposes of studying small systems.
> Mathematical beuaty and nicety are just that. It is *your* philosophical
> bent that makes you take an area whose results you don't like and uses
> methods that you don't use (just like chemists don't do things the same
> way as physicists), tag them untrustworthy, and then search about for
> differences and assert them as the arbiters.
>
This is not warranted. I have consistently argued that classical physics
was 'true' to withing stated limits of precision, and well definable
domains. I have argued that the 'area whose results you don't like' enjoys
no such thing.
> As a chemist, let me ask this question. A good deal of chemistry is
> explaining
> reactions in terms of mechanisms. If two types of compounds groups come
> together in identical reaction conditions (say alcohols and carboxylic
acids
> to make esters) many times such that a synthesis of a new ester is
> attempted.
> It frequently does not work. Is that a failure of chemistry?
Far to broad a statement. Be 'reasonable' it is likely a failure of the
model employed, i.e., something left out? Different initial conditions?
You ge the idea. One thing is for sure - YOU HAVE EMPIRICAL RESULTS TO
GUIDE YOU IN SEARCHING FOR THE ANSWER.
> Perhaps
> unscientific?
>
>
> >>while the theory evolution, as every theory real science, is
> >> only based on the working assumption of methodological naturalism.
> >>
> >
> >I do not agree with this. There are still in my view plenty of
> ambiguities.
> >And I think it would be better to say "methodological materialism", as I
> >would not equate naturalism with materialism.
>
> What is the difference? Does physics use methodological materialism?
Yes. And is thereby LIMITED to what that concept is applicable to - which is
what the great argument is sort of all about, no?
>
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
>
>
--Mike Goodrich
Joe Cummings
>far fewer than 200 lines. While the intelligent design community is
>distinct from young earth creationists they are both opposed to the
>purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
>********************************
>Regards.
>T Pagano
>
Well, Tony,
You really have stuck your neck out!
Would you give us this exposition of the creationist position?
I've been asking for at least twelve months for some, nay any,
creationist to do just that.
In anticipation,
Joe CVummings
A Pagano
...I suspect that Goodrich or I could present the creationist position
in far fewer than 200 lines. While the intelligent design community is
distinct from young earth creationists they are both opposed to the
purely materialistic conjectures of creation.
Cummings replied:
Well, Tony, You really have stuck your neck out!
Pagano replies:
You mean I don't normally make my positions clear and worthy of
criticism?
**********************************
Cummings continues:
Would you give us this exposition of the creationist position? I've
been asking for at least twelve months for some, nay any, creationist to
do just that. In anticipation,
Pagano responds:
A couple of basic tenents of the creationist position (as I see them)
were already contained in my criticism of Professor Provine. Perhaps
you missed them: [BEGIN QUOTE] "Creationists don't claim authority
over the truth nor do they claim to know the objective truth about the
history of unobserved events containing our origin. They are merely
searching and investigating. They do claim that Genesis has a literal
sense which (1) corresponds to the objective reality of unobserved
history and (2) the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit guarantees the truth
of this correspondence...[they offer] arguments about origins which
presume the intelligent design of a Creator in opposition to purely
materialistic conjectures of creation. [END QUOTE]
Nonetheless I have never been interested in selling or teaching
scientific creationism in this forum. My goal in this forum is and will
continue to be the harsh criticism of the modern secular framework. And
to criticize with good cheer.
Regards,
T Pagano