Will Evolution Weekend Sermons Discuss Alleged Murderer Amy Bishop?

_{Salvador Cordova

February 14, 2010

Culture, Darwinism, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today is the closing day of “Evolution Weekend”. The weekend is promoted by The clergy letter project. This is a weekend dedicated to glorifying Darwinism in churches.

Curiously one of the scientists on call to help clergy and parishioners promote the glories of Darwinism was Amy Bishop, she is listed here:

Name: Amy Bishop, Ph.D.
Title: Associate Professor
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL 35899
Areas of Expertise: neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, evolution of the human brain
Email: ——-@uah.edu

Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don’t mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I’d recommend that if the Clergy Letter Project wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.

They may not want to promote “survival of the fittest” in their sermons today. That would be kind of poor taste in light of the fact a presumed societal degenerate (Bishop) is the “fittest” survivor while 3 (possibly 4) innocent victims are the “unfit” dead. Think I’m overstating the case against Darwinism? Consider what Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss argues in his book The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill

murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.

NOTES:
Here is the Fox10’s report on Amy Bishop Biology professor charged with murder

A biology professor at the University of Alabama’s Huntsville campus was charged with murder late Friday in the shooting deaths of three fellow biology professors at the campus….
Amanda Tucker, a junior nursing major from Alabaster, Ala., had Amy Bishop for anatomy about a year ago. Tucker said a group of students went to a dean complaining about Bishop’s performance in the classroom, and Tucker signed a petition complaining about Bishop.

“When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,'” said Tucker.

Andrea Bennett, a sophomore majoring in nursing, was in one of Bishop’s classes Friday morning.

Bennett said nothing seemed unusual, but she described Bishop as being “very weird” and “a really big nerd.”

“She’s well-known on campus, but I wouldn’t say she’s a good teacher. I’ve heard a lot of complaints,” Bennett said

There are also now questions about why liberal congressmen Delahunt (then a District Attorney for Braintree Massachusetts) had her released from police custody after shooting her brother in 1986. See: Professor Amy Bishop Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop

A Massachusetts police chief is now saying that UAH shooting suspect Amy Bishop shot and killed her brother during an argument, and the case may have been mishandled by the police department more than two decades ago when the fatal shooting occurred.

The Boston Globe reported that Amy Bishop, a biology professor at UAH who is accused of shooting and killing three colleagues yesterday, accidentally shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in the abdomen with a 12-gauge shotgun in December 1986.

The report said Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.

Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier is now offering a different account of the shooting to The Globe: “Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the police chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother,” the paper reports on its Web site. Records from the case have been missing since 1987.
…
Braintree officers who remember the 1986 shooting said that former police Chief John Polio dismissed detectives from the case and ordered the department to release Amy Bishop after a telephone conversation with former district attorney William Delahunt.

Delahunt is currently a U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.

HT: my good friend Mike Gene for uncovering the book by David Buss and Amy Bishop’s entry in the Clergy Letter Project

Comments

scordova, I don't think less of Evangelicals because Ted Haggard was one and I don't think less of evolutionists because Darwin was one. That would be like saying all ID followers are Hovindists, (after Kent Hovind), to try and discredit them. If you believe in ID, you're not going to start evading your taxes like Hovind did. Should we start calling all IDers Hovindists so we can smear them by looking into Kent Hovind's private life? There are some people who do that with Darwin and evolutionists.Toronto_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Darwin doen’t drag his field down and Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker don’t drag down theirs.
Of course they do, and hence in the Evangelical world we don't have "Ted Haggard" days or "Jim Bakker" days. Which is more than I can say for the Clergy Letter project which celebrates Darwin Day. Darwin took and received credit for ideas that weren't his. His conduct doesn't necessarily mean evolutionary theoreis are wrong, but it does cast doubt on how much he should be receiving credit. I certainly don't think churches should be honoring him!!!! Here is Hiram Caton's analysis: Hiram Caton on Post Darwinist Then there is the balanced Biography of Darwin by DI Fellow Wiker: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwinscordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

scordova @120,
Darwin’s character however drags the field down.
Darwin doen't drag his field down and Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker don't drag down theirs.Toronto_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

