scigirl

Vander,

I don't want apologies or insults. I want answers. Please tell me how I, as a scientist, can incorporate your religious views into the laboratory.

Examples.

Make em up,use analogies, anything! If scientists are missing something, then please tell them how to not miss it.

Thanks,

scigirl

Vanderzyden

Starboy,

Well, I don't know that I am capable of magnanimity. But perhaps an apology is in order, for any genuine offense that may be present in my posts.

However, this isn't my intent at all. My purpose is the following: If scigirl and I are to continue in dialogue, then, in the interest of efficiency and clarification, she be made aware of how her posts may be perceived. She has relentlessly attacked me on several fronts.

V

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Well, I propose a level playing field. I have four clarifying questions:

0. Why do persist in using the term religion?
1. What do you know of my religious views?
2. Where specifically did you get the impression that I insist that you use them in your laboratory?
3. In addition to your status as scientist, are you not also a conscious being? Do you don your scientific cap in every aspect of your life?

Vanderzyden

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

Here is an illustration of how you can (I'm assuming unintentionally) aggravate people by misquoting them or not reading through entire posts carefully.

You had stated,
I then replied (bold added just now),
"What does this have to do with my frustration that the 700 club does not even thank ANY of the medical professionals - doctors, nurses, EMTs, the janitors who keep the hospital clean? I don't think I'm better than anyone - I just think that the 700 Club is doing the society a dis-service by thanking an invisible being and then forgetting to thank the visible good people that do make tangible, measurable differences in people's lives.

You then retorted:
Did you not see where I also typed nurses, janitors and EMTs? I AM thankful of those people - because I don't believe in God, I think that all good things come from other humans! And I do thank them, and am angry when they aren't thanked by the 700 club!

Let me repeat what I am trying to say: The 700 club often ONLY thanks the Lord for actions that were done by the following groups:
1. Humans alone OR
2. Humans AND the Lord

No matter what religious persuasion you are, we can all agree that Jimmy (was that the name I used) would be dead if not for other humans. Right? But the 700 Club did not thank those humans, they only thanked the Lord.

That is what I have a problem with, and I was just using MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS (not just physicians) as one example.

Why did I post this? Well, I was trying to come up with practical examples of how thinking "supernaturally" instead of or in place of thinking "naturally" can be a bad thing.

Please let me know if you don't understand this point.

And another thing Vanderzyden - yes I have been guilty of assuming things about you. One reason is - you are very evasive when we turn the questions around and ask you for YOUR opinion or explanation. So we are left to guess. Why is that? Me, I wear my heart on my sleeve, I don't hold back, and everyone knows where I stand. That's just how I am. So if you want to know what I think, ASK! Don't assume. And I'll try to do the same for you.

As to your "I understand science" comment, well do you really feel like you understand the field of genetics well enough to criticise a PNAS paper? I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but really - you didn't understand simple concepts such as meiosis. And your critique of the paper, focusing on words such as "possibly," is a clear demonstration that you are not used to reading technical science papers. Will you at least admit that? Vanderzyden, it took 3 years of a master's degree before I felt confident in reading and critiquing science papers. And it's still hard sometimes.

Understanding a show on the Discovery channel, and understanding a highly technical journal article, are two entirely different things. It's nothing to be ashamed of - that's why you have to get things like PhD's, or - read tons and tons of literature - on a subject before you are considered to be an expert.

How would you feel if someone who could barely read english felt like they knew the Bible way better than you? You repeatedly pointed out certain passages that you had spent months researching, and they said, 'oh well you're wrong, I just know the bible is full of crap.' Would that frustrate you? Especially if your goal was to educate people about the Bible?

Well my goal is to educate people about science and their bodies, so that they can be healthier and happier people. So when someone dismisses an entire field that has been accumulating data for the last 150 years, and has potential to explain not only medical concepts but also some of our deepest and most invasive human conditions, yeah I'm frustrated as heck.

I really encourage you to spend some time reading more journal articles that are not in the evolution field, just so you can get the hang of what a journal article is like, and how it is set up. I think a while back I outlined the format of articles. Science and Nature and PNAS are tough to learn (Sort of like trying black diamonds at the ski hill before you have mastered the blues and greens - heh I did that as a snowboarder and it was not pretty!)

I suggest finding a journal specific to a field that interests you - Cancer Research, or Human Genetics, or my personal favorite "The Journal of Leukocyte Biology." Browse through the latest issues and get a feel for how science writing works.

Heh I apologize if I came off too cruel to you. But yes like I said before, your apparent arrogance, and your continual use of words like "Darwinist" and your suggestion that atheists don't value human life - well frankly pissed me off! So don't do that!

Thanks,

scigirl

Darwin's Finch

Scigirl: FWIW, I would suggest not pursuing this. You have bigger fish to fry. In my opinion, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of this thread's many lurkers when I thank you for your efforts. But geez! It's ultimately more important to me that another good doctor gets trained than that another faux-skeptic realizes that chromosome fusions take place or that scientists are necessarily methodological naturalists.

OTOH, if you choose to continue this, I will also be pleased.

scigirl

Ok what do you suggest we use? Be specific please.

Not much, since you continue to evade the question. You object to naturalistic explanations about the origins of humans and the human mind. Now - let's hear from YOU - how should scientists study human origins/mind?

Well you think that scientists are not including spiritual or non-natural explanations for certain phenomenon. Right? So you either want scientists to include them in their studies, or you want scientists to stop studying these phenomenon altogether. Is that an accurate assessment?

Plus I like concrete physical examples. This is why I never ever post in the straight philosophy discussions. If there isn't a practical application, I don't wanna hear about it!

Yes of course (I hope), and sort of. I think we should do a lot more critical, scientific thinking about a great many things. Imagine what our government could do if, instead of conducting opinion polls, actually did research studies to find the true causes of our ills!

No, I do not use science in every single thing that I do. But I do see evolutionary biology as being a useful tool in understanding human behavior, just as I see genetics as being a useful tool for understanding cancer.

Science does not make us moral beings. But science can help us as a society make useful and informed decisions after we have decided what is moral.

Here's an example: Let's say we decide that treating drug addicts, rather than throwing them in jail, is a better moral action. That decision has nothing to do with science per se.

However, when we actually go to treat the addictions, science gives us tools to objectively determine what works and what doesn't. If science showed that method A worked and method B didn't, but if politicians kept insisting on method B - THIS would be an immoral action. Why? Because we had decided as a society that treating addicts was the moral choice and doing things that don't work is like a "sin of omission." I hope this is making sense.

I think I stated somewhere earlier that many religious groups are acting immoral IMHO because while we all agree that the betterment of humanity is a good goal, they are using the wrong methods to study it! I think we should use treatment A, while they are advocating treatment B.

Evolution versus special creation for example. Understanding the human condition in terms of us being just less hairy apes just might illuminate us. Why are we so territorial and violent? Why are we jealous? Why are we so adulterous? In my opinion, the Christian creationism explanation has been around for 2000 years, and has failed to answer those questions with any depth. How about giving science a shot?

scigirl

Doubting Didymus

Scigirl, your patience with this thread is truly prodigious. You have my profound admiration for continuing this conversation.

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

Yet again, you persist with the implication that I don't understand science. Do you have your own special definition of science from which you are making such judgments? You know, meiosis isn't a very difficult concept--it didn't take me long to grasp it along with its related concepts. Incidentally, I don't take my science from the Discovery Channel--in fact I have limited respect for their programming. Also, I will reiterate again that my education is substantially scientific. Do you not believe what I am saying?

More importantly, I would like to persuade you that it isn't necessary for me to be an expert in a particular field to understand the structure and faulty logic and propaganda that are extant in any piece of its literature. Remember the "weasel words"? If key arguments are hidden beneath tricky language, then the specialists themselves are likely to have difficulty in understanding as well (as you seem to indicate). It isn't necessary to write papers in that way, whatever the aspirations of the authors. If I did that in my highly technical line of work, my credibility would be questioned immediately.

It is my contention, along with numerous other authors and speakers, that naturalistic scientists need outsiders to keep them "honest". As I have contended at length in this thread, the "hard" sciences are often found wanting in the face of several types of inquiry.

I don't think that all science is "full of crap", as you so eloquently state it. Rather, I am amazed at some "philosophies" that are passed off as "science", especially the theories popularized by Charles Darwin. Evolutionary hypothesis is especially vulnerable to external scrutiny because it is more philosophy than science. Many academic institutions don't recognize it as a proper science for this very reason. Physics, for example, is not nearly so controversial, despite its metaphysical relations. (However, a good example may be found in the philosophy underlying the Special Theory of Relativity--which Einstein inherited from Ernst Mach--that categorically rejects an absolute inertial reference frame--which, in turn, raises numerous difficulties.)

Did you read my previous explanation of the term Darwinist (in comparision with a similar term, "Newtonian")? I still don't see why this term bothers you so much (and yet no one else here has complained).

OK, so let's agree to be respectful of one another. (visualizing shaking hands, white flags raised) I should warn you, however: I will raise more topics which are likely to frustrate you. Please consider them for their merit, and not for the person you have imagined me to be.

Another note: it is intentional that I don't divulge all of my beliefs. Some of them are held tentatively, anyway. In review of many posts here, and my experience in other venues, I would rather maintain a "thick skin" in order to avoid further fragmentation of any given dialogue.

Cheers,

Vanderzyden

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Would you divulge just what your line of work and scientific education is? I don't want this infromation so that I can ridicule you, It's just not very fair to respond to claims that you don't know much about science with a simple 'yes I do'. Why don't you tell us what field of science you learned about, where you studied, and what your job is.

I think it would be only fair, considering that you are using references to your substantial scientific education and your technical line of work to respond to claims that you don't know science.

You can't just say 'I know science', and expect to leave it at that. Of course I have no reason to doubt that you have had a scientific education. You are certainly better informed than your average YEC, but staying tight lipped about the specifics is not helping you.

Myself, I am midway through a degree in biology (majoring in ecology and anatomy) at the University of the Sunshine Coast, here in sunny queensland.

I want you to keep in mind that I do not intend to have a duel of qualifications, just that you should not expect us to take your claims at face value. I am well aware that even complete laymen often make astute claims about things that are not their field.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Albion

Vanderzyden, may I trouble you yet again for an answer to the second question I asked you, since yuo said you would answer my questions and then you only answered the first one, and a number of other people have asked as well and not been answered.

What is this uniquely Darwinian philosophy you refer to? What philosophy do all evolutionary biologists bring to their work and their lives that no other scientists use?