From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:01:30 GMT

In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>In article <62vd03lH59mh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>>jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

>>>> Attempting to force a religious viewpoint (creationism) to be taught
>>>> as scientific fact is incorrect, and believing that this is a proper
>>>> practice of the Christian faith is, I believe, incorrect as well.

>>> If I have communicated in some way that I am forcing creationism to
>>> be taught as scientific fact then I must apologize for not communicating
>>> properly.

>> Note the first word, "Attempting", in Mr. Acker's post. Your response
>> doesn't address whether or not you are *attempting* to force etc. etc.

> Since James was replying to one of my articles, I inferred he was
> speaking about, and to, me. Having not inserted "attempting" in my
> response to him didn't seem appropriate, but I could be wrong. I am
> not attempting to force anything on anybody, and anything I write in 
> t.o is merely my opinion.

Sure; what I was getting at isn't whether you personally are conducting
a campaign to mandate legally the teaching of some creation theory, but
whether or not you would support such a campaign, and if so, in respect
of which particular theory of creation. *If* you think that X should be
taught in science class with legal force, you presumably can say what X is.


>> Which brings us right back to a question I asked you some time ago
>> (on three separate occasions in June), namely whether or not you
>> believe that the teaching of a `scientific' creation theory in school
>> science classes should be legally mandatory.

> Science should be taught in science class, but exactly, what is
> a comprehensive definition of science and what you can teach in
> school?

Tricky one, but a prerequisite would seem to me to be that science
should concern itself with formulating, fitting and testing hypotheses
on the basis of all available data in order best to explain the data
(that's *all* the data).

To play fast'n'loose for a minute, with apologies, this amounts to:

  given data D, attempt to find that explanatory hypothesis H
  for which the conditional probability P(H|D)  ["|" = "given"]
  is maximised (note: vary H with D fixed). Then claim support
  from the data for this H.

This seems to me to contrast sharply with much of `creation science',
which seems to amount to:

  given an explanation H, attempt to find that subset d of the
  available data D for which the conditional probability P(H|d)
  is maximised (note: vary d with H fixed). Then claim support
  from the data for this H.

For an example of H in the second case, see the statement of belief,
recently posted here, required to be sworn by members of the Creation
Research Society.

The reason I've called H a hypothesis only in the first case should be
obvious from a comparison of the logic of the two, and that is the crux
of the difference between the two systems. Irrespective of what anybody's
estimates of the various probabilities might or might not be, there is
an overriding qualitative, philosophical difference which makes one
science and the other religion (with a small "r").

I'm not suggesting that scientists, being human, aren't sometimes
guilty of the second approach, nor that creationists never apply
the first in particular areas. But the second is bad science, and
you'll ideally get roasted by your fellows if discovered doing it.
However, it evidently *isn't* bad creationism (check the CRS oath),
and you'll apparently be quoted and requoted ad nauseam by your
fellows, even long after somebody using the first approach leaves
your delusions dead in the water.

I'm concerned that you and others wish, on purely religious grounds,
to have your religion taught as Truth in schools, necessitating that
the second of the two approaches above go masquerading as the first,
and be taught in schools as science with the implication that it can
lead to useful explanatory and predictive methodologies which its logic
simply cannot sustain.


> [...]

>> The only answer you would give back then was
>>
>>> I haven't changed my mind at all.

> I still haven't.

>> but you declined to say from what position you hadn't changed it.

> It seems to me as time passes, we get further and further away from
> God in just about everything. Last weekend I had a spare ten minutes
> while I ate lunch and turned on the TV. I couldn't find much to 
> watch but ended up watching one of those Father Flanagan Boys Town
> movies with Mickey Roonie. I don't know when that movie was filmed,
> (in the 40s?), but it reminded me how different "religion" was
> perceived at that time. As time continues, it seems as though God
> is cut out of more and more, including science and the classroom

.... and you appear to have declined once more. The question is way back
up there in the first paragraph I wrote in this post.


>> The other question you declined to answer was "If so, which one?", which
>> seemed topical in the light of your acknowledged inability to produce
>> an exposition of any such `scientific' creation theory.

> My "inability" to produce a theory for special creation was due to
> the fact of the enormous amount of time and energy it would take
> starting from scratch, as I was doing. 

No need to start from scratch! I can always check back through references
if in doubt on any of the first principles. A pointer to a college-level
text would do just fine.

If the theory is new and hasn't been around long enough for a college
text to have been written, then a pointer to a survey paper or review
of the birth of, and refinements in, the theory in the last, say,
20 years in a refereed scientific journal would be even better.


>> How about it this time, Jim?

> Exactly what is it you're looking for?

An answer to the question which I keep asking would be just fabulous.
You can find the question again above; it's in my first paragraph in
this post.


>> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

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.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK