9 Responses to “Hand-offs”

1. Daniel Smith Says:
   July 4th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

   More evidence that it is our personal bias and worldview that determines how we interpret facts – and not the other way around. It's our interpretation of facts – and not the facts themselves – with which we substantiate our worldview. So many are self-deluded in this regard.

Comment by Daniel Smith — July 4, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

2. Cliff Martin Says:
   July 4th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

   I am an N.T. Wright fan, but I'm having a little trouble with this thesis. So, Darwin was a symptom of an age and of an Epicurean philosophical system. But, along the way, he moved us forward in our understandings of origins. If he had not been led by this philosophical bias, evolutionary science today would be known as something other than Darwinism.

   If philosophical bias is what it takes to move us into more correct understandings, then praise be to philosophical bias.

Comment by Cliff Martin — July 4, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

3. Todd Berkebile Says:
   July 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

   Daniel: It's our interpretation of facts – and not the facts themselves – with which we substantiate our worldview. So many are self-deluded in this regard.

   Everyone seems to understand this and yet everyone seems equally convinced that it only applies to everyone else.

   Cliff: If philosophical bias is what it takes to move us into more correct understandings, then praise be to philosophical bias.

   A bias can certainly prevent us from moving forward, but a bias can't make what is false true. I would argue that a philosophical bias was holding back our understanding of the natural world; the truth is in the empirical data. Of course this leads largely into the realm of semantics, one could argue that the only way to remove one philosophical bias is to adopt a different philosophical bias. From this viewpoint all advancement would require the correct philosophical bias.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 5, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

4. Daniel Smith Says:
   July 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

   Todd: A bias can certainly prevent us from moving forward, but a bias can't make what is false true. I would argue that a philosophical bias was holding back our understanding of the natural world; the truth is in the empirical data. Of course this leads largely into the realm of semantics, one could argue that the only way to remove one philosophical bias is to adopt a different philosophical bias. From this viewpoint all advancement would require the correct philosophical bias.

   As I see it, the only way to truly move forward is to openly allow any and all to interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Whoever is closest to the truth will win out. Right now science is a "closed shop" where only the naturalist bias is accepted. This stifles discovery. It is my contention that ID not only needs to admit its own bias towards a creator God, but needs to trumpet that bias. I'm quite sure however, that no secular university would tolerate such a thing. This is why I suggested that ID scientists take up residence in seminaries, schools of divinity and theological departments in order to further their research unhindered.

Comment by Daniel Smith — July 5, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

5. Todd Berkebile Says:
   July 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

   Daniel: As I see it, the only way to truly move forward is to openly allow any and all to interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Whoever is closest to the truth will win out.

   I completely agree. This is exactly what happened during the Enlightenment.

   The result was naturalism, it won out by providing a way forward for expanding our knowledge. Perhaps a new bias is now needed in order to continue moving forward, but the bias of naturalism sure seems to still be getting the job done. And even if naturalism stopped working I fail to see why returning to the previously discarded bias would be the logical conclusion. Theism had its time, it was the dominate belief for tens of thousands of years and under its structure some areas of knowledge were advanced. Yet in the last two hundred years after abandoning the bias of Theism we have learned more about nature than we learned in the previous thousand years.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 5, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

6. Bradford Says:
   July 5th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

   Daniel: As I see it, the only way to truly move forward is to openly allow any and all to interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Whoever is closest to the truth will win out.

   Todd: I completely agree. This is exactly what happened during the Enlightenment.

   The result was naturalism, it won out by providing a way forward for expanding our knowledge.

   That's not closest to the truth. The truth is that theistic believers in "natural philosophy" jump started science. Believing that natural laws are empircally detectable and measurable does not require faith in naturalism as naturalism is a philosophy.

Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

7. JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
   July 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

   Daniel Smith wrote:

   As I see it, the only way to truly move forward is to openly allow any and all to interpret the evidence according to their own biases.

   That sounds post modern to me. Science is a pursuit of the truth– facts that are established by setting aside ones biases and adhering rigorously to an objective empirical methodology.

   DS: Whoever is closest to the truth will win out. Right now science is a "closed shop" where only the naturalist bias is accepted. This stifles discovery.

   Then why not concentrate on exposing the metaphysical biases built into a naturalistic worldview?

   DS: It is my contention that ID not only needs to admit its own bias towards a creator God, but needs to trumpet that bias.

   But not all ID’ists have the same concept of God. For example, former atheist Anthony Flew has stated very plainly in his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, that he now embraces a basic form of theism that is non-religious. He further argues that he arrived at this view because he was willing to follow the evidence by, which he means empirical evidence, where ever it leads. This means he was willing to set aside his own personal biases and take a fresh look at the evidence.

   DS: I'm quite sure however, that no secular university would tolerate such a thing. This is why I suggested that ID scientists take up residence in seminaries, schools of divinity and theological departments in order to further their research unhindered.

   Seminaries have laboratories and observatories? Seminaries are neither equipped or funded (and science requires heavy funding) to support that kind of research. It is simply not their mission. Nor should it be.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 6, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

8. Daniel Smith Says:
   July 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

   Todd Berkebile Says:
   Theism had its time, it was the dominate belief for tens of thousands of years and under its structure some areas of knowledge were advanced. Yet in the last two hundred years after abandoning the bias of Theism we have learned more about nature than we learned in the previous thousand years.

   The vast majority of the world is theistic yet you want to exclude their bias from science in favor of (let me guess) yours? I think your bias is showing!!!

   Besides, your argument is a red herring. You are putting forth the untenable position that it was their bias, (and not our technological advancements), that led scientists to the discoveries of the last few centuries and that without that bias, these discoveries would not have been made. There is no way to support that argument.

Comment by Daniel Smith — July 6, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

9. Daniel Smith Says:
   July 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

   JOHN_A_DESIGNER: That sounds post modern to me. Science is a pursuit of the truth– facts that are established by setting aside ones biases and adhering rigorously to an objective empirical methodology.

   That's true, but very rare.

   Then why not concentrate on exposing the metaphysical biases built into a naturalistic worldview?

   To whom? Those who hold such biases usually cannot see them and aren't interested in having them exposed.

   But not all ID’ists have the same concept of God. For example, former atheist Anthony Flew has stated very plainly in his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, that he now embraces a basic form of theism that is non-religious. He further argues that he arrived at this view because he was willing to follow the evidence by, which he means empirical evidence, where ever it leads. This means he was willing to set aside his own personal biases and take a fresh look at the evidence.

   Good for him. Again, this is very rare.

   Seminaries have laboratories and observatories? Seminaries are neither equipped or funded (and science requires heavy funding) to support that kind of research. It is simply not their mission. Nor should it be.

   They may not be equipped now (everything has to start somewhere), but I fail to see why they shouldn't be. Science, if done from a theistic perspective, can answer many questions about God. We are literally looking into the mind of God when we study his creations. Why shouldn't a seminary support that?

Comment by Daniel Smith — July 6, 2009 @ 7:48 pm