Believing Scripture & Pursuing Science: The Bifurcation of the Mind

[Jimmy Snyder]

One could 'see' inside a brick with X-ray tomography, or doesn't that count.

You probably answered your own question with those scare quotes.

 

[Moridin]

Someone who endorses Intelligent Design is not a scientist. A scientist uses scientific methodology to increase the body of knowledge, not to decrease it using unscientific speculations that might have the power to damage more than a century worth of scientific discovery in the eyes of the general public. Intelligent Design is certainly not science, and as a result, people who endorse it is not scientists.

Do I think that a scientist is less worth as a scientist if he is religious? No. Do I think that a scientist who brings in religion into scientific methodology and areas that have substantial evidence to support it or as a result of his or her religion refuses to acknowledge the evidence? Definitely.

 

[tehno]

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young Earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the Earth is at most 10,000 years old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

What ,on earth,"Dr." does stand for in front of his name?

 

[Kurdt]

What ,on earth,"Dr." does stand for in front of his name?

If he just had a B.S. that would be more fitting.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Someone who endorses Intelligent Design is not a scientist.

Would you say that someone who endorses love is a scientist? Love is not science. Intelligent Design is not science.

 

[Moridin]

Would you say that someone who endorses love is a scientist? Love is not science. Intelligent Design is not science.

I'm not sure that I understand your post correctly.

Yes, I consider someone who uses scientific methodology to increase the body of knowledge on the evolutionary background on or types of biochemical reactions occurring during the events linguistically described as 'love'.

I do not consider someone who uses the romantic description of love in explaining celestial mechanics a scientist because he or she is not using scientific methodology. I would say that someone who denies evolution or biochemistry and tries to promote the romantic version of 'love' instead is not a scientist, that is correct.

If this does not answer your question, can you please clarify it for me?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would say that someone who denies evolution or biochemistry and tries to promote the romantic version of 'love' instead is not a scientist, that is correct.

That answers it pretty good, thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by "deny biochemistry" though.

 

[Gokul43201]

You probably answered your own question with those scare quotes.

This is exactly the problem with talking science informally. When we use words like 'see', which are everyday words used outside of their scientific definition, we have to enclose them in quotes when we are describing a well-defined phenomenon that is outside the non-scientific connotation. To a scientist, seeing with photodetector made of organic molecules (and signal transmitters) tuned to be sensitive between about 400 and 700nm is no different than seeing with an x-ray detector made of inorganic materials (and electronic components) that are sensitive to much higher frequencies.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is exactly the problem with talking science informally. When we use words like 'see', which are everyday words used outside of their scientific definition, we have to enclose them in quotes when we are describing a well-defined phenomenon that is outside the non-scientific connotation. To a scientist, seeing with photodetector made of organic molecules (and signal transmitters) tuned to be sensitive between about 400 and 700nm is no different than seeing with an x-ray detector made of inorganic materials (and electronic components) that are sensitive to much higher frequencies.

And yet Feynman made a distinction and so do I. I said we probably would never agree on what an observation is.

 

[arildno]

And yet Feynman made a distinction and so do I. I said we probably would never agree on what an observation is.

It doesn't follow from this, however, that anything goes, and hence, personal convictions of the existence of God have any place within our assemblage of observations.

 

[PIT2]

I think its refreshing to see scientists that arent stuck in an antireligious mindset, just as it is refreshing to see religious people that arent stuck in an antiscience mindset. The two extremes are equally damaging to science.

 

[Gokul43201]

And yet Feynman made a distinction and so do I. I said we probably would never agree on what an observation is.

Yikes! Please do not use your interpretation of Feynman's conversation with non-physicists as a reproduction of his scientific definition of an observation. And that too, from a book written for a general audience.

Moreover, if you actually look through a copy of Surely... you'll see immediately that the passage you quoted before is a paraphrase of the portion from the book - it is not a real quote.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think its refreshing to see scientists that arent stuck in an antireligious mindset, just as it is refreshing to see religious people that arent stuck in an antiscience mindset. The two extremes are equally damaging to science.

Do you really think so? I'm curious about specific scientists that are antireligious, who have done as much damage to science as the religious authorities have.

From the trial of Socrates for poisoning the minds of the youth by having them question the traditional Greek gods, to the desecration of Copernicus' grave and persecution of Galileo (and censorship of all scientific work for the next 2 centuries that referenced any of Galileo's results), to the ousting of Leclerk from the Sorbonne, to the slandering of Darwin and Bertrand Russell (to say nothing of all those other scientists like Descartes and Newton who had to keep any works that clearly opposed scripture unpublished, out of fear of persecution), we've know of hundreds of cases where science-opposing religious authorities have caused immense damage to science. Can you provide comparable examples of religion-opposing scientists that have caused "equal" damage?

 

[PIT2]

Do you really think so? I'm curious about specific scientists that are antireligious, who have done as much damage to science as the religious authorities have.

Yes i think its poison from the inside.

Can you provide comparable examples of religion-opposing scientists that have caused "equal" damage?

The vile treatment of ID is of course a shame on science and any scientist involved in it. I remember a guy was mistreated by some smithsonian people for publishing an article about ID.
Also i think Dawkins and other people whove spoken out against religion and used science as a tool have turned many people against science. Exaggerating the facts also damages the reputation of science. I don't know specific numbers, but I've read that a significant number of people in the USA think evolution is garbage.

And suppose ID is true, and suppose the universe and life were created, who knows how many decades (or centuries) antireligious sentiments have managed to stall scientific progress. We don't have the privilege of hindsight yet.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yikes! Please do not use your interpretation of Feynman's conversation with non-physicists as a reproduction of his scientific definition of an observation. And that too, from a book written for a general audience.

Moreover, if you actually look through a copy of Surely... you'll see immediately that the passage you quoted before is a paraphrase of the portion from the book - it is not a real quote.

Give me a break Gokul43201, I said where the original could be found. It appears that you read it. Is it not as I indicated? He calls electrons a theory because no one had ever seen one.

If you do an experiment in which electrons hit a scintillation counter and you write up the results for a journal, what do you write:

1. In 1 hour I saw 5 electrons hit the scintillator.

2. In 1 hour I saw 5 flashes in the scintillator.

I argue for the second one. The problem with the first one is that it mixes theory up with fact. Surely no scientist can be faulted for reporting the actual observation.

By reporting that mesosours are observed to be 65 million years old, you may feel that you have put young Earth creationists in their place. Now you can say that they are not criticising theory, they are criticising observed fact. But what have you done to the army of dedicated scientists who worked so diligently to get the real facts and come up with the great theories that honestly went into that number?

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't read this thread initially because I don't know what "bifurcation means [ ], but...

I don't know how someone can believe simultaneously that something they are studying is millions of years old, having occurred on a planet they believe is only 10,000 years old. It seems at least a little dishonesty must be involved, either in what he is willing to admit to the public about his beliefs, or in what he is trying to force himself to believe.

I agree.

My boss is a strange bird who holds some very strong religious beliefs, yet somehow manages to be a pretty good engineer. I've learned to avoid discussions with him where this might be an issue, but every now and then one sneaks up on me. He looks for alternatives to Relativity because he doesn't like the Big Bang (no, he doesn't own a gps receiver...), and once he brought a creationist leaflet into the office. Gawd, it was awful - lies, misrepresentations, misdirections - you know, the usual. It is amazing to me how someone who on other subjects appears almost brilliant can have such cognitive dissonance/"doublethink".

I don't really have an answer to your question, but I think (in his case, anyway) it really is just cognitive dissonance and the power of belief. I liken it to Pons & Fleischman of cold fusion - they didn't set out to be frauds, but the power of their desires and beliefs (in themselves, in this case) overrode their scientific sense. Eventually they crossed-over, but that may have been mostly a matter of being trapped by their own mistakes and not being strong enough to break away from them. Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science" discusses where that line is and how it gets crossed. It's a toughie, though.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't follow from this, however, that anything goes, and hence, personal convictions of the existence of God have any place within our assemblage of observations.

I don't see how you could confuse my statements as implying "anything goes". I am saying the exact opposite. You should not report that you saw something unless you actually saw it. Experience is the yardstick by which to measure. Nothing goes unless it measures up.

 

[Moonbear]

The vile treatment of ID is of course a shame on science and any scientist involved in it.

Complete horse puckey! There is nothing scientific about ID. The day they can present solid evidence supporting their speculation rather than the "It's just too hard for us to understand the actual evidence" view that they currently argue with is the day they'll earn credibility among scientists.

 

[Moonbear]

... I don't know what "bifurcation means ...

It means splitting in two.

 

[verty]

The vile treatment of ID is of course a shame on science and any scientist involved in it.

The only point that needs to be made is that ID is not science. Criticisms of the relevance of science are perfectly acceptable, but pretending that something unscientific is scientific is not. ID does not belong in science textbooks and it does not belong in the science classroom. I don't see anything wrong with having it appear in a religion classroom.

 

[PIT2]

Complete horse puckey! There is nothing scientific about ID.

Irrelevant. Cooking isn't scientific either, that doesn't justify mistreatment of cooks. I wonder how many people would turn against science when scientists start ridiculing everyone that enjoys cooked meals.

The day they can present solid evidence supporting their speculation rather than the "It's just too hard for us to understand the actual evidence" view that they currently argue with is the day they'll earn credibility among scientists.

Design of life seems to be ruled out by definition in science (not falsifiable or something like that), regardless if its true or not. A scientist saying that ID isn't true because it isn't science, is like a brainsurgeon saying that a leg isn't broken because its not a brain.

 

[Kurdt]

Irrelevant. Cooking isn't scientific either, that doesn't justify mistreatment of cooks. I wonder how many people would turn against science when scientists start ridiculing everyone that enjoys cooked meals.

Design of life seems to be ruled out by definition in science (not falsifiable or something like that), regardless if its true or not. A scientist saying that ID isn't true because it isn't science, is like a brainsurgeon saying that a leg isn't broken because its not a brain.