This is, like your quote about shooting, a deliberate quote mine, intended to cast aspersions on the character of Darwin
That is correct, but that is not the same as arguing against the theories of evolution. It is merely pointing out I don't think the guy was on the up and up. Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker disgraced Evangelicals. I don't get bent out of shape when their character is criticized. I join in. Newton was a genius, but his insensitivy left much to be desired. I don't get bent out of shape when some of friends say he was a "s--t head". I like his theories, I don't approve of his behavior.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

This is, like your quote about shooting, a deliberate quote mine, intended to cast aspersions on the character of Darwin and,
I do believe Darwin has character issues that reflect badly on his work. His actions as a little boy seem to anticipate some of the conduct he had later in life.
by extension, the character of evolutionary biologists in general.
I think highly of several evolutionary biologists, you among them. I think more highly of the field because of people like you and Richard Sternberg. Darwin's character however drags the field down. One can't get away from that. The portrayal of him as virtuous and capable is suspect.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Sal, it seems difficult to believe, but you have stooped even lower with comment #116. You are aware, of course, that in this quote Darwin was writing about himself as a little boy (i.e. under the age of ten), and speaking specifically about his childish attempts to convince a friend of his that he had caused flowers to change color by placing them in colored water and his attempt to convince his father that he had found a cache of pilfered fruit (see http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR26.1-121&pageseq=4 ] This is, like your quote about shooting, a deliberate quote mine, intended to cast aspersions on the character of Darwin and, by extension, the character of evolutionary biologists in general. In sum, it is apparent to many readers here (including some ID supporters) that you have deliberately and with malice aforethought attempted to exploit what any intelligent, compassionate person would consider to be a tragedy (i.e. the UAH shooting) as a means of discrediting a scientific research program with which you disagree, but which you cannot attack using rational, scientific arguments and evidence. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?Allen_MacNeill_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

richardc in comment #111:
"Sal, could you kindly point out where the Clergy Project people “celebrate” or “promote” survival of the fittest"
Sal can't do this because nowhere on the website of the Clergy Letter Project is anything remotely like "celebrating" or "promoting" survival of the fittest or evolutionary theory in general mentioned. The purpose of the Clergy Letter Project is
"...an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue." [http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm]
But elevating the quality of debate on the issue of the relationship between religion and science is exactly the opposite of what Sal (and O'Leary and many other regulars at this website) want. On the contrary, one of the most frequent topics for both original posts and comments at Uncommon Descent is the assertion that religion and science are necessarily diametrically and intrinsically opposed, and that this is especially the case for evolutionary biology. Here's O'Leary on this very subject:
"Of course you can’t be a Darwinist and a Christian, because Darwinism is about survival of the fittest and Christianity is not." [https://uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter-project-return-to-sender-please/]
That would be news to Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sewall Wright, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, three of the founders of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" and all three Christians. But, of course, O'Leary's (and Gil Dodgen's) predictable response is that "no true Christian/Scotsman" would ever believe in the theory of evolution: https://uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter-project-return-to-sender-please/#comment-347931 Would someone please explain to me how this kind of bigotry is supposed to support the view that
ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project
as opposed to the widespread and growing perception that UD is the home of religiously motivated bigots whose primary concern is religious orthodoxy and whose chosen means of promoting such orthodoxy is deliberate, consistent anti-scientific propaganda, as vividly demonstrated by this thread and the related thread at https://uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter-project-return-to-sender-please/ ?Allen_MacNeill_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

you have yet to explain why you posted that quote mine about Darwin enjoying shooting.
Because it seemed more relevant than this one:
I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement Charles Darwin
scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Michael T. Sal, “Chemistry, physics, and geology” are not theories, as I’m certain you’re aware.
Of course your are correct, and I wrote sloppily. Thank you for the correction. My earlier comment should read:
theories like those in chemistry, physics, geology
instead of
theories like chemistry, physics, geology
Thanks.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Sal, you're not fooling anyone. Your intent with this thread was simply to try to associate evolution with this psychotic person, thereby insinuating in an underhanded fashion that believing in evolution predisposes one to murder. Have you noticed that pretty much none of the UD regulars have come to your defense? I think there's a reason for that. Also, you have yet to explain why you posted that quote mine about Darwin enjoying shooting. Why did you? In any case, your dishonesty and guilt-by-association tactics are unbecoming to anyone, much less someone professing to be a Christian.Retroman_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Sal, "Chemistry, physics, and geology" are not theories, as I'm certain you're aware. Of course, the Clergy Letter Project has no reason to "celebrate" theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics, or plate tectonics because Christian fundamentalists have not yet set their sights on these theories as they have on the theory of evolution. After the years you've spent debating this issue you seem more than a bit disingenuous in not acknowledging this dichotomy. MichaelMichael Tuite_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

The Clergy Letter Project has finally removed Amy Bishop's name from their rolls. Yesterday, it read:
872 scientists
now it reads
871 scientists
With Amy Bishop's name removed. I think the Clergy Letter Project should publicly acknowlege the free public relations advice I offered, encouraging them to remove her name. See, if I weren't quick to point Bishop's role in the Clergy Letter Project, the cover up, ahem, I mean deletion from The Clergy Letter Projects' rolls, might have gone un-noticed.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Sal, could you kindly point out where the Clergy Project people "celebrate" or "promote" survival of the fittest, i.e., the process as distinguished from our understanding of it, as you apparently claim?richardc_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

derwood, Where in this post have I said belief in Darwinism leads to degeneracy of character? I merely point out the irony of the Clergy Letter Project trying to celebrate "survival of the fittest" in church when one of their own members went on a shooting rampage, which according to Buss, was partly the result of eons of evolution instilling murderous attitudes. Don't you appreciate the irony? This would be about as bad as the Clergy Letter Project celebrating the science of nuclear energy and its benetifs right when an atomic bomb explodes. Yes, the science of nuclear energy is real, but is that the stuff of national campaign to have churches celebrate it on a particular sunday? What I take issue with is that the Clergy Project is only pretending to promote science when in fact they are promoting a specific idea: "survival of the fittest". If they were pro science, why not celebrate other theories like chemistry, physics, geology, etc.? It seems more like a cultural ploy than real science. It seems highly disingenuous. That's what I take issue with.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

This thread represents a low point for the ID advocates that skulk around here. Truly pathetic. Let us apply your ID logic universally - we will now see that it was Jesus - I mean, the Intelligent Designer - and Scouting that drove Dennis Rader (Eagle Scout,member of the Luteran Church for more than 30 years) to bind, torture, and kill all those women. But I am sure that my application of your ID logic will be assailed and I will be attacked.derwood_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

