Of Baramins and Baloney 8

December 21, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Mark,
Evidence? I suggested we discuss the Cambrian Explosion. I can’t find your reply. You asked for an example of “someone” mistreated for holding a different view of the facts. I gave you two, but two were considered anecdotal. If two were not enough to open the door to possibility, why ask for one? You stated that “it is impossible to get objective scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon.” If that is your view, and I don’t doubt you, then there is no evidence that would be acceptable. Do you have any comment on the main point of my last communication, that if a mind only allows one view, then no evidence can be acceptable for another? After that I will be glad to deal with my “straw man.”
Don Mc
 
[Don]
Please tell me exactly what about the “Cambrian Explosion” is problematic for evolutionary theory. Don’t just parrot some creationist website that says it is a problem, tell me specific problems and the evidence for those problems. And please tell me what explanation you prefer for that period of evolutionary change, as well as the evidence in favor of that explanation. Negative evidence doesn’t count; you can’t just tell me that there is a problem with the current explanation so therefore your explanation wins.

Re mistreatment, I don’t accept that someone who was trying to circumvent the rules of science was mistreated. Your and your friend were applying the analogies of democracy and journalism to science, and science doesn’t work that way. If it is mistreatment to have someone point that out to you, then we have a very different definition of mistreatment. Do you think you would get away with an accusation of mistreatment if a police officer pointed out that you were violating the traffic rules? That’s an accurate analogy.

I am pretty sure that there is plenty of support for my view that objective evidence for a supernatural phenomenon has, so far, been impossible to obtain. If you hold the contrary view, and it seems that you do, the easiest way to convince me is to provide that objective evidence. I’m open to being convinced, but I won’t just take your word for it. Show me that evidence, or how to obtain it, and I’ll gladly pursue it.

Re your point that “if a mind allows only one view, then no objective evidence and be acceptable for another” is just plain wrong. Scientists test hypotheses every day. They have one view, their hypothesis, in mind. But if they obtain objective evidence for another view, they readily adopt that other view. As I noted before, it is simply insulting to posit that scientists are close-minded about the evidence.

Mark
 
Mark,
Are you OK with me continuing indefinitely to post our dialog on the blog?
Don Mc

Yep
Mark

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »