[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia renaissance

Fri Mar 30 01:31:01 AEDT 2018

Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or
evidence.

I disagree with the engineers bridge example. What happened is the engineer
calculates

the load the materials can hold before breaking based on repeatable
experimental data.

Then adds a margin for error often a multiplier eg 2,3 or 4 times what is
required, and sets the specification. Often the structure will be stress
tested before commissioning. The bridge will support any load that is
likely to go over it. I call this a proof. Some condition outside the
factors considered could cause the bridge to fail of course but the science
is solid and based on scientific method, proven fact based, no superstition
or blessing required.

Practical philosophy and good advice from the bible is nothing to do with
science. Myths and stories about scientifically impossible things is where
faith is used to justify a belief, eg water from wine, virgin birth,
angles, resurrection and many more. There is nothing wrong with this, just
lets be honest about it.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Mick Cameron <mrcameronsir at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yikes, the Christians just can’t win. Roy implies religion is based on
> primitive thinkers and an enshrined belief system and Colin says that
> Dawkins is infallible! Sorry not your words Colin (you said ‘do not promote
> fallacies’) but you have to admit the implied irony is funny :)
>
> Sorry Colin about assuming you meant 'blind faith’, you didn’t actually
> define it. I was working from Dawkins misunderstanding of the term in ‘The
> God Delusion’ (p.23 where I think he is quoting himself :) ).
>
> Science and religion mutually exclusive- agreed.
>
> And I think the contributors to this thread agree that Creation Science is
> not science (and Intelligent Design is actually different too by the way).
> So let’s put Creation Science aside.
>
> I differ in my opinion about scientific / engineers proving things
> however. Technically you can’t prove a bridge won’t fall down unless you
> use it. You can be confident to a certain degree, that the modelling is all
> correct and the builders have done a good job and it withstands the normal
> environmental conditions expected for the location. Studying statistics at
> Curtin Uni opened my eyes to statistical confidence. When we say we've
> 'proved' something, we have often only just collected enough data to have a
> sufficiently high confidence. Of course we can’t prove the existence of
> God. As a Christian I’d say I have a greater confidence in there being a
> creator compared to there not being one. All our beliefs lie on a
> ‘confidence/certainty spectrum’ and it’s misleading to assign some of them
> as good and others wrong. When we knock off work for the day (and set aside
> our peer reviewed, objective, scientific methodology when we switch off the
> lights to the lab) we don’t engage in only activities that 'are guaranteed'
> to satisfy us or be safe. Isn’t that what makes life fun? Trying new foods,
> and wine? I go ocean swimming every week in an area known for sharks and
> it’s a little bit scary but so much fun. One word: marriage (!). I once got
> sent home from ED because the doctor was ‘pretty sure’ my foot wasn’t
> broken, but the second radiologist later in the shift said it was broken. I
> reckon a lot of what we believe and the way we live our life isn’t double
> blind peer reviewed. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the existence
> of a man called Jesus. He made some big claims. The claims Jesus makes
> about our world matches my experience of it. If Dawkin’s claims are right
> then they don’t match up with my experience of the world and the way people
> generally live. Most people don’t live like we are controlled by selfish
> genes and we are merely just quarks in a universe dominated by dark energy.
>
> I’d like to take up the challenge to point out some fallacies promoted by
> Dawkins. In a 'keep the boxing gloves on’, let’s have a rational discussion
> sort of way. The way scientists hold up claims to scrutiny and evaluate
> them. However a review of The God Delusion may be off topic for this email
> list, but there are about 5 or so big problems with it. He is a brilliant
> man, however the book is poorly researched and written and the subject of
> the book is outside of his field of study (just like this email will be if
> I don’t stop here).
>
> Regards,
>
> Mick
>
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2018, at 11:04 AM, Colin Dixon <crdixon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good response Mick, The Jordan Peterson videos are long and very engaging,
> just start listening, they are also on podcasts,
> Like reading a good book once you start you will wan to finish.
> With your reply science vs religion, believe vs know. In my experience not
> many people have defined theses words.
> When some one states they believe in a science axiom they are alluding to
> a faith based position. This is not science, the most common one is “I
> believe in climate change” this is stated by people who cannot tell you how
> much has the global temperature risen over the last 20 years (only about
> 0.1C and the accuracy is less than +/- 0.1C) or how much CO2 is in the
> atmosphere (~ 0.04%). Thye quite often have taken a passionate faith based
> belief that we are all doomed, then vote for government renewable policies
> that have increased our power prices by a factor of 4 for no measurable
> effect. This is an example of science being used to suit a political
> agenda, and as always to our detriment.
> I was not saying “Faith” to mean belief without reason, just without
> empirical testable evidence. So science by definition is mutually exclusive
> to religion. Reason is a loose term, I will always have a reason, often the
> reason will be poor or just plain wrong.
> An engineer may have faith in his mathematical models, but he also knows
> the facts and can prove that his bridge will not fall down. The insurance
> company uses probability theory to work out premiums and guarantee a
> profit, he does not leave this to faith.
> Richard Dawkins, like Jordan Peterson who have differing views speak
> carefully and do not promote any fallacies that I am aware of. If you think
> they do I would challenge you to provide some evidence.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Mick Cameron <mrcameronsir at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Colin,
>> Wow those Jordan Peterson videos are long, it’s not everyday I have time
>> to watch a 2 hour Youtube clip! :) Can you recommend one in particular?
>>
>> Thanks for your comments I appreciate your recognition of the influence
>> of Christianity on our modern world. As a Christian myself I do notice a
>> public perception that science and religion are pitted against each other.
>> This is despite the fact I know a lot of Christian scientists and I’m sure
>> many subscribers to Catalyst. I’d say it’s not an either/or issue
>> Christianity vs science but instead a person can believe in God and
>> science. When you believe in an ordered universe, governed by good and
>> rational God it makes sense to want to spend your life studying it.
>>
>> I agree that we need to employ the scientific method, collect data and
>> weigh up our theories against the evidence. We have puny, flawed
>> perspectives and a natural tendency to bias hence we need the scientific
>> method.
>>
>> This scientific method you mention is secular. So the experiments and
>> research conducted by scientists only involve the physical world. And
>> rightly so. We are only concerned with what we can observe and measure with
>> our senses and instruments. We use our reason and objective evidence to
>> study our world and seek to understand it. Anyone can practice this-
>> whether you think God  created you or have no interest in religion.
>>
>> Please take notice of how believers use the word ‘faith’ though. If you
>> ever read any serious Christian literature you’ll notice that no-one uses
>> ‘faith’ to mean belief without reason. Richard Dawkins might promote this
>> fallacy, however in theology faith means trust in God whose existence rests
>> on other grounds. A scientist can have faith in God because of
>> philosophical, historical and experiential reasons. Just like an engineer
>> has faith in his modelling of strains, forces and material properties to
>> keep the bridge from falling. Or my life insurance company has faith in its
>> actuary to assess the risk of me crashing my car.
>>
>> Believing in God and studying science are not mutually exclusive. You can
>> follow science and Jesus, and the faith versus fact myth is simplistic and
>> unnecessary. There are some scientists who don’t believe in God and others
>> who do. I’d say let them get on with doing what they love- investigating
>> this amazing world.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mick Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2018, at 5:43 PM, Colin Dixon <crdixon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We, science teachers are letting the world down. We need to be more like
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman, or Dawkins.
>> Passionate about Scientific Method. Don't let the takeaway be A theory is
>> just a  current explanation of nature.
>> Encourage scepticism, where is the data, evidence. If the data does to
>> support the theory the theory is wrong.
>> Global Warming renamed Climate Change is the Biggy. Science is never
>> about consensus. In fact history tells us the majority is usually wrong.
>> We need to be aware of the latest research on mindsets and incorporate
>> that in our teaching. Recommended on this is https://lagunita.stanford.e
>> du/courses/Education/EDUC115N/How_to_Learn_Math/about
>>
>> Faith has nothing to do with science. Faith is a belief without evidence.
>> As soon as anyone tries to prove god they have missed the point.
>>
>> We in the west and science have a lot to thank Christianity for the
>> respect for the individual core within enabled the  renaissance and the
>> current era. Lets not allow irrationality, superstition and emotion (eg
>> Political Correctness) to win.
>>
>> I would highly recommend https://www.youtube.
>> com/user/JordanPetersonVideos
>>
>> A great series o lectures especially his explanation of the biblical
>> stories from a non religious view as to the underlying meaning.
>>
>> Cheers Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Gregory Munyard <gmunyard at iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a pity we can’t be a bit more broad minded and accept that
>>> evolution doesn’t actually provide ALL the answers to the orgins of life
>>> (e.g. the “evolution” of DNA/ RNA polymerase, helicase, the whole protein
>>> synthesis system – without protein synthesis there is no polymerase), that
>>> there are many erroneous and fraudulent discrepancies (Haeckel’s embryos,
>>> the Biston betularia scandal) and that the science behind evolution is
>>> sadly lacking (we weren’t actually there to see what happened, so it’s not
>>> observational science). From my limited perspective, this post could
>>> equally be entitled “Belief in Evolutionist Pseudoscience in Australia”.
>>> Now, let’s see the feathers fly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg Munyard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Catalist <catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net> on behalf of Igor
>>> Bray <igor.bray at curtin.edu.au>
>>> *Reply-To: *"catalist at lists.stawa.net" <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 10:41 am
>>> *To: *"catalist at lists.stawa.net" <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in
>>> Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d like to thank Michael McGarry for raising the issues below, and in
>>> particular to those relating to the Australian Academy of Science. As a new
>>> Fellow of the Academy (FAA) I have asked that the page at the last link
>>> below be rewritten, and until this has been done, be removed from the site.
>>> It has now been removed, and I hope to see the new draft before it goes
>>> public.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Igor Bray, John Curtin Distinguished Professor
>>> PhD, FAPS, FInstP, FAIP, FAA
>>> Head | Physics, Astronomy and Medical Radiation Science
>>> Director | Theoretical Physics
>>>
>>> Curtin University, GPO Box U1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845
>>> Tel |       +61 8 9266 7747 <+61%208%209266%207747>
>>> Fax |      +61 8 9266 2377 <+61%208%209266%202377>
>>> Mobile | +61 4 0489 2862
>>>
>>> Email | *I.Bray at curtin.edu.au*
>>> Web Curtin | *http://curtin.edu.au <http://curtin.edu.au/>*
>>> Web Physics |http://physics.curtin.edu.au
>>> Web TP |
>>> *http://itp.curtin.edu.au <http://itp.curtin.edu.au/>*
>>>
>>> <image001.png>
>>> Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University
>>> CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Catalist <catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net> on behalf of
>>> Michael McGarry <mmcgarry44 at gmail.com>
>>> *Reply-To: *Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
>>> *Date: *Saturday, 26 August 2017 8:45 am
>>> *To: *Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
>>> *Subject: *[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings Science Colleagues,
>>>
>>> “It could therefore be considered surprising that *almost 60% of
>>> Australian adults believe that God or a supernatural being was behind the
>>> universe and all life,* and the majority of these people do not accept
>>> the well-established theory of evolution but believe that God brought about
>>> this universe and life, fully developed and similar to how we see it today,
>>> out of nothing.”
>>>
>>> Reference 1 URL: https://www.plainreason.org/ar
>>> ticles/survey-creationism-australia/
>>>
>>> “Fundamentalist Christians believe their entire religious edifice will
>>> crumble if they accept the raw facts of evolution.  The vast majority of
>>> Christians fully embrace Darwin’s Theory, yet Creationists persist with
>>> teaching their children the alarming myths of Genesis and the “literal
>>> truths” of the Old Testament.”
>>>
>>> Reference 2 URL: https://www.plainreason.org/ar
>>> ticles/intelligent-design-id-and-irreducible-complexity-ic/
>>>
>>> Why do 60% of Australian adults reject the Theory of Biological
>>> Evolution?
>>>
>>> *Hypothesis 1:* Do 60% of Australian adults *reject* the Theory of
>>> Biological Evolution because: “In Australia’s public schools, students are
>>> now routinely exposed to evangelism from very conservative Christian
>>> groups?”
>>>
>>> “Marion Maddox uncovers the surprising impact of these groups on once
>>> secular public schooling, and the ways in which governments have been
>>> persuaded to support their cause.”
>>>
>>> Reference 3: https://www.allenandunwin.com/
>>> browse/books/general-books/current-affairs-politics/Taking-G
>>> od-to-School-Marion-Maddox-9781743315712
>>>
>>> Marion Maddox URL: http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/
>>> faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/staff/staff-
>>> politics_and_international_relations/professor_marion_maddox/
>>>
>>> *Hypothesis 2:* Do 60% of Australian adults *reject* the Theory of
>>> Biological Evolution because when students learn about biological evolution
>>> in their science classes, students with fixed religious-mindsets,
>>> ‘inherited’ from their parents and ‘churches’, reject the scientific
>>> evidence for biological evolution?
>>>
>>> Religions and Australian Constitution Law and Politics
>>>
>>> Colleagues may find these two papers on the interplay of religions,
>>> politics, and constitutional law in Australia most informative?
>>>
>>> ICLRS URL: https://www.iclrs.org/content/blurb/files/Australia.1.pdf
>>>
>>> CAROLYN EVANS URL: http://law.unimelb.edu.au/news
>>> /MLS/professor-carolyn-evans-appointed-deputy-vice-chancellor
>>>
>>> AUSTLII URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/j
>>> ournals/ANZLawHisteJl/2007/3.pdf
>>>
>>> CHARLOTTE BAINES URL: http://adm.monash.edu/records-
>>> archives/archives/memo-archive/2004-2007/assets/includes/con
>>> tent/20100217/stories-around-monash3.html
>>>
>>> Religious Parents who refuse Medical Treatment for their sick Children
>>>
>>> AIFS URL: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/citizen-child-australian-la
>>> w-and-childrens-rights/8-medical-procedures-children
>>>
>>> AVANT URL: http://www.avant.org.au/news/20151103-court-intervenes-in-no
>>> n-urgent-situation-for-child-of-jehovahs-witness-parents/
>>>
>>> KEMH URL: http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/development/manuals/O&G_gui
>>> delines/sectionb/2/b2.14.pdf
>>>
>>> ABC URL: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/christian-scientists-e
>>> xempt-from-new-vaccination-laws/6395480
>>>
>>> *Question:* Given that 60% of Australian adults *reject* the Theory of
>>> Biological Evolution, should the Australian Academy of Science *delete*
>>> this sentence from their 2005 ‘position statement’ on the teaching of
>>> creationist pseudoscience in Australian schools?
>>>
>>> “The [Australian] Academy [of Science] sees no objection to the teaching
>>> of creationism in schools as part of a course in dogmatic or comparative
>>> religion, or in some other non-scientific context.”
>>>
>>> AAS Reference URL: https://www.science.org.au/sup
>>> porting-science/science-policy/position-statements/creationi
>>> sm-and-intelligent-design
>>>
>>> Thanks and Best Wishes,
>>>
>>> Michael John McGarry
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Catalist mailing list
>>> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
>>> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> kindest regards
>> Colin Dixon 0419 415000 :)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Catalist mailing list
>> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
>> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Catalist mailing list
>> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
>> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> kindest regards
> Colin Dixon 0419 415000 :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Catalist mailing list
> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Catalist mailing list
> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
>
>

-- 
kindest regards
Colin Dixon 0419 415000 :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20180329/3c3f990b/attachment.html>