There is a growing cadre of evolutionary biologists who strongly believe the opposite. Check out Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, by Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. I have a copy I could send you, if you like (it’s filled with my annotations, but otherwise readable).
Allen thank you for the comment. Yes indeed there is a sentiment regarding group selection, and David Sloan Wilson is an excellent researcher who has advocated that group selection is the reason religious belief may confer selective advantage to believers. Also price was an evolutionist turned creationist. Price's theoretical work is highly regarded. I have only speculations to offer on the matter of selfish selection versus group selection, and you are most certainly more qualified than I on the topic. It would seem if competition works at the individual level, it can work at the group level. The question is under what conditions group selection will take sufficient precedence over individual selection. For example, Salthe points out the situation where individual selection favored certain individuals. The population becomes at risk of extinction because of the lack of diversity. In a sense the "weaker" individuals ought to have been favored (in the sense their presence might be valuable in the future, but not in the present), but because individual selection does not have foresight into the future it makes a shortsighted decision. There was an absence of group selection pressure to confer foresight. He mentions this in passing here: WhyEvolution
There are two major theoretical prongs in neoDarwinism: the Fisherian dynamical approach and the Wright-Dobzhansky kinetic approach. Neither delivers real long term evolution. In Fisher's version, which does track over many generations, we begin with a population having a degree of variability in characters that could link to fitness. The environment changes, and, as a result of differential reproduction, some variants are discarded from the population while a few increase in frequency of representation. This process, generation after generation, results in a net decrease in population variability in fitness as population fitness with respect to the altered environment improves (Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection). This genic improvement could reasonably be linked to some phenotypic evolutionary trend. By the time the population has achieved an adaptive gene pool configuration (if it hasn't gone extinct for lack of appropriate variability), it has lost variability to the extent that, if the environment should change again, extinction would be a likely result. The population has become overspecialized. In this model, evolution leads to the brink of extinction.
In other words, group selection can happen, but whether it will occur when it is needed is anyone's guess. Group selection seems often absent when it would be most useful to long term survival. The most poignant example of this is the absence of group selection in somatic cells in the human body during the lifetime of a person. Somatic cells "evolve" from conception to death of a person. This is often suggested as a micro-example of evolution. Selection describes well B-cell hypermutation in the immune system (this is often cited as a micro-example of Darwinian evolution). In contrast, cancer cells when multiplying unabated seem to not have any group selection pressure foresight! If the bad cells would altruistically die out in our body, we'd all live a lot longer.scordova_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

"such “non-materialist” phenomena are emergent properties that arise" -poof- Now have a bite of cake.Upright BiPed_{February 16, 2010
February
02
Feb
16
16
2010
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Sorry, the site editor picked up the closing parenthesis in the URL. The correct links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Equation http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/bio/ento/PDFs/schwatrz2000.pdfAllen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

that non-material phenomena can somehow exist without (i.e. before) a physical (i.e. matter + energy) medium is completely outside the domain of science and must (for metaphysical reasons) forever remain so.
I disagree with that statement because it is possible to directly infer the conservation of transcendent information by the demonstrated dominion of "transcendent information" over photons of energy. This is since we know, by the first law, that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any material means. Thus clearly it is fair to infer that anything that demonstrates complete dominion of energy, as transcendent information is clearly doing in these teleportation experiments, then information, by logical necessity of causal adequacy, cannot be created or destroyed. i.e. all information that can possibly exist for all events of energy, past, present and future, already must exist for the first law to remain consistent with itself. Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706bornagain77_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

In comment #102 Sal wrote:
"I do believe natural selection over time will favor more selfish, rather than co-operative and charitable behaviors over time."
There is a growing cadre of evolutionary biologists who strongly believe the opposite. Check out Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, by Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. I have a copy I could send you, if you like (it's filled with my annotations, but otherwise readable). David is a good friend of mine, and has written extensively on this topic. I also recommend reading the Wikipedia article on George R. Price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price), the Price Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation), and the short biography of Price that appeared in Lingua Franca in 2000 (http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/bio/ento/PDFs/schwartz2000.pdf)Allen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

The second view – that non-material phenomena can somehow exist without (i.e. before) a physical (i.e. matter + energy) medium is completely outside the domain of science and must (for metaphysical reasons) forever remain so.
Agree in the formal sense, but it does not preclude a circumstantial speculation based on the evidence. Bill Dembski lays out the circumstantial evidence here: The Last Magic The notion of what "ought to be" is often at variance with what "is". Thus it seems idealization of what ought to be pre-exists even before we perceive something. Somehow we know when a note is wrong even though we might not have ever heard a certain performer performing an unknown piece.... It is a working assumption by most that the math we discover would still be true independent of the existence of one universe or another. This is certainly the case with physicists who assume a multiverse or many worlds! Thus even materialists assume some sort of transcendent reality! They cannot come up with a philosophically consistent system if they did not assume a transcendent reality decoupled from the material universe. Life, like math, like software, are transcendent objects. There were certain projects I worked on when we were building software for physical devices which did not even exist. In that sense a non-material entity (software) pre-existed before it was actualized in the eventual universe (the target computer) where it was eventually to reside. In that sense, it does not seem outrageous that idealizations and concepts can pre-exist the universe we now live in. If life is software, then it would seem morals are rules which would govern it, much like software must be gramatically and semantically correct. The rules that govern software organization ( like the syntax and spelling rules) pre-exist the formation of software. So in the world of software, there is definitely the notion of pre-existing ideals, even before the sofware is written. Thus I argue that certain moral notions could pre-exist even before the first human life came to be. In Christian theology, the natural world (what "is") is constantly compared to "what ought to be". Orthodox Chrisitan theology views the natural man as inherently flawed, he is not what he ought to be.scordova_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Upright: “are partially the result of natural selection” What else?
To be fair, there are other evolutionary mechanisms aside from selection such as plain old mutation without selection. There is debate in secular quarters which mechanism dominates: 1. mutation followed by natural selection (Darwin, Dawkins, others) 2. mutation without any selection (the neutralist and mutationist school: Kimura, Nei, many top names) Most think there is some of each. I believe the "mutation without selection" school of thought has the better case. Of course, I believe humans were intelligently designed in a moment of special creation, so I believe most of the complex features were not evolved. As far as the origin of human mis-behavior, I think there was a fall from grace, but the details of the mechanism are not clear. I do believe natural selection over time will favor more selfish, rather than co-operative and charitable behaviors over time. But that is my personal speculation. Recall, the idea of Natural Selection originated with creationists like Blyth. But Blyth thought its role in nature was limited.scordova_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Methodological Naturalism (The study of what is accessible to us in nature) has now been extended well beyond just matter and energy, as our materialists friends would like to maintain, and has now been expanded to include TRANSCENDENT INFORMATION itself as a physical, "natural", entity which has clearly displayed dominion and transcendence of any matter/energy basis. Though quantum entanglement first highlighted this fact, quantum teleportation has clearly elucidated, in non-compromising terms, that information is its own unique entity. Thus for a materialist to stay consistent within the methodological naturalism framework, with what is currently revealed to our understanding, through quantum mechanics, then the materialist must try to argue that the "transcendent information" is based on a foundation of random chaos, instead of being based on the order of "the Mind of God" as the theist presupposes. Koonin's "many world's" paper comes to mind as a prime example of what the line of proper argumentation ought to be for the materialists if he is to stay current with what science has revealed. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21 Koonin tries to account for the origination of the massive amounts of functional information, required for the Cambrian Explosion, by trying to access an "undirected" mechanism of Quantum Mechanics called 'Many Worlds'. Besides Koonin ignoring the fact that Quantum Events, on a whole, are strictly restricted to the transcendent universal laws/constants of the universe, it is also fair to note, in criticism to Koonin's scenario, that appealing to the undirected infinite probabilistic resource, of the quantum mechanics of the Many Worlds scenario, actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see generated. Though Koonin is correct to recognize that the infinite probabilistic resource of Quantum Mechanics does not absolutely preclude the sudden appearance of massive amounts of functional information in the fossil record, he is incorrect to disregard the "Logos" of John 1:1 needed to correctly specify the "controlled mechanism of implementation" for the massive amounts of complex functional information witnessed abruptly and mysteriously appearing in the fossil record. i.e. he must sufficiently account for the "cause" for the "effect" he wants to explain.bornagain77_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Update from Bantay @42 Mr Zimmerman (from the Clergy Letter Project site) finally replied to me today. Instead of acknowledging that "scientists on call to help clergy" is condescending, he merely scoffed at my idea to make a web page entitled "clergy on call to help Darwinists", and he had the gall to accuse me of being "crass and insensitive". The front page of the Clergy Letter Project website advertises compatibility between religion and science...but not intellectual equality for each position. There is some blurb on the same page advertising how this site will "elevate the quality of the debate". No, I don't think so. Websites like the Clergy Letter Project do not elevate the quality of the debate. It just demonstrates the gullibility of a few clergymen.Bantay_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

