Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri Aug 17 2007 - 18:08:02 EDT

It is difficult to sum up science so briefly.

However a great error is to attempt to show that "true science" is only
empirical as if experiment is the essence of science. To follow that is to
reject all non-empirical science and thus any historical science. Of course
the understanding of science has changed especially since the foundation of
the Royal Society in 1662/1, when of course the word science did not exist.

Simplistically science has different approaches e.g. experimental,
observational, historical and theoretical which are suitable in different
circumstances.

Further just because a scientist has "impeccable credentials" does not make
them a good scientist. There was an Indian palaeontologist with an
impeccable Ph D and an impeccable list of publications but he was rumbled as
a fraud as his work was all made up. Now take Henry Morris who had
impeccable credentials as a hydraulic engineer and wrote excellent textbooks
who when he wrote his YEC stuff came out with incredible nonsense with about
as much accuracy as my Indian friend.

The trouble is that it is not academia which is discredited - except in the
eyes of a few Christians who buy into YEC or ID , but the whole Christian
church who are perceived as supporting this kind of poor and shoddy
science - if it is science.

I am still waiting for some worthwhile science to emanate form ID or YEC
circles. I might wait a long time.

Yes, I know that I haven't dealt with the question in depth but many have
over the last few decades but some people don't want to listen.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
To: "'PvM'" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>; "'David Campbell'"
<pleuronaia@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
the new enemy of

>
>
>
> I see words used in discussion to condemn ID pretty well out of hand as if
> somehow the statement below "ID as not truly science" just dismisses the
> whole field of thought that has now become a world-wide intellectual
> movement.
>
> Isn't it less than rational to claim that academics who have impeccable
> credentials can be so lightly dismissed? If they can be so easily
> dismissed, then so can those who wish to dismiss them. The whole of
> academia
> tends to be discredited.
>
> It might be helpful if a careful discussion was had that leads to an
> understanding of what we mean by "science". What qualifies as "science"?
> Who
> says so?
>
> For example, what was understood by the notion of 'science' in the
> founding
> days of the Royal Society? Can we compare and contrast the historical and
> the contemporary understanding? What are the reasons for the changes, if
> any?
>
> Let's establish some clear foundational definitions of what we mean by
> "science" before we move on.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: David Campbell
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
> the new enemy of
>
>
> On 8/15/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >I do not have a high regard of the British press
>>
>> The arguments about the definition of science and ID as not truly
>> science do seem off the mark and often motivated philosophically
>> rather than scientifically. In reality, the reason ID doesn't belong
>> in science classes is because as currently practiced it is usually
>> scientifically wrong.
>
>
> That's because it lacks a scientific foundation. Have you read Ryan
> Nichols' paper on this topic?
> Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of
> Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical
> quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
>
> <quote>
> In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend
> that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I'll
> argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn't imply anything at all,
> i.e. it has no content. By 'content' I refer to a body of determinate
> principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By
> 'principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the
> theory at issue. By 'determinate principle' I refer to a proposition
> of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions
> of its terms are clearly defined.
> I'll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his
> methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful
> and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter 'IDT') grounds an
> empirical research program.1 Later in the paper I assess a recent
> trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a
> metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes
> research. I'll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific
> or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
> </quote>
>
>
>
> See also my thoughts on this matter at
> http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference1.cfm
>
> Dr Nichols Homepage http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/Nichols.htm
>
> Christine asks a very good question
>
> <quote>Given this understanding, how is it that "natural
> selection" gives rise to life, rather than acting upon
> it? Isn't an existing life form inherent in the
> definition?</quote>
>
> Not really, imperfect replication is all that is really needed, and
> some form of selective pressures.
> Interview http://thesciphishow.com/darwinordesign/?page_id=18
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date:
> 14/08/2007
> 17:19
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 17 18:09:42 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 17 2007 - 18:09:42 EDT