Re: [asa] science martyrs

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 19:40:24 EST

> So I'm just noting here in my rhetorical query back to you that I
> presume you were observing "special creation" to be non-falsifiable. No
> argument from me on that.

Merv,

No we are exactly backwards in our communication here. I consider special creation to be falsifiable because we have evidence of creation of man from lower life forms. If God poofed Adam into being specially, we would not expect to find that and would possibly expect to find a break in the DNA history between man and other primates instead.

> But to try calling "TE" falsifiable or non falsifiable (either one)
> seems problematic to say the least, since TE is not some collection of
> theories or paradigms that (from a scientific point of view) could be
> distinguished from science itself. It's simply a vague label describing
> a philosophy held by many that undergirds how they view science, and
> its place in human inquiry, and indeed, within theology.

Yes agreed and that is the strength of TE. It is vague enough to withstand all scientific scrutiny and all future discoveries of science. It simply says we believe God did it regardless of how research ends up proving how He did it. It is indeed a philosophy. It is the best we have and the best we can do. it is consistent with God hiding Himself in His creation.

Anything else is overreaching and can be disproven which is just asking for trouble. I submit that is the difference between Behe and Collins and why one is persecuted and the other is not.

Thanks

John

--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> From: Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> Subject: Re: [asa] science martyrs
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 6:40 PM
> John Walley wrote:
> > I have a contrarian opinion of Behe and Steinberg. I
> don't think the resistance against them is necessarily
> due to their faith but in using their credentials in science
> to push an agenda that is contrary to science.
> > Case in point, Behe is a professor at a private
> Christian schools and his own department disavows him. In
> contrast, Francis Collins holds a prominent and prestigious
> government job and no one is calling for his resignation.
> The difference? Behe is a special creationist and Collins is
> a TE. One can be falsified by science but the other
> can't. One is in conflict with science and the other is
> complementary to it but not in conflict.
> > John
> >
> After speaking of "special creationist" and
> "TE" you said "one can be falsified by
> science but the other can't. To which I ask --which
> one did you mean that can't be?
> I don't mean to re-open this can of worms; especially
> as it is highly tangential to the topic of martyrs. So
> I'm just noting here in my rhetorical query back to you
> that I presume you were observing "special
> creation" to be non-falsifiable. No argument from me
> on that. But to try calling "TE" falsifiable or
> non falsifiable (either one) seems problematic to say the
> least, since TE is not some collection of theories or
> paradigms that (from a scientific point of view) could be
> distinguished from science itself. It's simply a vague
> label describing a philosophy held by many that undergirds
> how they view science, and its place in human inquiry, and
> indeed, within theology.
>
> Back on the martyr question: okay, so let's take
> Marcio's clarification (per George) that we're
> really speaking of "confessors", and could only
> use the term "martyr" in a highly symbolic sense
> which may indeed cheapen the real concept. But even so,
> I'm still curious if our list of "persecuted"
> will grow any longer. Loss of employment seems pretty
> severe, but I gather that most on this list don't accept
> the persecuted status of those who were shown in the movie
> "Expelled" as it is apparently debateable whether
> or not other merit or lack-thereof played an unmentioned
> role. Even so, are there others that those here WOULD
> accept as having lost their jobs or suffered persecution
> soley because of an unpopular scientific idea? I think
> I'm inclined to think with David C. that Behe probably
> gets unfair ridicule simply by assumed association. Even if
> his ideas do turn out to be wrong, no one should have a
> quarrel with someone pointing out a perceived deficiency of
> an existing theory to explain the phenomena at hand --no
> matter what his motivation is. If he goes on to promote
> something like ID (even that does turn out to be a fruitless
> trail) the stirrings of scientific lynch mobbery (or
> mockery) seems over the top to me. It has ideology written
> all over it.
>
> --Merv
>
>
>
>
> 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 Sun Mar 1 19:40:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 19:40:35 EST