Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American Scientific Affiliation: Some extinctions may be just as well

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 I remember seeing the cover of a book by Stephen Jay Gould, lamenting the decline of species of snails* somewhere, with the species illustrated. I couldn’t tell the difference between them for beans, and that’s quite different from not being able to tell the difference between a dog and a cat – though it is said that they have a common ancestor. One thing is certain: They cannot interbreed. They parted—unamicably, I suspect—a long time ago. Now to the point: I want to write about what I take to be the extinction of the American Scientific Affiliation, which exists to promote “theistic evolution,” so far as I can see., but is probably now best employed promoting grey hair formulas for shampoo. One columnist notes, here:

… it is with some astonishment that recently I received an email asking why attendance at ASA meetings has “grayed” so much, with one reporting that only 5 in a crowd of 80-100 were below the age of 40. A mail-in survey of 53% of the members found that less than 15% were below 40, (and apparently not desirous of attending meetings.) An anecdotal survey of other Christian affiliations of scientists found them with larger percentages of young scientists. So what ailment has afflicted the ASA?

Okay, why did ASA get started, post-World War II? To tell the world that there is no conflict between Christ (“take up your cross and follow me”) and Darwin (“survival of the fittest”). Because that would be bad for up-to-date religion. Darwin sure thought there was a conflict, which is why he was a materialist atheist from long before he wrote Origin of Species, let alone Descent of Man, which – so far as I can see – is one long racist tract, never properly denounced or renounced by Darwinists. But that does not matter any more. People can promote racism today, as long as they can cite the sainted name of Darwin. Otherwise, why has Jim Watson’s Nobel Prize not been revoked, the way David Ahenakew’s Order of Canada was revoked, and for the same reasons? We do not need these hassles. In my view, those are the sorts of issues that a “theistic evolution” group – right or wrong – should have been strenuously addressing. Not trying to convince Christians that Christ and Darwin would have been pals, when everyone knows it is not true. Well, the ASA got around to conducting a survey of its members’ beliefs, reported June 1, 2010, and here are some of the results, and here are my comments.

Comments
Seversky: Stating a desired belief as you have done in your post, without even a gesture towards any empirical evidence so as to verify your claim that "information" is "just there" free for the taking, is about as divorced from reality as a person can be. In fact I would say it is a world of,,,, ,,,,Pure Imagination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKIbornagain77
June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 8
But just what is truth seversky?
I thought I just explained that.
Can you stub your toe on information seversky?
No. I can study a rock and gather information about its size, color, weight, position, etc. That won't hurt my toe. The rock will, though. That said, Wheeler's notion of everything being information does have one advantage: it neatly solves the problem of where all the new information in living things comes from. Even before life appeared the Universe must have been hip-deep in information so there was plenty lying around just waiting to become alive. And it's the same today. The air we breathe is information, the water we drink is information, the food we eat is information. We're inhaling it and pouring it down our throats 24/7. Where does new information com from? No problem!Seversky
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
bornagain- In regards to your "What is Truth?" document, what DON'T genes code for? lolPhaedros
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Well Seversky to put all what you said in one short sentence. The primary objective of science is to relentlessly pursue a more complete understanding of the truth whatever that truth may be. But just what is truth seversky? What is Truth? http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc8z67wz_3g3vnsmcn Can you stub your toe on information seversky? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nuclear-power-a-new-movement-you-won%E2%80%99t-believe/#comment-355516bornagain77
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
The Order of Canada is for: "The highest degree of merit, an outstanding level of talent and service, or an exceptional contribution to Canada and humanity." obviously something David Ahenakew did not show, and therefore it was rightly taken away. The Nobel Prize is for (in this case): "Outstanding contributions in Physiology or Medicine" obviously something James Watson did show, and therefore rightly won and kept. Seems simple enough.Winston Macchi
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Off topic music video: Scrubs 'Waiting For My Real Life To Begin' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcsrnT7Tv1obornagain77
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
There still appears to be some misunderstanding here so let me clarify my position - again. My view is that there is an objective, material/physical reality outside me. What we know of that reality is acquired through our senses augmented more recently by our instrumentalities. For example, telescopes can see much further and microscopes objects much smaller than the unaided eye; radio, infrared and X-ray detectors can 'see' at wavelengths that are invisible to us. We can see almost to the edge of the observable Universe and have imaged individual atoms. Even so, the data we have, while vast and growing, is still partial, often fragmentary, confusing and contradictory. To try and make sense of it we do what we have probably always done, we tell stories. We construct explanations or weave narratives around the data we have, not all of which are the same. On the assumption that one amongst all the different explanations is better than the others, in that it corresponds more closely to what it is trying to explain, we formulate some these explanations so that they offer ways of testing them for accuracy. In other words, we construct hypotheses and theories as part of the methodology of science. On this view, truth is neither a thing nor an entity nor a property but a judgement or measurement of the degree to which our explanations correspond to our observations of what is to be explained. The difference between the approach of the scientist and that of the ideologue or theologue is that, for the former, truth is determined solely by the extent to which the theory agrees with observation while, for the latter, it must also conform to their preferred ideology or theology. Returning to the Christian virtues, they are neither true nor false, transcendent or otherwise, because they are not propositions or statements of fact or explanations of the world. Instead, they are more like rules of behavior by which Christians hold themselves bound as part of their witness to their faith. The virtues have no objective existence in the sense that, say, gravity does. Gravity affects all things, whether living or not, whether there is awareness of it or not. Virtues exist and have influence only in the minds of those who are aware of them. A rock, for example, cannot behave charitably, neither can a bacterium nor even a human being in a coma. On the other hand, fully-conscious human beings can be aware both of the concept and moral imperative of charity although others can only know that when they observe such people behaving charitably towards their fellows. Which brings me back to my original observation.Seversky
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
--seversky:..."only a comment about how they were displayed by self-proclaimed Christians who hold them up as ideals towards which they should strive." Please provide a specific example of how Denyse violated a Christian virtue.StephenB
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 4,
The endless absurdity of materialists never ceases to fascinate me.
As one of those "materialists" I have two questions. 1)Why would my disagreeing with you be absurd instead of just wrong? 2)Why do my subjective truths not allow me to treat you with the disrespect your absolute transcendent truths allow you to treat me?Toronto
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Ok Seversky and how do you know they, the virtues, were displayed or not if they are but mere illusions to you? Could not you just be imagining all this? I mean you, as a materialist, are adamant they are not real are you not? This whole thing with materialists has always fascinated me. They/You claim that objective transcendent truths do not exist, but then they/you claim to absolutely know that this one particular objective transcendent truth of there being no other objective transcendent truths to be true, even though they claim the truths don't exist. The endless absurdity of materialists never ceases to fascinate me.bornagain77
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
You must have read a different post. There was no judgement about whether the virtues were right or wrong, only a comment about how they were displayed by self-proclaimed Christians who hold them up as ideals towards which they should strive.Seversky
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
but seversky, temperance, patience, kindness, charity and humility are all transcendent qualities which you, as a materialist, hold to be but mere illusions, thus how can you you firmly say what is right or wrong with any of this. i.e. you have no foundation to make the judgment.bornagain77
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
I never fail to be impressed by the way the Christian virtues of temperance, patience, kindness, charity and humility are exemplified here, especially towards fellow believers.Seversky
June 5, 2010
June
06
Jun
5
05
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply