Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not)

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not)" by Th1sWasATriumph.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/andrew-parker-lost-the-game-and-the-metro-happily-did-not/

 

[djarm67]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I picked this book up yesterday, had a skim through and then put it down. I was somewhat surprised. I have read Parker's book "In the blink of an eye" and thought it was a very good hypothesis for a key driver of the Cambrian explosion. I'll most likely still get the book, but I fear it will be destined for the "other" shelf alongside Behe, Morris, Ham and Strobel. A far cry from the "good" shelves.

DJ

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I picked this book up yesterday, had a skim through and then put it down. I was somewhat surprised. I have read Parker's book "In the blink of an eye" and thought it was a very good hypothesis for a key driver of the Cambrian explosion. I'll most likely still get the book, but I fear it will be destined for the "other" shelf alongside Behe, Morris, Ham and Strobel. A far cry from the "good" shelves.

DJ

The impression I got is that his sudden conversion is just that - sudden, like Flew. It's sad that some people have this time bomb in their heads that, when presented with enough complexity, explodes and makes them think all sorts of craziness. So presumably his previous work will retain some kind of credibility.

 

[Cluebot]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

Sadly, there are no minds too well educated to be seduced by a skyhook.

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

And, of course, Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved.

I know nothing about this book, and it certainly seems a strange thesis. But I can throw a bit of light that shows that you may have jumped the gun slightly here.

Google searching shows that :

• Andrew Palmer is a respected Oxford biologist, funded in a Royal Society research program which includes him among "some of the UKs best postdoctoral researchers";
• he is neither a creationist nor a proponent of intelligent design, but an evolutionary biologist;
• I have been unable to find anything about his religious beliefs, except this statement was made on a discussion forum: "He comes from an atheist background, but has recently started to change his mind.";
• his area of research is the evolution of the eye (see this summary);
• He has written a well respected book on the evolution of sight - In the Blink of an Eye;

So I think he almost certainly "gets" how the eye evolved far better than either you or I. Just shows how careful we have to be to avoid jumping to conclusions just because we disagree with someone.

Best wishes.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

[*]Andrew Palmer is a respected Oxford biologist, funded in a Royal Society research program which includes him among "some of the UKs best postdoctoral researchers";

Which means nothing; his sudden conversion to theism seems to have been pretty recent, and there are a fair few respected names who abruptly decided (or have always believed) that God was not only possible, but likely or certain, after a distinguished career. Fred Hoyle, Antony Flew, Jason Lisle, Ken Miller. Being a respected scientist doesn't legitimise religious beliefs; many people are quite capable of changing their minds. I'm sure he's a very intelligent and worthy scientist; but his recent beliefs don't do him justice.

[*]he is neither a creationist nor a proponent of intelligent design, but an evolutionary biologist;

As soon as someone says that genesis is scientifically accurate, you're a creationist. He may try to pass that off with excuses about how other people have misinterpreted it, but Genesis clearly states that everything was created by God in 6 days. It's rampantly unscientific, and as soon as a scientist - even a respected one - suddenly believes it to be true, his position is pretty shaky.

[*]He has written a well respected book on the evolution of sight - In the Blink of an Eye;[/list]
So I think he almost certainly "gets" how the eye evolved far better than either you or I. Just shows how careful we have to be to avoid jumping to conclusions just because we disagree with someone.

Alarm bells rung when I read that, in order to make the eye fit in with Genesis, he had to actually quote mine the bible. That's sort of impressive. Whatever he may have once believed is immaterial. He's decided God is quite likely to exist, and his evidence for it is shaky at best. Genesis states God made us all in 6 days. If you can believe that, you can suddenly believe the eye is not a product of evolution. The very best case scenario for him is that, even if his older work is still applicable, his current output is going to be highly suspect. Who knows what his current thoughts are on the eye? I should write and ask him.

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

G'day Th1sWasATriumph,

Thanks for replying to my comment, but you didn't actually reply to what I said. I was commenting on your statement: "And, of course, Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved." But you have talked about why you don't like his apparent new belief in God and why you think he's a creationist.

