Science vs. Religion (Chapter 3) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, June 05, 2011, 15:09 (4919 days ago) @ xeno6696

Chapter 3 is a concise synopsis of many of the debates David, dhw, and I have engaged in over the last few years. So my discussions here will be brief.-First: a bit of praise. Dembski's chance arguments I found wanting. Many of the individual chance arguments David has previously presented (taken alone, as they always have been) have also been found wanting--however, in this particular chapter David weaves a coherent tapestry to support his overall thesis. It is balanced, and accessible. -Had I read this book in the brief window I was still a conscious theist, I have no doubt that I would have traveled a different path. However, I have gone down the path of radical skepticism and doubt. (Who knows... maybe I was destined to be in this spot anyway!) But my story explains exactly why David's book fills a void: When I was growing up, I really only had two choices. Pursue science and abandon theology in its entirety. Or, pursue theology, and completely abandon science. The important thing about your book David, is that (much moreso than Behe or Dembski) you don't misdirect. You don't presuppose more than is needed--Behe does that as much as our traditional scientists. You state the facts and really, do a good job of keeping God out of the science. (Thus far you've clearly got an opinion in the book, but you're not doing the talking.)-Now a critique can't be all praise. So here's the negatives:-On the nature of chance vs. design, we're in a disagreement about what all the mathematical evidence in this chapter means: My take is that we're clearly in a state of ignorance. And me being me, I don't make decisions when I've found myself in a state of ignorance. -On page 72 of my copy, you discuss that scientists are actively trying to refute God. My margin note asks the question, "Where is this refutation in the scientific literature?" You seem to (accidently?) make the insinuation that science and scientists really are against theology of any kind. While this makes sense in the public sphere, your words here shift blame in the wrong place. I would have preferred a more firm discussion characterizing the nature of how science *really* works, and then discussing the interpretive nature that leads people (with different thought frameworks) down to differing conclusions. You and I are both fully aware of the state of abiogenesis research, yet clearly we're of two different interpretations on the same data. (There's no right or wrong here--at least, not yet.)-I still haven't seen reference to Francis Collins (though it has been some months since I read chapters 1 & 2.) -The other major criticism is the implicit assumption (and I've pointed this out before) that a fully-functioning cell had to appear fully complete out of the ether. The only reason your argument about DNA holds any weight, is that we only have current life to study. We have no idea what lesser forms may have existed prior to that first cell. (Ignorance again.) We're applying what we know about life now, assuming these assumptions must hold at all points of time. Unless this has changed, you actually told me before that this was a "very good point." Where could we go here, if we got creative?-A relatively newer criticism I might have, is that clearly there had to be some kind of selection going on. Yet, we know that at least once life appears, there's no need for direct intervention. (Though the bigger jump as dhw has often pointed out, is the jump from bacterial to multicellular, so the question of abiogenesis has two main prongs.) But we know that life as it is now evolves based on autonomous selection. Life uses what it has available to make changes under stress. This is a big "if," but this can be applied to before life as well. You still wouldn't know if a designer was involved, but there still has to be a physical explanation. God may fill the gap as you say, but it still doesn't explain the "how," an ultimately more satisfying question. -Towards the end of the chapter, you discuss that conditions on earth had to be the same everywhere else in the universe. Really? What grounds do we have to make this claim? I know you appeal to the "apparent uniformity of conditions in the universe" but this is highly debatable.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"