MacNeill:
Please note, however, the order in which this statement is placed: matter and energy interact, producing phenomena that are not completely “reducible” to matter and energy. In other words, such “non-materialist” phenomena are emergent properties that arise out of the interactions between matter and energy.
Metaphysical speculation and it still doesn't result in any oughts ... just another asserted is.Charlie_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

In #95 Clive Hayden wrote:
"Metaphysics is ruled out then, and cannot be used as a reason to do science."
I agree: that's why its called "metaphysics", to distinguish it from "physics". To be as precise as possible, the domain of metaphysics is entirely outside the domain of the empirical sciences. That is, one cannot "reduce" metaphysics to (nor derive it from) the findings of the empirical sciences. On the contrary, metaphysics (i.e. the analysis of the assumptions that provide the foundations for our understanding of reality) provides the basis (i.e. the "rationale") for the pursuit of the empirical sciences. I am currently writing about this relationship in a book, to be entitled Biologic: The Metaphyical Foundations of the Biological Sciences. And yes, the homage in that title to my old friend and mentor, Edwin Arthur "Ned" Burtt, is not accidental.Allen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

It has been my experience, both at this website and elsewhere (including most pro-evolution websites) that the vast majority of people tend to conflate "is" statements (i.e. empirical descriptions) with "ought" statements (i.e. moral prescriptions). I apologize if I gave the impression that this fallacy (called by G. E. Moore the "naturalistic fallacy") is associated uniquely with ID supporters. It is common with almost anyone who has had little or no training in ethical theory, and causes no end of misunderstanding. Indeed, carried to its logical extreme, it has resulted in both "social darwinism" and the horrors of the first half of the 20th century. However, I disagree with Sal on his pessimism. I believe that a long view of history (such as that provided by historical anthropology, as exemplified in Robert Wright's book, Non-Zero) provides the opposite perspective: despite some setbacks, human social interactions have generally improved over the past 40,000 years.Allen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill,
The second view – that non-material phenomena can somehow exist without (i.e. before) a physical (i.e. matter + energy) medium is completely outside the domain of science and must (for metaphysical reasons) forever remain so.
Metaphysics is ruled out then, and cannot be used as a reason to do science.Clive Hayden_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

In comment #89 upright biped wrote:
"If matter is all there is, then matter is all there is."
I do not subscribe to this view.
The opposite (and passionately argued) view results in matter and purely material processes ending in a phenomena that is more than matter because it requires more than matter to explain it.
Succinctly put; this is precisely what I think is the case. Please note, however, the order in which this statement is placed: matter and energy interact, producing phenomena that are not completely "reducible" to matter and energy. In other words, such "non-materialist" phenomena are emergent properties that arise out of the interactions between matter and energy. I stress this because it is my perception that a significant fraction of the commentators here would reverse this pattern of causality, arguing that the "non-materialist" phenomena (lump them under the term "meaningful information" if you like) exist before the interactions between matter and energy, rather than arising out of such interactions. The first view – that non-material phenomena such as meaningful information are emergent phenomena – is fully compatible with evolutionary theory. Indeed, it was the core of Ernst Mayr's metaphysics of biology, as presented in his book, Toward a Philosophy of Biology. The second view – that non-material phenomena can somehow exist without (i.e. before) a physical (i.e. matter + energy) medium is completely outside the domain of science and must (for metaphysical reasons) forever remain so.Allen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

In #87 Sal wrote:
"My understanding is that you do not regard yourself as a materialist."
You are correct.Allen_MacNeill_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply