Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science



While I have the utmost respect for John as a physicist, I think
that the arguments he makes here are misplaced. Not "misplaced" because
they are palpably wrong - they're not - but because they are not IMO
likely to be persuasive to laymen, such as Kansas local school boards.
The trouble is that John has, essentially, let the opposition choose the
ground for argument. That is a mistake. I am trying to develop a
different approach consisting of two prongs:
The scientists define the basis of the discussion;
The only alternative in sight is patently ridiculous (read your
bibles and snicker).

1. We are not concerned with whether or not "evolution" is a "theory", or
what a theory consists of. We are concerned with a unified model that
explains, and predicts, all possible observable phenomenon without
invoking divine intervention. The reason (which I learned long ago from
reading Bertrand Russel) is that when divine intervention is permitted,
prediction becomes impossible. The extreme case is "last Tuesday at noon"
-referring to the time when the universe and everything in it, including
all evidence of the past and all our memories, were created. It's a
perfectly good belief, except it is useless as a guide for practical
living.
The unified model approach immediately rejects the big bird
explanation of the big wind because the explanation deals with only a
single fact. The unified model approach seeks to harmonize our
explanations of all atmospheric dynamics and insists on finding ways to
test the explanations by making predictions.
Further, the unified model approach invites - or, better, insists
- on a knowledge of the phenomena that are being explained. That is why
students, even those who want to criticise the this approach, must spend
time confronting conventional physics, chemistry, biology, in order to
learn what it is that is being explained.
Also, if Preacher Brown wants to claim that we are presenting
"only a model", and one is free to believe in a divine (or satanical)
presence, we have no objection. It's just that such belief is not
predictive and is not an alternative to the (unmarguably) useful standard
model.

2. The second prong of argument pulls the rug from under the opposition.
If a claim for biblical inerrancy is patently ridiculous, then there is
nothing for the proponents of ID (incompetent design) to fall back on. So
the questions for the proponents to answer must be of the nature of who is
the "us" in the Adam and Eve story, who are the sons of YHWH in the Noah
story, let's do some practical calculations on the physical effect of a
world-wide flood that tops the highest mountains (so here are some nice
homework problems), and how does one counter radium-thorium dating. Was
all of the microwave background radiation in the universe created at the
beginning of Genesis and, if so, what problems does that raise? And how
do we even raise these questions if we have to give up teachingtime to a
biblical alternative explanation?

This is an appproach. I'm sure that it can be greatly improved upon.
Regards,
Jack

On Sat, 21 May 2005, John Mallinckrodt wrote (in part):

Gary Turner took issue with my assertion that the idea that "the
natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent
cause is the best way to explain it" is not a refutable opinion
saying

I don't follow. Refute -to deny the truth or accuracy of (Merriam Webster).
A refutable opinion is therefore one that has equally viable alternatives.
"the natural world is so lacking in intelligence that no intelligent being
could possibly have been involved" has roughly equal logical support (that
being approximately zero). The concept is refutable.

Since you evidently took the time to look it up in Merriam Webster, I
wonder why you skipped the first definition

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous

in favor of the second. Indeed, I would have thought it pretty clear
that I was using the word "refutable" in this, its most common sense.

It is easy "to deny the truth or accuracy of" intelligent design, but
it is not possible "to prove it wrong by argument or evidence" or to
"show it to be false or erroneous." Accordingly, it is not a
scientific theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------









--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l