Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNIP of interesting history of science

One supposes that Brahe had to express some opinion on
cosmology in order to get funding and to stay out of
prison so he did the best he could without drawing the
ire of the religious and political powers. An apt analogy
can be made to many of today's public school administrators.

A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
intertia in the science establishment IMO.

That could become true if the 'science establishment'
backslides to the point where it must placate the
'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied
to a stake.


More history snipped

I stipulate your history is correct. I think you
are filtering the degree of resistance these new ideas
met with from within the establishment science of their
day because, in retrospect, they turned out to be right
(except for our pal Tycho). I rather think that the
turning points of science we're discussing here didn't
just get quietly accepted by the other scientists of
the day without some fairly pointed argument and resistance.

Perhaps you confuse pointed argumetn and other thorough
vetting _with_ resistance. Scientists accept new science
as fast as it can be shown to be correct. Most new science
is shown to be incorrect so of course scientist do not
rush to embrace new theory just because it looks like it
_might be_ correct. Scientists do not determine the correctness
of theory by argument alone, They require physical evidence
and THAT Mr Daneliuk is one of the most important features
that distinguishes science from metaphysics.


Here we do have a good analog to present day politics. The
new "Jewish Physics" is Evolutionary Biology. It is under
political attack, being demonized by a marginalized political
faction (in the present case one with religous roots) for
purely politcal purposes. Like their predecessors who found
scientists or at any rate, men who called themselves scientists
to criticize "Jewish Physics" these people support those who
present a superficially scientific challenge to Evolutionary
Biology, e.g. the "intelligent design" guys.

This is a vast overstatement of Reality. Evolutionary
Biology has had it say and its way in education and popular
culture without significant opposition for a long, long
time.

False to fact as any one who publishes shcoolbooks or
teaches biology to college freshmen can tell you.
The "Creation Science" movement had not yet died away
before the "ID" rebranding of it emerged and at the
time the creation science 'controversy' was created,
evolutionary biology was by no means ubiquitous in
the public schools. My Boss, a well educated man
had never heard of Lamarck before I mentioned him
in a conversation.

The fact is that the central theory of modern biology gets
short shrift at best in almost all the public schools.

The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
matters.

You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question'
evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment'
in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers
of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this
conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'.
I daresay demonization is apt.


SNIP


"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty

That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.

But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element
of each is "God did it".



"Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
intervention.

Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
*claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
in the community of scientists seem to have.

Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why
is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected
because they do not rise to the objective standards of the
journals to which they have been submitted.

You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how
could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty
and that is why journals have peer review.

Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze
upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how
thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in
controversy?

The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to GOD published
becuase they want to use it as a means of forcing religious
teaching back into the public schools.


In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se
but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the
community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or
agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that
the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge
may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations.
So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science,
etc."

I daresay that is the sort of approach you typically label
"ad hominem". However, I will point out that there are legions
of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions
who also regard ID as unscientific.


Once again, if the scientific claims of ID and all the rest
are *bad* science, it ought easily to be refuted. But refusing
to even engage makes the science estabishment look silly and
scared. In some perverse sense, refusal to engage with the IDers
as a matter of science is giving them more credibility in the
popular political debate than you think they deserve. Ponder
that a moment.


The mere act of engagement lends credence to their claims.
If the AGU were to debate teh FLat Earth societ on the
issue of the shape of the Earth the papers the next day would
run the story under the headline "Shape of the earth debated,
opinions differ". An then the flat Earthers would argue
for the inclusion of their model into the public school
curriculum, or at least for the schools ot be llowed to
"Teach the Controversy" but not in the a class devoted
to consideration of current social issue but in the Science
Classrooms.

But the reality is that the IDers are worse than that. They
are afraid that teaching that it is possible to understand
something without invoking God will lead students away
from God and religion. If that happens, how woul Pat
Robertson keep his programming on the air?


No scientific theory will or even can disprove
the existance of divine intervention. But no theory that is
dependant on divine intervention, is scientific.

Right, this is the standard argument for what science is and does.
I am asserting that this is a bad judgement call on the part of
the scientific community. Science without metaphysics will always
be blind in one eye.

It may be argued that a person who approaches life ignoring
metaphysics is blind in one eye but a scientist approaching
science while setting aside his metaphysical beliefs is deaf
in both eyes.

If more scientists understood metaphysics and more
theologians understood the methods of science I believe (but
cannot prove) that there would be a cross pollination of productive
ideas.

THAT is not a problem.

I'm not arguing for the dilution of science here - I am
arguing for its *augmentation* .

Some people argue that silicone implants augment breasts.
Others argue that they merely enlarge the breasts without
augemntaion in any real sense. It is an issue incontroversy.

But there is no controversy as to whether or not silicone
IS breast tissue.

This is valid so long as everyone
involved understands the limits of each of these systems of thought.

But you repeatedly argue for a merger of the two, specifically for
the publication in scientific journals of papers pupoprting to present
scientific evidence for the existance of God.

--

FF