tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post8490843418623415741..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Poll finds over half of Britons support teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design along with EvolutionStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45634316534638299282009-11-03T21:14:31.147+00:002009-11-03T21:14:31.147+00:00I'll let others be the judge.I'll let others be the judge.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26655534001205104652009-11-03T12:12:05.084+00:002009-11-03T12:12:05.084+00:00Paul, are you ever able to debate the merits of yo...Paul, are you ever able to debate the merits of your argument, or do you always resort to personal abuse in the end?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11674722494069559302009-11-03T10:54:40.094+00:002009-11-03T10:54:40.094+00:00You're not a good loser, are you?You're not a good loser, are you?Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15114977773770384792009-11-03T08:37:41.549+00:002009-11-03T08:37:41.549+00:00Paul, I'm glad we've established that your...Paul, I'm glad we've established that your quantum mechanics example was mostly twaddle and 1 part nonsense. It makes me feel my patience with you has been to good effect.<br /><br />"According to your little logic equation..." - I prefer "succinct example from set theory", for reasons of style.<br /><br />Can you now explain if philosophy and science are distinct, or intersect? <br /><br />If they do both, can you demonstrate where the boundaries lay in language which doesn't include phrases like "In fact I've said on previous occasions" (self-referencing) or "in my view" (subjective).Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31850307813674917872009-11-03T01:37:03.998+00:002009-11-03T01:37:03.998+00:00Martin,
Since you seem to like logic, you do real...Martin,<br /><br />Since you seem to like logic, you do realise that 2 things need to be distinct in order to intersect in the first place, and that 2 things need to be distinct to have a relationship. So where's the inconsistency in a sentence that includes both words?<br /><br />This can include concepts as well as physical entities.<br /><br />Now you might say that the boundaries get lost after they intersect, but that's exactly my point. I think it's important to know what the boundaries are and to keep them in mind. That is possibly the difference in our perspectives.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15052102581980319702009-11-03T00:11:27.786+00:002009-11-03T00:11:27.786+00:00Hi Martin,
According to your little logic equatio...Hi Martin,<br /><br />According to your little logic equation, if I read it correctly, you see 'intersection' and 'distinction' as contradictory.<br /><br />I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics. The example of quantum mechanics I've given demonstrates that there is no conceptual contradiction whatever language or metaphors you or I want to use.<br /><br />There is a relationship between science and philosophy, in quantum mechanics, that is unavoidable, yet they are distinct.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90785702566642671722009-11-02T23:55:48.909+00:002009-11-02T23:55:48.909+00:00Paul, let me try to summarise. I hope you don'...Paul, let me try to summarise. I hope you don't mind me adding one or two metaphors of my own, to help the flow:<br /><br />Science and philosophy can collide like particles. Philosophy is at sea like a wave. <br /><br />Philosophy is still in the air, so it can also fly for long periods of time. Quantum mechanics is not in the air, so (perhaps) it is weighed down by gravity. It is the most successful empirically tested theory ever. {A ∩ B} = ∅ and {A ∩ B} <> ∅, in your view.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44992538817111328812009-11-02T22:08:32.841+00:002009-11-02T22:08:32.841+00:00Okay Martin, point taken.
I will give an example:...Okay Martin, point taken.<br /><br />I will give an example: quantum mechanics has some very interesting philosophical ramifications. In fact I've said on previous occasions that quantum mechanics is where science and philosophy collide, and philosophy is still all at sea.<br /><br />But it's important to understand that the philosophical implications are still up in the air, whereas the science of quantum mechanics is not - it is the most successful empirically tested theory ever. So there is a distinction (even where they intersect) and it's important to appreciate that in my view.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10148745106508518772009-11-02T12:11:34.604+00:002009-11-02T12:11:34.604+00:00Paul, if you don't understand the difference b...Paul, if you don't understand the difference between saying two things intersect, and saying they are distinct, there's probably nothing more we can usefully discuss.<br /><br />Kyle, thanks for link to Bradley Monton's blog. Just had the chance to give it a perusal. Atheists challenging Intellegent Designers arguments on an intellectual level, whatever next!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43056939975314552132009-11-02T11:44:27.747+00:002009-11-02T11:44:27.747+00:00Hi Martin,
There is no inconsistency, so there...Hi Martin,<br /><br />There is no inconsistency, so there's nothing to defend. 'I' and 'people' are not the same subject: one is first person and one is third person.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46639307684555551842009-11-02T10:30:08.478+00:002009-11-02T10:30:08.478+00:00Paul, but you won't defend your inconsistency?...Paul, but you won't defend your inconsistency?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3150075289045369992009-11-02T10:23:47.947+00:002009-11-02T10:23:47.947+00:00Martin,
You quote me: "...people often go be...Martin,<br /><br />You quote me: "...people often go between scientific and philosophical arguments in the same discussion without realising the distinction." Yes, and I'm one of those who tries to make the distinction, because I think it's important.<br /><br />And yes, I'm ignorant of many things. I won't argue with that.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71272124168458776602009-11-02T10:07:11.734+00:002009-11-02T10:07:11.734+00:00Kyle,
This analogy you refer to is the same as Pa...Kyle,<br /><br />This analogy you refer to is the same as Paley's watch analogy: we can design complex machines, therefore God can design complex organisms. Yes, you can believe that but it doesn't help us understand nature very well.<br /><br />Einstein often talked about trying to understand or comprehend God's secrets or God's plan in order to understand nature. Whether he was talking metaphorically or not, he never said: I can't understand this so God is the explanation. Do you understand the difference?<br /><br />At the moment we don't know the origin of life, though there are a number of 'tentative' theories. But saying that God created life and therefore we can never know is not one of them.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79759762184565671182009-11-02T10:06:32.170+00:002009-11-02T10:06:32.170+00:00Paul: "In response to Kosh3, there is an inte...Paul: <i>"In response to Kosh3, there is an intersection between science and philosophy, and people often go between scientific and philosophical arguments in the same discussion without realising the distinction."</i><br /><br />is inconsistent with,<br /><br />Paul: <i>"It's one of the reasons that I argue that there is a difference between science and philosophy."</i><br /><br />Paul: <i>"The worst part about ignorance is that the ignorant party is always unaware of how ignorant they are. You are living proof."</i><br /><br />Kettles, pots.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91714429967344945332009-11-02T08:49:11.898+00:002009-11-02T08:49:11.898+00:00"Newton claimed that the orbit's of the p..."Newton claimed that the orbit's of the planet were occasionally corrected by God, but cosmology did not stop at that point."<br /><br />Indeed, the world would have to wait for Laplace until an adequate non-god account of the secular variation of the planetary orbits was found. <br /><br />Following Lakatos, one can say that, far from being harmful to science in this case, god was actually beneficial (securing up a hole in the theory).Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85466483006602551872009-11-02T07:45:10.225+00:002009-11-02T07:45:10.225+00:00Paul,
Why is God a science stopper? Why can't...Paul,<br /><br />Why is God a science stopper? Why can't someone say 'I think God's action is the best explanation of phenomenon X, but I'm going to keep looking into the issue to see if I'm wrong'?<br /><br />You seem to be suggesting that that would be impossible.<br /><br />Newton claimed that the orbit's of the planet were occasionally corrected by God, but cosmology did not stop at that point.<br /><br /><i>'It's obvious', because a hypothetical alien species would be a product of the natural universe, like us, whereas God is supernatural and not part of the natural universe. That's the fundamental difference and also the fundamental argument for ID.</i><br /><br />I agree that it is a difference, but it takes more that pointing out a difference to show why an analogy fails - after all, if there were no differences it wouldn't be an analogy, it would just be repetition. Both God and this alien species are capable of design, why isn't that enough to make the analogy successful?<br /><br />You seem to present a strange view of science. You seem to believe that 'God designed the universe' could be true, but since since accepting this proposition would stop science from asking questions, science should never accept it. This presents science as being more interested in asking questions than in the truth; which is a poor science.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26978210509994315212009-11-02T06:28:30.123+00:002009-11-02T06:28:30.123+00:00Mike,
Saying that science, by necessity, is an at...Mike,<br /><br />Saying that science, by necessity, is an atheistic pursuit, is not the same thing as saying that all scientists, by necessity, must be atheists.<br /><br />I probably should have clarified that point when I originally said it, but it wasn't the focus of the argument (whether scientists are atheists).<br /><br />I agree that many scientists are not atheist, so obviously their idea of God doesn't interfere with their science, but it would if they introduced it as part of a hypothesis, which ID does.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14164749821780560062009-11-02T06:10:54.077+00:002009-11-02T06:10:54.077+00:00It's a small point, Mike, but not a minor one....It's a small point, Mike, but not a minor one. <br /><br />I agree that a belief in God, or the idea of God, doesn't stop one from doing science. But bringing God into science does. It's a subtle difference but a very important one.<br /><br />It's one of the reasons that I argue that there is a difference between science and philosophy.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39255684609262317022009-11-02T05:18:35.380+00:002009-11-02T05:18:35.380+00:00I am an atheist, Paul, so I don't think God su...I am an atheist, Paul, so I don't think God supports anything. My point is that (contrary to your earlier statements) the idea of God does not necessarily "stop" science.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58330170604527777232009-11-02T03:46:06.668+00:002009-11-02T03:46:06.668+00:00Hi Mike,
I'm not saying that scientists have ...Hi Mike,<br /><br />I'm not saying that scientists have to be atheists; I'm not an atheist, though I'm not a scientist either.<br /><br />But you can't use a belief in God to support a scientific theory. Likewise, I don't believe that science can prove that God exists or not, though many disagree.<br /><br />There are many scientists who are not atheists. Freeman Dyson comes readily to mind and I believe Stephen Jay Gould wasn't either (whom I quote). But neither of them would have used God to support a scientifc theory or hypothesis.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56723740030775918612009-11-02T03:10:50.477+00:002009-11-02T03:10:50.477+00:00The assertion that science is "by necessity&q...The assertion that science is "by necessity" an atheistic pursuit and that God is a "science stopper" is absurd. Religion certainly didn't stop Kepler, Newton or Faraday. They seem to have gotten quite a bit of science done despite the fact that each of them essentially believed in "intelligent design."Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51755609256970570012009-11-02T02:37:22.808+00:002009-11-02T02:37:22.808+00:00Hi Kyle,
You and I have had this argument before....Hi Kyle,<br /><br />You and I have had this argument before.<br /><br />"I don't see why it's obvious that design by an alien species couldn't be analogous to design by God"<br /><br />'It's obvious', because a hypothetical alien species would be a product of the natural universe, like us, whereas God is supernatural and not part of the natural universe. That's the fundamental difference and also the fundamental argument for ID.<br /><br />ID is not part of science because it invokes God as the explanation for a natural phenomenon, and as I've said here many times already, once you bring God into science you stop doing science. Because, and this is the really important bit: you are saying science can't explain this phenomenon, therefore we are saying we have come to the end of science. And that's why bringing God into science is a 'science-stopper' to quote Stephen Jay Gould.<br /><br />ID advocates raise the valid issue that complexity at a cellular level, and at the DNA level, is still largely a mystery to science. But saying the only explanation is God is saying that the mystery can never be solved. History has shown that many mysteries of the natural universe, previously considered intractable, have since been solved. For example: the motion of the stars and planets, once thought to be evidence of God, are now explained by gravity and cosmology.<br /><br />Discoveries in science are being made all the time, and only future generations will know how ignorant the current generation is, as we now know how ignorant past generations were. Darwin and Wallace didn't know anything about genes, DNA or mutations, yet their theory of natural selection was validated by these future (in their time) discoveries. That's how science works. But if everyone had said it could only be understood by God, then we would have stopped looking for answers.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36335151709856894202009-11-02T00:42:56.014+00:002009-11-02T00:42:56.014+00:00Paul,
I think you're being a bit unfair. Ther...Paul,<br /><br />I think you're being a bit unfair. There are legitimate worries here.<br /><br />I don't see why it's obvious that design by an alien species couldn't be analogous to design by God. After all, most religions will regard much of God's activity (communicating etc) as being analogous to human activity.<br /><br />Furthermore, you are making too much of the intentions of ID proponents, for 3 reasons:<br /><br />1. It is often difficult to determine what a person's motives are.<br /><br />2. There is no reason to think that the inference from 'some ID proponents just want to get religion into schools' to 'anyone who advocates ID just wants to get religion into schools' is a good one.<br /><br />3. Even if ID proponents have 'bad' motives it does not mean that we cannot simply assess the merits of their theories. I take it that this occurs all the time in science - I'm sure that lots of scientists are motivated by money, or fame or nobel prizes rather than scientific motives (whatever they are).<br /><br />You should take a look at some of Brad Monton's work: http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/<br /><br />He is an atheist, and believes that the arguments of ID fail, but argues that there is no reason why they shouldn't be regarded as part of science.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-63344154374501211952009-11-01T23:00:54.694+00:002009-11-01T23:00:54.694+00:00Martin,
I’ve been extraordinarily patient with yo...Martin,<br /><br />I’ve been extraordinarily patient with you. This is not a truce; you have been roundly defeated, but you don’t have the nous to know it.<br /><br />Your thought experiment, because it doesn’t invoke God as the ‘Intelligent Designer’, has absolutely no relevance to ID at all, but you can’t even see that. The aliens believe the object was designed by an intelligent species - yes, we know that. Some believe it's natural - so what? There is no supernatural cause. Right, you just kicked your own argument into touch. Game over.<br /><br />The Celtic Chimp and Photosynthesis have both demonstrated how much you don’t know, but you refuse to acknowledge that they have answered your questions concerning the motivations and intentions of ID advocates, all of which are political and religious, not scientific.<br /><br />Your last throw of the dice: ‘"the 'God hypothesis' is not falsifiable" - curious to know if that statement in itself is falsifiable.’ <br /><br />You don’t even know the difference between a philosophical statement and a scientific theory, so, by your own criterion, I hope that no one ever lets you near a test tube.<br /><br />The worst part about ignorance is that the ignorant party is always unaware of how ignorant they are. You are living proof.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44326607257209479632009-11-01T11:42:56.231+00:002009-11-01T11:42:56.231+00:00Paul, I can understand your desire to call a cease...Paul, I can understand your desire to call a ceasefire, but I can't work out the terms of our truce.<br /><br />You say I'm in a muddle, but you don't have the courtesy to highlight which part of my argument is false. All your talk of relevancy doesn't add up to a hill of beans. I'm afraid you are the one who has invoked God at every turn, presumably because your arguments just don't stack up.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.com