The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Catolico65]

I haven’t had a chance to read or research the two books that Catolico65 offered up as counter arguments to evolution. At first blush I am skeptical in that one is a physicist and the other although a biologist is also a young earther. I will try and keep and open mind about the data they present.

Many if not the most important fathers of science believed in God, so you shouldn’t discount “young earthers”. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the many is the fact that God fearing scientists would have a problem putting a cart ahead of the horse, if you know what I mean. Dr. Moran on the other hand is a good candidate for apparently doing research looking for expected results, which is very unprincipled I might add.

At any rate Dr. Sanford is a plant geneticist, so I think his credentials are sufficient.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . All joking aside, what level needs to be demonstrated for your satisfaction for the strong probability of the evolutionary process? Is your rejection faith based, data driven or a combination? . . .

I would suggest that your view reflects a belief system.
Respectfully, I would add that it sounds like some sort of evolution “of the gaps”.
The belief is held before all the evidence is in, but in the hope that future research will make it clear to all.

I will be satisfied when the factors that determine “random” events are elucidated.

I would like to add that,
although unable to explain the how of it,
there exists a unity that is a human being,
which I can understand in terms of structures or metaphors
that independently describe aspects of our reality.
Physical events are occurring according to their laws coincidentally with
mental phenomena that have their own organization and ultimately with
the elements that belong to being (beauty, truth, love, relationship etc.).

Physically the person-in-the-world exists as physiological processes,
one with the universe of matter
of which he is constituted and which keeps him alive and functioning.
This functioning includes perceptions, feelings, words and memories,
events, which are of a completely different order: the mind, society, culture, education.
All this while he joins his brothers and sisters in prayer, communing with God.

 

[Catolico65]

I understand what you’re saying and I think you and I both agree that a purely physical model of the universe has to make incredulous appeals to randomness to make the evolution of life work out which is why we reject such models. The physical facts are what they are and should stand alone, appeals to randomness presuppose a materialist metaphysics whereas an teleological metaphysics explains all of the physical data just as well. Occam’s Razor can’t be applied to this right off the bat because you would have to see how well each theory explains the metaphysics, which is the realm this discussion needs to be elevated to. Science, as useful as it is, cannot answer these questions.

First, congratulations on working on your doctorate, hang in there.

Regarding science and metaphysics, the problem is most laypeople don’t realize there is a difference. For example, many scientists I believe are muddying the water by offering metaphysical commentaries that people take as peer reviewed scientific theory when they are not.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Moran points out that evolution has been accepted since the time of Darwin and that those who oppose are considered unscientific. Nonetheless, Darwin proposed his theory based on observations with no knowledge of genetics, hence the problem. Moran would appear to try to resolves the obvious issues with evolution since the discovery of the gene, but honestly the fact that he calls anyone “IDiot” who disagrees with evolution seems unprofessional and smacks of having an agenda. In other words he is in my opinion a poster child for what is wrong with modern science, emotion and desire influence results. That is not how research is supposed to function.

I agree the tone can be off putting put the facts he presents, What say you?

 

[Catolico65]

I agree the tone can be off putting put the facts he presents, What say you?

With all due respect I’m not a geneticist. Nonetheless, from my research there are some very huge hurdles to go over before evolution could be considered a valid theory, none the least of which is the degenerative process of mutations.

Honestly I would be happy if scientists would stick to representing science as science and not including opinions regarding the same topic, that way people could make educated decisions. However, that is not the case unfortunately.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Many if not the most important fathers of science believed in God, so you shouldn’t discount “young earthers”. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the many is the fact that God fearing scientists would have a problem putting a cart ahead of the horse, if you know what I mean. Dr. Moran on the other hand is a good candidate for apparently doing research looking for expected results, which is very unprincipled I might add.

At any rate Dr. Sanford is a plant geneticist, so I think his credentials are sufficient.

I think there is a large and distinct difference with the belief in God and the belief in a young Earth. The fact that he believes in a young Earth suggest that he ignores inconvenient data.

 

[Oreoracle]

The fact that he believes in a young Earth suggest that he ignores inconvenient data.

I second that. You can believe in God and still be consistent with science; science would just see this as an unnecessary assumption. But to believe in Young Earth Creationism is to dismiss pretty much everything we know about geology and biology. The only way around it is to assume that God created the Earth so it would appear old.

 

[Catolico65]

I think there is a large and distinct difference with the belief in God and the belief in a young Earth. The fact that he believes in a young Earth suggest that he ignores inconvenient data.

Dr. Sanford worked was previously an atheist and apparently came up with the conclusion after working years as a research scientist that there were too many problems with the genetic evolution theory to give it credibility. His decision was logical and scientific to say the least.

He also has 70 papers published in scientific journals so he is well established to say the least.

Interestingly and ironically is the fact that Dr. Moran and Dawkins would have us believe that genetic mutation evolution is a complete and tested theory, which it in fact it is not nor is even close. In other words they want us to have “faith” in their opinion that all the major gaps in the model “could” be explained away while Dr. Sanford merely recognized as an atheist scientist that the logical stance given the tremendous problems with genetic evolution is to reject it on standard scientific principals.

 

[Catolico65]

I second that. You can believe in God and still be consistent with science; science would just see this as an unnecessary assumption. But to believe in Young Earth Creationism is to dismiss pretty much everything we know about geology and biology. The only way around it is to assume that God created the Earth so it would appear old.

You should research the major obstacles to the genetic evolution theory and Dr. Sanfords background before making such a claim.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Dr. Sanford worked was previously an atheist and apparently came up with the conclusion after working years as a research scientist that there were too many problems with the genetic evolution theory to give it credibility. His decision was logical and scientific to say the least.

He also has 70 papers published in scientific journals so he is well established to say the least.

Interestingly and ironically is the fact that Dr. Moran and Dawkins would have us believe that genetic mutation evolution is a complete and tested theory, which it in fact it is not nor is even close. In other words they want us to have “faith” in their opinion that all the major gaps in the model “could” be explained away while Dr. Sanford merely recognized as an atheist scientist that the logical stance given the tremendous problems with genetic evolution is to reject it on standard scientific principals.

I’m still working through this but this seems to critique his points against evolution in his book. It’s long, the relevant part starts 1/4 way down the page.

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

 

[Catolico65]

I’m still working through this but this seems to critique his points against evolution in his book. It’s long, the relevant part starts 1/4 way down the page.

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Does this guy have a real name so we can check his background? It appears from the title and home page of his blog that he appears to be another pseudo scientist with an agenda unfortunately.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Does this guy have a real name so we can check his background? It appears from the title and home page of his blog that he appears to be another pseudo scientist with an agenda unfortunately.

I didn’t find a name but a description -

Long-time evangelical Christian, interested in everything, including science, miracles, gardening, and macro-economics. B.A. in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, a year at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a year working as a plumber and a lab technician. Then a B.S.E. from the University of South Florida and a Ph.D. from Princeton University, both in chemical engineering. Since then, have conducted research in an industrial laboratory. Published a number of papers on heterogeneous catalysis, and am an inventor on over 70 U.S. patents in diverse technical areas. Grateful for wise and loving wife and three amazing children

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

He also gives John Sanford an opportunity to respond. I don’t think this is a case of

“another pseudo scientist with an agenda unfortunately.”

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/gen_entropy/

He seems to be a genuine seeker.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I didn’t find a name but a description -

Long-time evangelical Christian, interested in everything, including science, miracles, gardening, and macro-economics. B.A. in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, a year at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a year working as a plumber and a lab technician. Then a B.S.E. from the University of South Florida and a Ph.D. from Princeton University, both in chemical engineering. Since then, have conducted research in an industrial laboratory. Published a number of papers on heterogeneous catalysis, and am an inventor on over 70 U.S. patents in diverse technical areas. Grateful for wise and loving wife and three amazing children

Scott Buchanan

His journey from His Wife’s perspective -

godandnature.asa3.org/feature-the-bible-evolution-and-grace.html

 

[Catolico65]

Scott Buchanan

His journey from His Wife’s perspective -

godandnature.asa3.org/feature-the-bible-evolution-and-grace.html

Given the stated purpose of his blog and lack of experience in genetics this is just another case of the cart ahead of the horse I’m afraid.

Maybe it is too much to ask to separate real science from non vetted opinion. Then again as a Christian I have no problem doing that. Nonetheless, this appears to be a major challenge for atheists and I expect it has to do with the lack belief of accountability for one’s actions.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Given the stated purpose of his blog and lack of experience in genetics this is just another case of the cart ahead of the horse I’m afraid.

Maybe it is too much to ask to separate real science from non vetted opinion. Then again as a Christian I have no problem doing that. Nonetheless, this appears to be a major challenge for atheists and I expect it has to do with the lack belief of accountability for one’s actions.

Did you read it? He cites every study and explains the science and gave John Sanford a chance to respond to the critique, which he published also on his blog. He isn’t an atheist he just moved away from a literal evangelical Christianity to a more nuanced approach.

 

[balto]

First, congratulations on working on your doctorate, hang in there.

Regarding science and metaphysics, the problem is most laypeople don’t realize there is a difference. For example, many scientists I believe are muddying the water by offering metaphysical commentaries that people take as peer reviewed scientific theory when they are not.

Thanks, hopefully I pass my candidacy examination in a couple of weeks . I agree with what you have said here. But the funny thing is that I think that the scientists that are muddying the waters as you have said aren’t aware that they are doing so. I don’t doubt that they are genuine materialists, but to say that science proves that materialism is true is begging the question since science can only answer material questions.

I think society would benefit tremendously from having formal logic, rational thinking, and philosophy taught somewhere in a person’s educational experience. Most people I know either have no experience with it or such a biased experience that they’ve rejected it out of hand. I don’t really blame them for rejecting philosophy though since when it is taught classical/medieval philosophy is summarily rejected simply because it is “antiquated” and the modern forms of philosophy tend to lead to all kinds of silliness that is understandably not appealing to most people.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

That depends on your definition of “true”. In math, “true” roughly means “provable from the axioms”. (This is a bit of an oversimplification. See Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem for details.) This means that any claims of truth are only being made relative to a specified set of axioms. There is no “correct” set of axioms, since one cannot prove one’s choice of axioms without using circular reasoning.

Thus, you and I could propose different sets of axioms, each set being internally consistent. Your axioms are false in my system, and mine are false in your system. Neither of us is “correct” in any objective way, since math’s definition of “truth” only lets us analyze claims after we have already made a choice of axioms. Thus we can only determine who is right after choosing who will be right, which is a circular argument.

The “tl;dr” version: We can’t objectively determine truth because we can’t objectively determine axioms. The choice of axioms is arbitrary, and this choice determines what is “true” within a framework.

On your argument, then, Jeffrey Dahmer and Mother Teresa can lay equal claim to moral truths, as they choose different axioms to derive their own moral truths. Both you and a frog can lay equal claim to knowing the “truth” about the world outside your consciousness, as you are using different sets of axioms.

I would guess you don’t actually live your life as if you believe that Dahmer and Mother Teresa are equally correct, or that a frog has an equal grasp of the truth as you, just as most materialists who deny free will actually live their lives as if they really accept that belief. They tend to hold people accountable for their actions, and live their lives as if they were not automata.

Philosophical claims (such as relativism) that would require their adherents to live and act in a way contrary to the way the adherents actually do, can be safely discarded.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am both a practicing Catholic and a scientist (a biochemist).

As far as the 10 ‘dogmas’ of science are concerned, I agree with most of them. Yes, the world is largely mechanical, while on the microscale quantum mechanics introduces some indeterminism which, however, in most cases (not all) has little to no influence on what happens on the macroscale. It does, however, have influence on such events as random genetic mutations which eventually do manifest themselves on the macroscale. And yes, evolution works; increase of complexity would of course not be possible by random genetic mutations alone, but the combination of these with gene duplications makes it possible indeed (read wikipedia on gene duplication). Evolution deniers are simply scientifically uninformed or misinformed. Heredity is material, what else would it be? The laws of nature are fixed; the first scientists who started the scientific revolution, and who were all believers in God, of course gave the name ‘laws of nature’ (hinting at a lawgiver) precisely because the laws are fixed, and are in that sense also mechanical. Miracles are an exemption, of course.

The one dogma I take the most issue with is that “nature in purposeless”. Yes, it is true that within nature nothing works with a conscious purpose, but more like the ‘blind watchmaker’ that Dawkins writes about. However, that does not exclude the idea that there is a larger purpose to nature itself, intended by God. For starters, physical, chemical and biological evolution would not be possible at all if the laws of nature were not extremely fine-tuned. One can debate whether God fine-tuned these laws by design, or if a naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning can be found, but that the phenomenon of fine-tuning itself is real is something that is affirmed even by leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists (Hawking, Smolin, Weinberg, Rees, to name just a few examples). Atheists who deny the very fact of fine-tuning (regardless of philosophical implications which can be debated) are no better in their regard for science than creationists who deny evolution.

---

For my larger take on the issue, here it is:

As I see it, there is a natural and a supernatural order.

In the supernatural order, God intervenes frequently. We have divine revelation to the Jews and later the gentiles, we have God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ, we have the sacraments, above all the Holy Eucharist in which God is physically with us at all times in the most loving and selfless manner possible, and we have the special creation of an immaterial rational soul for each human individually. God interacts with the human soul and has a relationship with us.

In the natural order, God appears to intervene rarely, at least in a measurable way. This is even logically necessary, otherwise we would not know what to expect from our physical world. Imagine stepping into an airplane without predictable laws of nature … Physical miracles are rare, and God set up the universe to develop on its own – as some would say, God made the world make itself. We have a seamless line from physical evolution of the universe after the Big Bang through chemical evolution resulting in the origin of life to biological evolution resulting in higher species and our bodies and brains (again, the immaterial soul is part of the supernatural order, and by definition cannot fall within the realm of physical evolution).

Even though God appears to intervene rarely in the natural order, He is necessary as the sustainer of the created world. Study classical metaphysics (Aquinas) and you will see why that is so. It is also a ‘de fide’ (‘has to be believed’) article of the Catholic Church. In that sense, God is constantly active in the natural order as well, even though not in an obvious ‘interventionist’ manner. This excludes a deist view.

It is actually ID people who appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything and instead believe that God only “acts” when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”, also in the physical world.

 

[Oreoracle]

I would guess you don’t actually live your life as if you believe that Dahmer and Mother Teresa are equally correct…

Ah, but there’s the word “equal”. Even for me to regard two different moralities as equal, I have to adopt a set of axioms by which to judge them. Naturally I wouldn’t regard any other morality as equal to mine, otherwise I’d change my morality.

My conclusion might make you uncomfortable, but you’ve done nothing to refute it. How can you prove your basic assumptions are correct without assuming them?

…or that a frog has an equal grasp of the truth as you

Some philosophies hold that knowledge is impossible to possess. By that assumption, a frog and I could indeed have equal knowledge. There are other philosophies in which I would be considered more knowledgeable than the frog.

When you choose an epistemology, you are effectively choosing a definition of “knowledge”. It makes sense that the answer to the question “Is Oreoracle more knowledgeable than a frog?” ought to depend on the definition of “knowledge” we’re using, just as the answer to the question “Is Arizona Mike healthy?” depends on our definition of “health”.

…just as most materialists who deny free will actually live their lives as if they really accept that belief. They tend to hold people accountable for their actions, and live their lives as if they were not automata.

Indeed. If they are correct, they could not do otherwise, just as you could not do otherwise than to criticize them for it. I don’t see the contradiction.

Philosophical claims (such as relativism) that would require their adherents to live and act in a way contrary to the way the adherents actually do, can be safely discarded.

I still don’t think you fully understand the position. I’m not saying that every philosophy is “equally good”. Again, such a conclusion could only be reached by assuming certain sets of axioms. Some philosophies are more or less accurate than others if my axioms are assumed. What I am saying is that there is simply no way for me to demonstrate my axioms in an anymore satisfactory way than competing philosophies can.

Since you brought up a moral example, I’ll start with that. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume a utilitarian ethic whose goal is to maximize happiness. It is assumed that happiness is intrinsically good in this system, but cannot be demonstrated. If you ask a utilitarian “Why does happiness matter?”, the best they could do is point to a happy group of people and say “Look, isn’t that a good thing?”. But you would only agree that it’s a good thing if you were making the same assumption the utilitarian is making.