Two scientists talk about the relationship between science and religion.
Atheist PZ Myers
Nobel Laureate Charles Townes
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
May 15th, 2007 at 9:37 am
im still not convinced that i should give up my religion. again, im finding this problem….
dogma=bad
as ive asked before: why? (this is the question that interests me most)
human suffering = bad
why?
faith MUST = no evidence or no sckeptisism
must it be defined that way? does the bible define it that way?
Comment by dantedanti — May 15, 2007 @ 9:37 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Can y'all offer the specific remarks by these guests when you post, as I can't download MP3s from my dial-up on a shared 'pooter…? That way, I'll know what you're responding to or commenting on. Thanks!
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2007 @ 9:49 am
May 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Referring to the work of Townes and his co-invention of the laser:
40th anniversary of the laser
This is what PZ said of Townes in Townes and the Templeton Prize
PZ calls Townes a fraud?
PZ appears to suffer from physcis envy. Townes outshines PZ as a scientist and PZ doesn't hold a candle to him. For that matter Townews towers over PZ, Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Charles Darwin combined. I guess it must get under PZ's skin that Townes is a greater scientist than him. Not just greater, far greater.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 15, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Yeah. Next time I hear some atheist crow about how the "top scientists are all atheists" i'll remind them that the nobel prize winning laser inventor Charles Townes is a Christian and consideres his Christian faith essential to his work as a scientist.
I was quite disappointed actually that PZ didn't actually post a link to the interview with Professor Townes when he posted the link to his own interview.
I guess the fact that Dr Townes basically contradicted him on every point he made and has made more significant contributions to science drove him up the wall.
Pity really. Strange that atheists claim to be critical thinkers and rationalists, yet I as a christian have no problem with looking at both sides of an issue and considering them all, yet PZ tries to avoid having people hear both sides.
I wonder why ?
Comment by thesciphishow — May 15, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I am however, grateful PZ granted an interview. I would hope more people like him would be willing to be interviewed.
Even though I intensely disagree, I think the crtics are pretty colorful. Makes for good publicity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 15, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
It's funny how PZ tries to blame farmers for eugenics.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
This was the first time I ever heard Myers. I found him to be quite charming "in person" versus in print. I can understand why Paul Nelson had the same observation about Myers.
Myers mentions how his first date with Mrs. Myers was a church date and how much he liked people in the church. He spoke kindly of his former pastor. He believes people are inherently good.
If I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall Mrs. Myers does not share PZ's views.
Myers relates his Lutheran background and how he lost faith.
Unlike Dawkins, Myers didn't have flashes of nastiness in person, which Dawkins often has.
I'm grateful he granted an interview.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 15, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi Salvador and thesciphishow
You both might be interested in the material below, which I originally posted as part of this comment.
Comment by stunney — May 15, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Yeah I thought that as well. I actually commented on that to him in an email and he made mention of it on his blog
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 12:14 am
May 16th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Salvador:
thesciphishow:
I'll bet that many of us on both sides of this issue would seem nicer in person than we do in our posts or comments. We might even like each other if we met on the street (and if ID and religion didn't come up as a topic of conversation).
SciPhi,
How is your alternative sex ratio theory going? I'm surprised we haven't heard from you — you did say it was going to be easy, after all.
Comment by keiths — May 16, 2007 @ 12:48 am
May 16th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Just been ticking over in the back of my brain.
Are you really interested in seeing an answer ?
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 1:01 am
May 16th, 2007 at 1:22 am
SciPhi wrote:
Well, you said Fisher's theory was a just-so story, and you agreed that it would be easy to come up with an alternative theory to explain any particular sex ratio, so it's not like I've asked you to do anything difficult.
On the other hand, if you are finding it difficult, and if you are beginning to realize, as I suspect you might be, that Fisher's theory makes sense and is anything but a just-so story, then don't feel obligated to produce a theory. Just have the courage to admit you were wrong, and we'll drop the subject.
Comment by keiths — May 16, 2007 @ 1:22 am
May 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Well i'm happy to concede that I may have overstated the ease of making the numbers work.
I don't have a problem with the idea of sex ratios being explained, the problem is that it seems like the theory is being produced that fits the data points. Much like painting the bullseye around where the arrow hits. Good that it can be represented mathematically, but not something that is "explained by evolutionary theory". Quite the opposite really.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 1:44 am
May 16th, 2007 at 2:28 am
thesciphishow wrote:
Could you point to the arbitrary steps in Fisher's argument (i.e. the ones that amount to "painting the bullseye around where the arrow hits")?
[Although perhaps we should continue this on the latest Rabbit thread, out of courtesy to the folks on this thread.]
Comment by keiths — May 16, 2007 @ 2:28 am
May 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
thesciphishow wrote:
An intelligent designer might have good reasons of his own for wanting balanced sex-ratios, and for choosing evolutionary mechanisms to yield that desired, designed outcome. So Fisher's explanation should not be used as an argument for evolutionary naturalism or against ID, since ancient Jews could predict a balanced sex-ratio just from reading the first book of the Torah.
Even assuming naturalism and no ID, I have questions about the timescale needed for Fisher's theorized mechanism to work, and whether cultural choices plus genetic stability could counteract the predicted outcome for a long period of time.
See here and here for elaboration.
Comment by stunney — May 16, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
What I find interesting about many of the criticisms that Myers, Dawkins, Harris, and others lodge is that they are the very same ones that many prominent theologians have raised over the years. The difference is that the goal of these great theologians was not to destroy religion but to reform it and help it grow. One need not reject religion outright just because there are problems, any more than one should reject science because there are problems with its theories or methods.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 16, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
That is what annoys me most about them.
They present centuries old questions as if they are some sort of new insight they have had, and they present the most basic version of the objection that has been answered and examined and found wanting in the past.
But hey, that is apparently the best they can manage. Anything more would require reading
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 3:10 am
stunney wrote:
stunney,
I'm amazed that you would try to argue that Fisher's theory and Genesis amount to equivalent explanations of observed sex ratios.
Fisher's theory explains exactly how the mechanism of natural selection will preserve a sex ratio of 50-50 when parental investment in male and female offspring is equal.
Genesis says "God did it."
Fisher's theory explains only the 50-50 ratio. It cannot explain a 75-25 or 100-1 ratio if the parental investment in sons and daughters remains equal.
"God did it", by contrast, can explain anything. 75-25? God did it. 100-1? God did it. Three sexes instead of two? God did it. Parthenogenesis in humans? God did it. No parthenogenesis in humans? God did it.
It seems that stunney still does not realize that if a theory can be used to explain every observation, including contradictory ones, then it explains nothing. It is not falsifiable.
Comment by keiths — May 18, 2007 @ 3:10 am
May 19th, 2007 at 1:19 am
1. What kind of omniscient intelligent designer would use lots of discrete programs to create the bodies of living creatures rather than just one program that exploited the designer's perfect knowledge of the natural laws that same designer instantiated with a view to creating richly diverse forms of life?
2. What kind of omniscient being wouldn't know anything about Fisher's theory of sex ratios?
3. What kind of ancient Jew, reading the first book of the Torah, would conclude from that reading that it was equally likely that God intended a 99-to-1 human sex ratio as that God intended a 50-50 ratio?
The correct answer to all three questions is, of course, one whose dumbness was of keithsian proportions.
Comment by stunney — May 19, 2007 @ 1:19 am
May 19th, 2007 at 3:33 am
stunney,
You're funny when you're flummoxed.
How would you falsify God as the "designer" of a particular sex ratio?
Here's another good one.
Did you run out of arguments, sunshine?
Comment by keiths — May 19, 2007 @ 3:33 am
May 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Some people attempt to talk about theism without appearing to have the slightest understanding of it. They talk as if theism posits an irrational god creating an irrational and hence a drastically unpredictable world in which there is no rhyme nor reason apparent. But if the world were like that, theism would be false, for theism's God is supremely, perfectly rational—indeed, is eternal, self-subsistent 'Logos':
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos (John ch. 1 v.1)
And a world in which sex-ratios were such as to largely frustrate the possibility and desire of forming permanent sexual unions between rational animals based on deeply intimate, personal love would also falsify theism, since that incoherent design would violate both rational and moral norms.
Jews had that much figured out long before Mr Fisher exploited the rational predictability of nature's design to come up with his theory of sex-ratios. Heck, an ancient Jew could predict a balanced sex-ratio just from reading the first book of the Torah:
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh…."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Fisher's theory merely elucidates why an omniscient, perfectly rational and perfectly good designer, concerned with fostering fulfilling, intimate relationships of love among created rational animals; and, with a view to creating richly diverse forms of life, designing just a single but very powerful biological program (—because the designer is very intelligent and would exploit the designer's perfect knowledge of natural laws that same designer had designed), would indeed be liable to design a program that would tend to keep sex-ratios close to 50-50. That is, Fisher's theory simply illuminates a rational, mathematical norm a perfectly rational and moral designer of intelligent, morally conscious physical life would certainly understand and be guided by.
By contrast, given nothing but an impersonally governed Nature, the chances of reason and morality (and hence such norms) even arising are miniscule. You can't get reason unintentionally arising from a starting point of unreason, nor moral value from physics and chemistry.
Except maybe, if there's some Magical Multiverse Mystery Tour designed (oops!) to indulge that rather oxymoronic thing—–a materialist's matterdidit fantasies.
But even then it's only a maybe, depending as it does on whether materialist philosophy of mind is true. So, er, yes, that is a pretty big maybe, as maybes go.
Oh, plus, multiverses aren't the most ontologically economical things I've ever heard of. So there's that.
Some atheists—-J. L. Mackie and a host of others—–have recognized this naturalistically underivable character of reason and moral value quite openly, and essentially argue that in consequence, reason and moral value are not really, well, real, but are simply epiphenomenal illusions caused by many contingent events in our evolutionary history. (Elsewhere in the universe, evolutionary histories may be drastically different from ours, etc, etc.) Whenever I come across atheists lambasting religious types for irrationality or morally bad conduct, I always remember that many of their co-religionists in the Church of Materialism think reason and morality are illusions. And then I chuckle.
But for more elaboration on the predictable character of theism's God, and why common descent doesn't support a non-ID inference, go here, and here and and here.
Here's an excerpt from the first of those:
That's odd. I don't feel flummoxed. Saul Kripke would likely say that entails that I'm not flummoxed.
Comment by stunney — May 19, 2007 @ 9:09 am