PDA

View Full Version : A Brave Man Urges Openness



bob b
January 23rd, 2006, 06:55 PM
It will be interesting to see if this brave scientist will survive after writing this letter critical of current teaching about evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3174&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

The above linked to article references the following:

http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

death2impiety
January 23rd, 2006, 07:10 PM
Blasphemy!

smuda
February 3rd, 2006, 01:50 PM
Good letter. I found it a good release valve in my thinking. we are free to doubt without discarding the entire theory. that's sort of like good healthy Christianity. Healthy doubt is essential to avoid fanatical fundamentalism. The former knows they don't really know and the latter cannot doubt anything because that would cause, how they say?, "cognitive dissonance." :Brandon: respectfully, Carl

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 05:47 PM
It will be interesting to see if this brave scientist will survive after writing this letter critical of current teaching about evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3174&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

The above linked to article references the following:

http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

Here is more interesting info about Dr. Skell.

Phil Skell (http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/skell.html)

I wonder if this is the same James A. Shapiro?

James A. Shapiro (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/MolecularCellBiology/DevelopmentalBiology/?sf=all&ss=author.asc&sd=asc&pf=100&view=usa&pr=10&bookCovers=yes&ci=0195091590)

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 07:24 PM
It will be interesting to see if this brave scientist will survive after writing this letter critical of current teaching about evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3174&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

The above linked to article references the following:

http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

Any scientist who would ignore evidence against evolution just to keep the theory going isn't much of a scientist. I agree that the questions and holes in evolutionary theory should be examined. They should be discussed along side the evidence that has been compiled thus far. And if evolution is lacking, the we should chunk it.

But that's not why you posted this, is it Bob? My agenda is to find the truth. Nothing more and nothing less. Your agenda is to find some small item that can be used to prop up your belief system. You have no evidence for your beliefs and would love to have something, anything tangible to hang your hat on.

Could you be right that an all-powerful intelligent designer created the universe and all life on this planet? Sure. But science requires more to go on than the mere possibilty that something could have happened. It requires evidence. And you don't have any.

bob b
February 4th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Any scientist who would ignore evidence against evolution just to keep the theory going isn't much of a scientist. I agree that the questions and holes in evolutionary theory should be examined. They should be discussed along side the evidence that has been compiled thus far. And if evolution is lacking, the we should chunk it.

But that's not why you posted this, is it Bob? My agenda is to find the truth. Nothing more and nothing less. Your agenda is to find some small item that can be used to prop up your belief system. You have no evidence for your beliefs and would love to have something, anything tangible to hang your hat on.

Could you be right that an all-powerful intelligent designer created the universe and all life on this planet? Sure. But science requires more to go on than the mere possibilty that something could have happened. It requires evidence. And you don't have any.

The ultimate beginning of the universe is not an area that can be studied by science. For any scientist to think that it can is the height of egoism.

And some pretty high powered scientists have said pretty much the same about the beginning of life.

So the bottom line is that everybody is operating on faith rather than evidence when talking about Origins: the evolutionist has faith in "materialism"/"naturalism" because the only available study tools deal in material things, and the believer has faith in God, a spirit, because only an entity outside the material universe could create a material universe.

noguru
February 5th, 2006, 08:09 AM
The ultimate beginning of the universe is not an area that can be studied by science. For any scientist to think that it can is the height of egoism.

And some pretty high powered scientists have said pretty much the same about the beginning of life.

So the bottom line is that everybody is operating on faith rather than evidence when talking about Origins: the evolutionist has faith in "materialism"/"naturalism" because the only available study tools deal in material things, and the believer has faith in God, a spirit, because only an entity outside the material universe could create a material universe.

Bob, it does not take faith to accept the assumption that the natural world (materialism/naturalism) exists. It does take faith however, to accept the assumption that God and the spiritual world exists. So no, in this sense, both areas of study are not based on faith. Perhaps we need to feel confident that those researching origins are being honest and doing their best to find answers to our question. This level of confidence is what you seem to be undermining with your two opening sentences.

bob b
February 6th, 2006, 09:36 AM
Bob, it does not take faith to accept the assumption that the natural world (materialism/naturalism) exists.

It is deceptive of you to imply that the existence of the natural world provides any scientific support whatsoever for the intellectual conclusion of some that the natural world either always existed or came into existence "naturally". Therefore, both the believer and the unbeliever must have faith, not evidence, to aupport their conclusion.


It does take faith however, to accept the assumption that God and the spiritual world exists. So no, in this sense, both areas of study are not based on faith.

It completely mystifies me how you can conclude that it does not take faith to believe that the world is here due to "natural" causes.


Perhaps we need to feel confident that those researching origins are being honest and doing their best to find answers to our question. This level of confidence is what you seem to be undermining with your two opening sentences.

Have I ever questioned their honesty? No. I question their conclusions, because I believe that their conclusions follow from their presuppositions and not from the evidence.

Science is against evolution.

Jukia
February 6th, 2006, 11:42 AM
Science is against evolution.

Really?

logos_x
February 6th, 2006, 11:57 AM
The Rule of Methodological Naturalism:


"The statement of science must invoke only natural things and processes"
National Acadamy of Sciences


If that rule is the policy..then free intellectual inquiry is dead.

Jukia
February 6th, 2006, 01:02 PM
The Rule of Methodological Naturalism:



If that rule is the policy..then free intellectual inquiry is dead.
I don't think your statement follows the NAS statement. Science by its very definition deals in natural, not supernatural, processes. If you want to inquire of the supernatural you surely can but not inside scientific disciplines. Knock yourself out in philosophy for example.

logos_x
February 6th, 2006, 01:22 PM
I don't think your statement follows the NAS statement. Science by its very definition deals in natural, not supernatural, processes. If you want to inquire of the supernatural you surely can but not inside scientific disciplines. Knock yourself out in philosophy for example.


"The statement of science must invoke only natural things and processes"
This is an NAS statement. And it limits intellectual inquiry. It's that simple.

If that is the policy..then honest intellectual inquiry is dead.
If something is real, and it's cause is "supernatural", science is compelled to find a natural explanation. They could never admit another cause other than "natural processes".

Your reply voices the problem very aptly. "Supernatural" in reality only speaks of what science has not explained using it's criteria. This, in spite of the fact that science has discovered that reality is quite like the "supernatural" explanation..that there is a "implicate order" that makes the "explicate order" that we see, touch, smell and hear. That the closest model to the reality we are in is analogous to holographic projection...that every part of the universe is somehow connected, and there is some kind of "hyperdimensional" reality beyond this one.

It may be time to reconsider the scope of "natural precesses".

Jukia
February 6th, 2006, 01:25 PM
No, it does not limit intellectual inquiry. It only describes what science is.
A hologram? I don't think so. Isn't that a little bit like some early Greek philosopher's description of the real world? Plato maybe? Something about shadows on the wall?

If you can come up with some way to investigate and experiment on the supernatural, get your Nobel speech ready.

logos_x
February 6th, 2006, 02:10 PM
No, it does not limit intellectual inquiry. It only describes what science is.

Rrrriiight...


A hologram? I don't think so. Isn't that a little bit like some early Greek philosopher's description of the real world? Plato maybe? Something about shadows on the wall?

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysteries/universe/holographicuniverse.html


If you can come up with some way to investigate and experiment on the supernatural, get your Nobel speech ready.

There it is again.
What is "supernatural"?
Is it REALLY beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
I think it's a cop-out to make those kind's of assertions in the name of "valid science".

noguru
February 6th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Rrrriiight...



http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysteries/universe/holographicuniverse.html



There it is again.
What is "supernatural"?
Is it REALLY beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
I think it's a cop-out to make those kind's of assertions in the name of "valid science".

Well then by all means, develop a research program that can inquire into the nature and existence of the supernatural. I don't think anyone has said that it is logically impossible. It is just that the material sciences to this date have no successful program for such. But if you think it can be done, go right ahead and outline the program. Perhaps a nobel prize is waiting for you.

noguru
February 6th, 2006, 05:07 PM
It is deceptive of you to imply that the existence of the natural world provides any scientific support whatsoever for the intellectual conclusion of some that the natural world either always existed or came into existence "naturally". Therefore, both the believer and the unbeliever must have faith, not evidence, to aupport their conclusion.

Bob it all comes down to logically sound assumptions. Philosophy of any kind works on assumptions. Natural philosophy or the material sciences assumes that the natural world exists. You may ask why can natural philosophy assume this? Well, that it because we can test that assumption with our five senses. Now can we agree that the assumption that the natural world and natural processes exist is well established in philosophy?



It completely mystifies me how you can conclude that it does not take faith to believe that the world is here due to "natural" causes.

When I speak about logical assumptions it is not the same as faith. Yes, from the view of natural philosophy the logical assumption that the world as we know it is here due to natural processes is a sound logical assumption. Are you saying that no natural processes are involved?



Have I ever questioned their honesty? No. I question their conclusions, because I believe that their conclusions follow from their presuppositions and not from the evidence.

Well not blatantly. But I was speaking more about my own perspective here. I do not see how the logical assumption that there is a natural world with natural processes is not based on evidence. Can you explain how this assumption (that there is a natural world) is a conclusion that follows from a presuposition and not from the evidence of our five senses?



Science is against evolution.

So you say. But I believe that you are overstating your case here.

aharvey
February 7th, 2006, 01:25 PM
The ultimate beginning of the universe is not an area that can be studied by science. For any scientist to think that it can is the height of egoism.

And some pretty high powered scientists have said pretty much the same about the beginning of life.

So the bottom line is that everybody is operating on faith rather than evidence when talking about Origins: the evolutionist has faith in "materialism"/"naturalism" because the only available study tools deal in material things, and the believer has faith in God, a spirit, because only an entity outside the material universe could create a material universe.
But if you're going to declare ultimate origins off-limits to science, then doesn't that make the most fundamental scientific question "How can we best explain what happened after that?"


Have I ever questioned their honesty? No. I question their conclusions, because I believe that their conclusions follow from their presuppositions and not from the evidence.

Science is against evolution.
How can you claim science is against evolution when all it does is explain "what happened after that," you know, the part that comes after the time you specifically excluded from scientific inquiry? I can't even apply bobblogic to that: "Evolution only examines questions that are appropriate to scientific inquiry, therefore science is against evolution."

Oh wait, I see, science is against evolution because of presuppositions made by evolutionists but (it must follow) not by other scientists. Hmm, what might those be?

Evolutionists do not presuppose that the Bible is literally true, but “not presupposing” is different from “presupposing not”! So that can’t be what you mean.

Evolutionists do not presuppose anything about God’s existence, nature, or role in the world, but again, “not presupposing” is different from “presupposing not”! So that can’t be what you mean either.

So what presuppositions does evolution, alone among scientific theories, make that turns science against it?