Bob Helm: @pauluc: Kindly go back and read carefully what I …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by pauluc.

Bob Helm:
@pauluc: Kindly go back and read carefully what I said.And did you read the wikipedia article on “Peer Review” that I posted to you?Note my words again:“today’s type of peer review process.”Clearly, today’s type of peer review process has only been in existence since about 1950.If you doubt what I am saying about this, please read the wikipedia article.Furthermore, the contributions of Einstein and Wegener, and to a lesser extent, Bretz, must be regarded as paradigm shifts.When these shifts occur, their proponents may have to publish their research in more obscure journals, as Einstein did.No, youtube videos and the popular press do not constitute the canon of scientific knowledge, but that canon is larger than “Nature,” “Science,” “Geology,” “Plos One,” etc.

It now seems we are not so far apart. Indeed I have read the wiki on peer review and it does in the entire context of the entry rather than your selective reading agree with my experience as a reviewer, a member of an editorial board and a scientist submitting manuscripts for review.

I suggested that paradigm shifting scientific observations have been invariably published in the canonical peer reviewed literature of science or presented in scientific forums before peers.

It appears you agree with this, but for some reason now add a caveat
“…but that canon is larger than “Nature,” “Science,” “Geology,” “Plos One,” etc.”

I have never ever suggested that top tier journals are the only canonical sources for science. I would suggest however that effectively the canon of scientific literature is restricted to what is indeed in the indexed repositories in the same way as Christians have defined their canon to exclude the gospels of Thomas, Peter etc. Pubmed is one example of a repository biased to the biomedical science and includes a few thousand journals. For me that is canonical enough that I can consider anything outside that of minimal value and not worth considering.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/num_titles.html

You introduce a red herring and suggest that somehow it is now impossible to publish novel ground breaking observations in one of the thousands of journals and cite Einsteins publication in an “obscure” journal as nostalgic reference to gentler and more open times.

I do not at all disagree that there has been evolution of peer review and a tightening of understanding of the process of science. Along with this there has been an evolution and refinement of criteria for acceptance for publication. These changes over time have been responsive to the rapid expansion of journals and content. As scientist we live with it and get on with publication instead of like spoilt children protesting the unfairness.

If you would care to look at the first edition of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/os-1/2/6.extract

And see what the Editor envisaged I think you will see that even in 1880 expert peer review was essential to the process of acceptance for publication.

“Salutatory

In presenting to the the pubic the first number of “Science” we would briefly define its aim and scope, so that its position in the periodical literature of the country may be clearly understood.
While Literature proper and Art both ornamental and useful nay almost every distincitve social and economic interest in the United States have their several organs for the interchange of views of the diffusion of information Science still remains without any weekly journal exclusively devoted to the chronicling of the progress and the discussion of the problems. This may be stated without disrespect to the many excellent weekly journals resticted to special branches of sceince, or allied to trade interests. The field being thus open, after consultation with many of the leading scientists in this country, it has been decided to publish “Science” in its present form. Its aim will be to afford scientific workers in the United States the opportunity of promptly recording the fruits of their researches and facilities for communication between one another and the world, as are now enjoyed by the scientific men of Europe.
A distinctive feature in the conduct of this Journal will be that each department of science will be supervised by some recognised authority in that field of research, and it is believed that names of these Associate Editors will be a guarantee that accuracy be maintained as far as possible.
There will be a department of “Notes and Queries” which cannot fail to be of benefit to those engaged in original research. By this means many may attain the speedly solutions of difficulties which otherwise might cost them much unprofitable labor.
It is the desire of the Editor that “Science” may in the United States take the position which “Nature” so ably occupies in England, in presenting immediate information of scientific events; The Smithsonian Institution and other scientific bodies have promised their co-operation in this respect and represenative men of all branches of science have cordially volunteered their aid toward making “Science” as useful as it foreign contemporary.”

pauluc Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Bob Helm: this fallacy may have delayed the development of treatments for congenital diseases.

You are absolutely reaching now. “May” indeed. Tell me the mendelian congenital disease for which treatments are now available? I need to get your statement into context.

How to you think positional cloning was done? How do you think Francis Collins first identified and cloned the CFTR gene. How would the development of SNPs and association mapping of disease genes have progressed if there was no understanding of gene deserts or repetitive elements, retroviral insertion?

If you had bothered to read the ENCODE papers you would see that they were contingent on and derivative of the preceding mapping of the human genome. That this could be done at anything like an affordable cost depended on the underlying technology; phage and BAC cloning, shotgun cloning, high throughput sequencing and supercomputers not on some abstract theory of function of junk DNA. What do you think Blue Gene was for?
Arriving at an understanding of intergenic regions did not come and would not have come any earlier by arm-chair critics like Sean Pitman and Stephen Meyers proclaiming their teological message that God must have put it there for a purpose and how dumb must be those geneticist. It came because of the standard methodological naturalistic approach of conventional molecular biology and genetics.

This is almost as revisionist as your statement

Bob Helm: Seventh-day Adventists have held that they were raised up by the Holy Spirit to combat Darwinism

Where has this been articulated in Adventism before Clifford Goldsteins Jihad?

I cannot even find any reference to Darwin in the writings of EG WHite


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob Helm:
This is where we disagree. You have rejected methodological naturalisms as a process of understanding religion (as have I) but want to retain or introduce religion into the process of science. You have not at all produced evidence that medical science nuclear physics telecommunications or biology would be any different if we had not has a the methodological naturalism we have at present. It is much better to have criteria for both our approach to science and religion and stick to them. This I will continue to do until it is clear that the basis of science has changed. I cannot at this stage see any justification to change the basis of science so any more than I can see that the Jesus seminar approach should be normative in religion and theology.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob Helm: As can all of us particularly when we think that our very existence depends on believing a certain way

Newton had a lot of ideas beyond alchemy that would be considered heretical as you well know. Who would stick silver needles through his eye sockets to see what it did? How do you in the 21st century know which where right and which were wrong? I will stick with the process of science as a progressive process of understanding by methodological naturalism a product of his adherence to laws of nature and with a faith that has been progressively developed by the people of God over the last 2000 years.


Recent Comments by pauluc

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.