Let me say again. He is a respected researcher into the evolution of sight. He knows a thing or two about the eye, and has written a well received book about this. So I question how you can say that he "doesn't get how the eye could have evolved". Wouldn't you agree that your statement was based more on your disagreement with his other beliefs (which are not entirely clear from the interview or from my Google search) than on an understanding of his credentials as a scientist?

As for him being a creationist, how can someone be an evolutionary biologist writing about the Cambrian explosion, and say "Creationism is totally unfounded", and be a creationist? Again, I think you may have allowed your disagreement with him to lead you to make an unwarranted statement. On second thoughts, don't you agree?

Best wishes.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

Thanks for replying to my comment, but you didn't actually reply to what I said. I was commenting on your statement: "And, of course, Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved." But you have talked about why you don't like his apparent new belief in God and why you think he's a creationist.

Well, that's not true. You said:

But I can throw a bit of light that shows that you may have jumped the gun slightly here. Google searching shows that . . .

I was responding directly to your thrown light to show that I don't consider myself to have jumped the gun.

Let me say again. He is a respected researcher into the evolution of sight. He knows a thing or two about the eye, and has written a well received book about this. So I question how you can say that he "doesn't get how the eye could have evolved". Wouldn't you agree that your statement was based more on your disagreement with his other beliefs (which are not entirely clear from the interview or from my Google search) than on an understanding of his credentials as a scientist?

Let ME say again. I of course qualified my speculation with "seem", so it's unwise to quiz me as if I was making a cast iron assertion. My responses to your google searches explained how someone can understand something and then suddenly believe in God, potentially changing or revoking their understanding. I'm sure he DID understand how the eye evolved; my point is (based on his quote mining of the Bible to slot the eye into his theory that Genesis is scientifically accurate) that right now he might very well have changed his mind. Of course, I'm not sure of that, and just now sent him an email asking for clarifications on a few points.

As for him being a creationist, how can someone be an evolutionary biologist writing about the Cambrian explosion, and say "Creationism is totally unfounded", and be a creationist? Again, I think you may have allowed your disagreement with him to lead you to make an unwarranted statement. On second thoughts, don't you agree?

Oh sigh. Perhaps you're trolling; you certainly didn't seem to read my section about respected scholars who became theists. His sudden theism is SUDDEN. It's RECENT. So his previous work and theories may now seem incorrect to him in the light of his new research, in much the same way that Antony Flew was once an atheist and now is not - leading to a personal reappraisal of his older work. Parker did indeed say that creationism is unfounded . . . but he thinks Genesis is scientifically accurate. Of course, he has excised from his work all the parts of Genesis that he doesn't think fits, including the creation in 6 days. And that makes him technically not a creationist in that sense. However, he believes god made the world, believes God divinely inspired the Bible, and judging from the interview the very best you can say of his recent work is that it's a hackjob. He has personally decided which bits of Genesis don't fit and removed them. Whatever kind of scientist he once was, this newest research isn't very scientific at all.

 

[Marcus]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

It seems to me that he does know how the eye evolved, but has gone to a position of "God guided the process". He's still wrong, but not Ken Ham style wrong. And I'm sure the Templeton funding had nothing at all to do with the fervour of his position.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

It seems to me that he does know how the eye evolved, but has gone to a position of "God guided the process". He's still wrong, but not Ken Ham style wrong. And I'm sure the Templeton funding had nothing at all to do with the fervour of his position.

Yeah. He still believes in evolution, it seems, but something somewhere has gone terribly wrong.

However, for a more or less atheist scientist to suddenly come out with that sort of bilge . . . well, it can only get worse.

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

Well, that's not true. ..... I was responding directly to your thrown light to show that I don't consider myself to have jumped the gun.

I'm sorry, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I only questioned one part of your blog, and my comment about throwing light was related only to the quote I questioned.

So I will return to the same point. You said: "And, of course, Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved." I am questioning this statement.

