From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:13:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Nov5.064224.13439@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.153523.18547@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk  
>(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> 
>> "There is a God" is not falsifiable because falsification requires that
>> an exhaustive search of whatever space the thing is supposed to inhabit
>> be conducted, spanning all points of the space simultaneously (so that
>> It can't dodge the search), and that the search be fruitless.
>
> Even this would be useless, because it assumes God to be bound by "space",
> something we Christians would claim He invented.

I use the term in its loosest sense. The whole notion of conducting such
a search in dimensions other than those with which we're familiar (or even
in those for that matter) is a bit weird anyhow. But as you note, this only
makes the theory `even more' unfalsifiable.

> Also, you limit the search for God to scientific methods, which have two
> main drawbacks in this case:
>	The first is that scientific methods always assume the non-interference
> of the supernatural (imagine if Newton had said "Oh, it was an ANGEL who
> dropped that apple on my head"), so anything observable cited as evidence
> is automatically discounted as having an unknown natural explanation.

Well, yes. If claims of an objective, observer-independent existence are
made for God or for anything else, I would expect to see some objective,
observer-independent evidence. It is true that this is therefore a scientific
matter, but the reason is that the *claim* *itself* proposed that the purported
existence was objective and observer-independent.

>	Second, science proceeds by weeding out worse theories in favor of  
> better ones (which also get modified eventually).  Nothing is ever known to
> be true in science, it's just that some things are known to not be true in  
> particular situations.

Sure enough. But those "worse theories" which get weeded out are necessarily
the falsifiable ones, and that way indeed lies progress.

>> Well, on 10 October I mailed him/them Chris Colby's evolution FAQ from
>> talk.origins following his and Thiagaraj's droolings about evo, and have
>
> I would be interested in seeing this.

Sure thing, I'll mail it to you.

> I am a Christian working in an evolutionary biology lab on speciation, and
> I think I can handle it. (By the way, this is not some creation research
> lab in disguise, in case you wonder. I am thoroughly outnumbered in the
> Christian:Atheist ratio.)

No, I wouldn't dream of suspecting that your lab is a Creationist institution.
They aren't big on labs after all, and bibles are *much* cheaper. You also
mentioned the word "speciation", which instantly disqualifies you as a
Creationist, not least because of the syllable count. I'll also send you
an article I wrote on observed speciation a while back, covering some
_Drosophila_ stuff which isn't in Colby's FAQ.

>							Erik Powers

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.