Ok present the evidence that implies intelligent design?

 

[PIT2]

The only point that needs to be made is that ID is not science. Criticisms of the relevance of science are perfectly acceptable, but pretending that something unscientific is scientific is not. ID does not belong in science textbooks and it does not belong in the science classroom. I don't see anything wrong with having it appear in a religion classroom.

I don't care where its discussed, but it should be discussed without ridicule, and without an air of superiority breathing from peoples mouths.

 

[Moonbear]

Irrelevant. Cooking isn't scientific either, that doesn't justify mistreatment of cooks. I wonder how many people would turn against science when scientists start ridiculing everyone that enjoys cooked meals.

Actually, cooking IS pretty scientific...it's based on a lot of chemistry. There are even people who major in Food Science.

Design of life seems to be ruled out by definition in science (not falsifiable or something like that), regardless if its true or not.

ID proponents only get criticized for that because they try to claim their views ARE science, which they are not, precisely for the reason you identify, that they are not claims that can be tested (not falsifiable).

A scientist saying that ID isn't true because it isn't science, is like a brainsurgeon saying that a leg isn't broken because its not a brain.

Scientists say ID is not science, period. If people want to discuss it in church or religious classes, we have no problem with that, only when they try to teach something that is not based in science in the science classroom have they run into criticism from scientists. Your analogy makes no sense at all. It's more like a brain surgeon saying they can't treat a broken leg because it's not a brain. In other words, it's outside their field, and should be referred to an orthopedic surgeon, just as science and scientists don't deal with intelligent design; it belongs squarely in the realm of religion, not science...outside the field.

 

[PIT2]

Ok present the evidence that implies intelligent design?

What it takes for intelligent design to be true is intelligence, but this is very difficult to determine. These links for example describe how even the simplest lifeforms can be considered intelligent, and how they 'genetically engineer' their own genomes:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/genome.html

I think ideas like these are victim of the entrenched positions both sides have put themselves in.

 

[Moonbear]

What it takes for intelligent design to be true is intelligence, but this is very difficult to determine. These links for example describe how even the simplest lifeforms can be considered intelligent, and how they 'genetically engineer' their own genomes:

You do realize that actually has NOTHING to do with what proponents of Intelligent Design are arguing, don't you? Intelligent Design is just a repackaging of creationism.

 

[Evo]

The vile treatment of ID is of course a shame on science and any scientist involved in it. I remember a guy was mistreated by some smithsonian people for publishing an article about ID.

Not true, and yes I personally know the Smithsonian Chair of Zoology below that the controversy is around. You couldn't find a more reasonable man.

From Panda's thumb

Here at PT, we had little to say about Sternberg's complaint for the simple reason that there wasn't much information to go on, as we pointed out in Sternberg vs. Smithsonian. But that article apparently caught the attention of one of the principals in the dispute, Jonathan Coddington. He responded in the comments, offering a brief statement taking on several of the allegations made in Klinghoffer's article. I will reproduce it here:

Comment #14871

Posted by JAC on February 3, 2005 09:36 AM

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal's Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, "The Branding of a Heretic" (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.

1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.

2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, "Research Associate," means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.

3. I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.

4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.

5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.

6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.

On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can't speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Coddington

I have confirmed via email correspondence that Jonathan Coddington at the Smithsonian is the author of the comment posted here at PT.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/a_second_dimens.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Give me a break Gokul43201, I said where the original could be found.

Sorry, I missed that. My bad.

It appears that you read it. Is it not as I indicated? He calls electrons a theory because no one had ever seen one.

He never actually says that no one has seen an electron, but it is true that he is trying to make the analogy to the theoretical construct. But it is an analogy he was invoking, not a rigorous argument.

If you do an experiment in which electrons hit a scintillation counter and you write up the results for a journal, what do you write:

1. In 1 hour I saw 5 electrons hit the scintillator.

2. In 1 hour I saw 5 flashes in the scintillator.

Neither. I'd write: "In 1 hour, 5 electrons were observed." If this was the 30s or 40s, I'm not sure I'd have used the same words.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Neither. I'd write: "In 1 hour, 5 electrons were observed."

What would you say to an advocate of ID, who claimed that the hand of the designer is observed? After all, they don't really see the hand of the designer, do they?

 

[Gokul43201]

In physics, an observable is very well-defined. In QM, for instance, it is associated with a hermitian operator. Whatever the area of science, there is a theoretical construct that takes you from the observation to the inference. This theory is rigorously developed, using the scientific method. And it is the repeated experimental verification of the veracity of this theory which allows one today to talk of seeing an electron in much the same way you can talk of seeing a brick, ONLY because the theory behind both kinds of observations has shown itself to be overwhelmingly reliable.

(Side note: you do not actually observe an object. You only observe its properties. The object itself is merely a label attached to a specific set of properties.)

If ID were a theory that had demonstrated predictive ability and testability over a statistically large number of experiments conducted independently under varied conditions, then I'd believe the link between the observation and the inference. It comes nowhere close to satisfying any of these standards.