here's my comment. as usual i'd like to thank God for enlightening me and even giving the comment a major twist ;p just another example of me just being His stenographer :D
======================================================================
Hi! I'm a doctoral student in physics. :)
I'll be quoting you thrice:
"It means that science may have had the wrong idea. Not about evolution, but about how it worked in this case."The nature of science is being open-minded and being able to admit that the currently held notion may be wrong...maybe a little wrong, maybe completely wrong. There's a possibility that some detail in evolutionary theory is wrong, but what about the theory as a whole?
With all due respect, the first quote sounds quite similar to the second. Dare I say, both views are dogmatic?
"It [Intelligent Design] is always correct."
"Never mind that there isn’t a single fact to shore up this weird delusion. Never mind that the only research is done inside the pages of one book, not in the real world. Intelligent Design does not change its premise or its appearance. It is always correct."There has been in fact no direct evidence to disprove creationism either. It is interesting to note that something that never yielded in several millenia still persists today, and accepted by scientists like me.
I have other insights and reactions on my blog, particularly in this article:
http://tecigurl.blogspot.com/2007/08/inconsistency-on-one-side-vicious.html
Good day and God bless :)
Thank you for commenting on my blog, I replied and I shall post my reply here as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is no harm in being dogmatic when stating the truth. Do you realise there is nothing to disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, either. Or that of his Noodly Appendage, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just as there is nothing to disprove the existence of Kali, Allah, Jehovah or Mazda.
Hi Archie :) Thank you for taking the time to comment as well. Sorry for the delay in publishing your comment and replying though...
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it seems that i could reply to your comment by writing the entire blog entry all over again. My point here was, for scientists, theories are formed, and each theory can be confirmed or refuted based on experimental data. The strength of a theory increases with each proof, but one counterexample disproves the entire thing. For the question of human origin, it seems the two schools of thought --- evolutionism/darwinism and intelligent design/creationism --- are currently being "proven" simultaneously by their proponents. However, as a scientist, i cannot and must not say that one is wrong because there is no direct evidence to disprove either, at least for now. In the same way that Newton's Laws gave way to the "more accurate" Relativity (really fast) and Quantum Mechanical (really small) principles (which is a polite way of saying that Newton is "more wrong"), and ether was disproven by the "most famous failed experiment", scientists should be open-minded enough to at least consider the *possibility* that today's "laws" might be refuted by just one evidence to the contrary. **A dogmatic scientist is an oxymoron, for a scientist starts with admitted limitations in senses and instruments and yet tries, step by step, to figure out the world around him.**
As a believer in the Biblical God though, i hold that there is an absolute truth that is different from what evolution is saying. The Bible is dogmatic in assumption: it literally starts with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." **A dogmatic believer is simply doing what believers do.**
Again, i'm a Christian scientist. i see that the disagreements (and braying, if you will) lie in using the methods of one belief/discipline to test and disprove the other, disregarding that one is more quantitative and the other more qualitative.
You might have heard variations of (A) "Well, God is true, 'coz He said so, so you're all wrong and that's that." On behalf of all the people who have said that (and i'm not excusing myself!), i sincerely apologize. It might seem easy for me now to talk about God, but i was an agnostic for many years and intellectual discussions (like this!) are something i truly appreciate.
But what about variations of: (B) "Well, God cannot be seen, so He can't possibly be true." (Hi Metro!) What about gravity, magnetism, photons and electrons? We don't really see them but we definitely sense their presence or absence. Also, (C) "Is the Bible correct?" Are the laws of Newton, Maxwell et al. correct? Well, i don't even know if they actually lived because i never saw them nor did i see them write down those laws; regardless let's check out if F=ma and so on.
What struck me first, immediately, upon reading your comment was that if i leave out the words "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and so on, it sounded like something a "religious" person might say. Or, to be more general, it can be used by both creationist and evolutionist camps. I suggest raising other issues or raising other arguments because this one could support either.
Thanks for your time! :)
teci
Teci....you say: "What struck me first, immediately, upon reading your comment was that if i leave out the words "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and so on, it sounded like something a "religious" person might say."
ReplyDeleteWhy do creationists constantly bring this up? I don't understand the argument.
What's your point?
Hi Brian, thanks for stopping by :) i'm sorry if i haven't been clear enough; so thanks for giving me a chance to explain further.
ReplyDeletei don't know exactly what "this" you were referring to, that "creationists constantly bring up". But i wrote the comment in reply to Archie's. i personally did not want to use that type of argument, which i'll elaborate in a bit.
Archie's comment goes: "There is no harm in being dogmatic when stating the truth. Do you realise there is nothing to disprove the existence of [so and so]...."
i have a problem with such statements because (1) it seems that, not just for the creation-evolution issue but for many others, both sides can sincerely proclaim them but without successfully convincing the other side, or any judge or audience. {"I'm right and you're wrong." "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!"} and so on. again, both sides can use that argument to "win" but it actually seems as helpful as name-calling. Better for me to hear someone explain *why* he thinks he is right (which to be fair, Archie and the others mention in other articles), and avoid the (seeming) personal arrogance/attacks.
Also, science and faith are both looking for absolute truth and meaning. However, (2) the nature of science [skepticism; holding any theory as workable until a counter-example that refutes it, or some better theory comes along] and the nature of faith [belief; holding absolute truths that are knowable and/or already revealed] guarantee that there will be conflicts in applying one to test the other.
(3) As an ex-agnostic, as a scientist, and even now as a Christian, i personally don't like it when believers explain their views by saying "well it's true because [God/the Bible/others] say so." Definitely i follow God and am not ashamed to say so; but again it might not be helpful for the discussion at hand. {"Is God real?" "Yup, because He said so." "Well, Nietzche said God is dead."} and so on. i'd rather look for other, more concrete ways of proving God and sharing about Him (transformed lives are a wonderful example); even if these are not as "scientific" or quantifiable.
To wrap things up, (4) Christians and most/all other believers are expected to be dogmatic because of the assumption of revealed truth. How come we are being criticized by people who are equally dogmatic --- ironically, by many holding on to scientific theories which are supposedly open to scrutiny and objective skepticism?
thanks again for your comment and question. :) i saw your blog and i think you might be interested in this :) http://tecigurl.blogspot.com/2007/07/esther-moment-1-because-im-scientist.html
see you around cyberspace! God bless! ^_^
Teci, (this is an interesting way of conducting the conversation - on both blogs at the same time. I do appreciate the chance of a discussion with an intelligent person when normally I get abuse and total stupidity as a response. :) )
ReplyDeleteThe key phrase you use is "that one is more quantitative and the other more qualitative."
As a scientist, you know that science is based on measurement. I have seen no credible "measurement" of creationism. No justification for Intelligent Design other than an appeal to magic. I have seen, on the other hand, continual measurement and the search for and use of physical evidence for Evolution.
Yes, sometimes there is a new discovery which causes a slight change in the interpretation and application of the theory of evolution.
If we take the progression from Newton to Einstein and through to Quantum Physics; even on to String Theory, we find that they are each accurate within their range of measurable error. The work of Einstein does not invalidate Newton's work. The addition of a new piece of evidence which changes the APPLICATION of the Theory of Evolution does not invalidate the theory.
We do not need to know that Newton, Einstein, even Euclid existed. We have their writings. Verifiable and replicable experiments which give rise to theories. Everything in science is quantitative.
On the other hand, there is nothing quantitative about Creationism or Intelligent Design. ID is an appeal to ignorance, a negation of the hard work of science and looks to magic to explain everything. Creationism bases itself on the ambiguous words of Middle-Eastern people who heard voices. Today they would be labelled schizophrenic or some such similar illness. I accept that there is history in those books. There is also a lot of mythology.
Why should I accept the creation myths of the followers of Jehovah instead of the creation myths of Kali? or of the Zoroastrians? Shouldn't all be taught equally? Perhaps the Pharonic creation myths be taught as well? Each as Fact, of course.
I need verifiable and replicable facts and evidence to accept a theory. Which is why it is not true to say that by putting the words "Invisible Pink Unicorn" into a discussion of the Theory of Evolution is not the same as putting them into a discussion of ID. ID itself relies on an invisible sky fairy.
Oh, as for the "Howler Monkey" reference, please forgive me, I have a weird sense of humour and had visions of the deliberately unlearned devoluting back into monkeyhood. It is rare to find an intelligent person (especially in the deep south of the USA) who espouses creationism.
Forgive my non-rigorous writing. I have not brought the philosophy of thought into the argument. It has been several decades since I wrote anything in a rigorous manner.
Hello Archie :) (Yeah, this is cool, we promote our views and our interactions with double effectiveness with what we're doing :) )
ReplyDeletei agree with what you're saying, about evolution being more quantitative (and definitely more scientific!) because it has been arrived at and presently still being confirmed and even refined according to the scientific method: experiment, measurement, hypothesizing and concluding (ideally still with healthy skepticism!).
And i quite understand why it's easy to dismiss creationism/intelligent design on these accounts.
But, again, in this way ID is judged in the home court of evolution, such that its validity would be easily ignored.
Evolution and ID both explain (or attempt to explain) the origin and development of life. But let me emphasize that evolution is a scientific theory that was posited and continually is being confirmed and/or refined by evidence, while ID (at least Biblical creationism) is information claimed to be revealed by an absolute God. That is why i said earlier that while there might not be direct evidence of ID, there is no evidence to dispute it either. Unlike evolution, ID did not start out as a scientific theory, and it seems unfair to be judged (entirely) as such.
Still, evolution and ID make claims, and as rational beings, whether scientists or not, we must test them. Interestingly, in the Complex Systems Summer School, one esteemed professor who confidently denounced ID said in the same talk, "We have the same data, but reach different conclusions." i cannot remember in which context he said it, it probably wasn't in the context of the evolution-ID issue, but i think it's appropriate here too.
Remember what G Eagle Esq said? Evidence of closely related life forms may mean that one evolved from the other...However, it is also possible that they bear the marks of a single creator. After all, the randomness supposed in evolution, as in "anything goes, may the best man/animal win", must imply that there could be a wide range of "fittest" species in different habitats, which, after billions of years, should actually be *very widely* diverse (genetically and otherwise) and have different ancestors (life arising and/or developing in different parts of the globe).
i should also point out that creation acounts are not all equally valid, in the same way that not all ideas by scientists (the existence of ether, the centrality of earth in the solar system) are equally valid. If a scientist realized a flaw in his hypothesis and formed a new one as he should, then science is progressing in truth. But for accounts like Biblical creationism, which started with an assumption of revealed absolute truth (and seemingly "convenient" details like God is unseen and all-powerful such that we cannot really experiment on Him), there may still be ways of proving or disproving them --- just not in the usual way that lab experiments are done. In asking something like, "Does ID pass the test of science?" perhaps the more politically correct attitude (haha) would be to say "Does not apply" rather than "No!" Scientists who fervently do not believe in ID should at least prove *scientifically* why they don't; otherwise their non-belief is just opinion and not absolute fact.
You wrote: "We do not need to know that Newton, Einstein, even Euclid existed. We have their writings. Verifiable and replicable experiments which give rise to theories. Everything in science is quantitative."
i completely agree. again it's just the use of science (and only science) to check ID, the Bible, or God. There are quite of important non-quantitative fields out there: politics, communication, anthropology. Even economics, which deals with numbers (!!!!) still cannot explain stock markets nor predict its behavior (here's a little gossip for laymen: they hate it when physicists like me try to quantify and physics-ify (hehe!) their field.). Even psychology, which can label me schizophrenic, relies on qualitative observations and the inseparable interactions of many different factors. in the summer school, one classmate's background was in literature and she sought to find mathematical/quantitative insights into her work. one of our teachers (the one who denounced ID) said that human progress is due to scientific and other quantitative fields --- my lit classmate and another teacher respectfully disagreed.
Another time, our evolutionist professor (who i'm really fond of, as you probably can tell) said that we should look/accept (even the possibility of) some truths/statements/hypotheses even if we are not comfortable with them or even if they disagree with our own personal biases. Well, that is something i want to tell evolutionists too, especially evolutionary scientists: scientists (sorry to sound like a refraining song) should be open to other possibilities, even for well-established theories and laws. We (scientists) hold ourselves to a higher/stricter standard, should we not? Unfortunately this is not the case with evolution: http://tecigurl.blogspot.com/2007/08/darwinism-needs-revision.html. Again, it's understandable and even expected that the "religious" would be dogmatic, but it should be a major no-no for scientists, (somehow 15 years of science classes taught me that science is objective and skeptical, that the current theory is as good only as the last piece of evidence).
You're forgiven ^_^ No offense taken...Though i have to warn (as i did many times this week) that that kind of humor (from both sides of the issue!) is what makes discussions like this nearly impossible. Devoluting indeed ;p
My new American friends told me about the Deep South, and i've heard as much from US pop culture which is so ingrained in the Philippines. (Well, we have a different set of issues over here...) Ah, but you see, unlike most of them, i was nurtured in the sciences (and agnosticism) since high school before i finally realized/accepted/acknowledged God all-powerful and all-loving. If i do say so myself, i totally understand the thought processes and train of reasoning of the unbelievers because i was one too ^_^ Actually, i'm glad you continue to reply Archie, i thought you think i'm being too preachy (please, i just talk and think too much, even if it's not about God ;p )
To end, i'd like to mention Lee Strobel (www.leestrobel.com/): award-winning atheistic legal journalist, who sought to disprove Christianity when his wife suddenly became a believer. (He thought she was going to be a sexually repressed killjoy, hahaha! Quite understandable really!) Anyway, he used his rigorous background in law and journalism to punch all the "loopholes" in God and the Bible, and in the end he realized no other truth comes close. He's been a pastor for the last 25 years :)
His books include "The Case for Christ" (for skeptics, agnostics and unbelievers, since it details his own investigation where he started as an atheist), "The Case for Faith" (for believers who still grapple with issues of hell, faith, being saved by grace), and "The Case for a Creator" (for the scientifically inclined). Actually, all this time i've been saying that there might be no direct evidence for a Creator but i scanned this book and it mentions several. i read the other two and i highly recommend his books; he's very objective about explaining Biblical faith because of his professional background and personal atheistic past. (To be fair, when i googled him there are also links to those who don't agree with him; but like you said, it's rare to discuss with an intelligent person (thank you!)...i believe you'd be open to reading these books and at least hear the other side of the "case". :) )
For the more philosophical side in you, there is also Ravi Zacharias (http://www.rzim.org/) and *gush!* C.S. Lewis (you might know but in case you don't, he wrote a lot of introspective books aside from the fictional-yet-still-allegorical Narnia series). i don't know about Zacharias but Lewis was definitely an unbeliever even as a university lecturer. i think that kind of (personal) background is really helpful in dialogues like this :) Perhaps you've been mainly exposed to "another type" of believers, those who haven't really experienced "the other side" and maybe haven't really had their faith and line of reasoning developed that much :D
i really appreciate it that we get to discuss this :) Thank you and God bless! :)