Here is some more information on Dr Parker (based on this website, my emphasis):

• "as a Royal Society University Research Fellow at Oxford University in 1999 he worked on colour, vision, biomimetics and evolution. In 2000, based on his 'Light Switch Theory' for the cause of the Big Bang in evolution, he was selected as one of the top eight scientists in the UK as a 'Scientist for the New Century' by The Royal Institution (London)."
  .
• "His scientific research centres on the evolution of vision and on biomimetics, extracting good design from nature. He has copied the natural nanotechnology behind the metallic-like wings of butterflies and iridescence of hummingbirds to produce commercial products such as security devices (that can't be copied) to replace holograms in credit cards and non-reflective surfaces for solar panels (providing a 10% increase in energy capture)."
  .
• "Professor Andrew Parker is the author of In the Blink of an Eye and Seven Deadly Colours ...... In 2005 he gave the annual Hewlett Packard lecture on evolution and the prestigious Stanford University annual physics lecture on colour in nature. "

Leaving aside your views about his belief in God, creationism, whether he's changed his views recently, etc, do you still say "Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? I sure hope not!

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

Leaving aside your views about his belief in God, creationism, whether he's changed his views recently, etc, do you still say "Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? I sure hope not!

Scientists can say "we don't exactly know" but it seems Parker himself feels uncomfortable with this, an exert from the interview:

"Q: Your argument seems full of holes.
A: I would say it's the best guess with the best fit."

So instead of saying "I don't know" he's just found another text (the Bible) and decided that that is the "best fit". It seems like he's sort of given up on science because he can't find the answers he wants and has reverted to religion just in case (which doesn't mean he's not at good at what he used to do, his credit as a scientist is shot now though), another quote from the interview:

"Q: You criticise atheism because you think it's disturbing to believe there's no God or heaven. Just because those things might be comforting doesn't make them true, does it?
A:No. But what I'm saying is that if the evidence doesn't necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we're better off with religion."

I thought the interviewer has done a brilliant job!

How did the eye evolve btw, does anyone have a good link? EDIT: I found one

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

So instead of saying "I don't know" he's just found another text (the Bible) and decided that that is the "best fit". It seems like he's sort of given up on science because he can't find the answers he wants and has reverted to religion just in case

What are you actually saying here? Are you saying he's stopped being a scientist? On what basis do you say that? I don't get that impression at all.

 

[Cluebot]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

He's the latest in a long line of distinguished scientists to get into the greedy reductionism business. Could've been worse though - at least cosmology isn't his specialisation...

"GodDidIt" is always the "best fit," so long as you're happy with a narrative instead of an explanation.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I only questioned one part of your blog, and my comment about throwing light was related only to the quote I questioned.

And I responded to those related comments in a way I felt appropriate and contextual.

do you still say "Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? I sure hope not!

You have ignored my response to this question: "I of course qualified my speculation with "seem", so it's unwise to quiz me as if I was making a cast iron assertion . . . I'm sure he DID understand how the eye evolved; my point is (based on his quote mining of the Bible to slot the eye into his theory that Genesis is scientifically accurate) that right now he might very well have changed his mind."

I will add to this that even if he still thinks the eye evolved in the manner he felt was previously correct, he has introduced God into the equation. And I HAVE to take issue with that. He spouted a load of vague stuff about "science not being able to solve everything" and "beyond the realm of our understanding" that is frankly bullshit. Something fairly fundamental seems to have changed in his mindset. Am I biased against his views on God? Yes. In a similar vein, I am biased against people who poop in library books and then put them back on the shelf. I am biased against any claim which is unprovable and unscientific, especially when it's made by a scientist.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

What are you actually saying here? Are you saying he's stopped being a scientist? On what basis do you say that? I don't get that impression at all.

I'd certainly say, based on that interview, that his recent work and research on Genesis is incredibly unscientific. He's been exposed as quote mining the source material, an accusation he couldn't respond to, and also said that

It's the authors adding their artistic interpretation, shoehorning the facts into the type of story people would be able to understand

when pressed on the clearly incorrect areas of Genesis. This means that he has decided, and I can only imagine arbitrarily, which bits of his research material were correct - then excised the rest in order to make his hypothesis fit. That's not scientific. Science is taking what is there and working to a conclusion. The kind of science practiced by fundamentalists starts with their assertion and works back to fit the evidence. As I said to him in an email, has he studied the Qur'an? Or the creation myths of other religions? It certainly doesn't seem like it, yet the scientific approach would be to study all the major religions (after all, a lot of Muslims think the Qur'an predates science as well.) How did he decide which parts of Genesis were divinely inspired and which parts were safe to remove?

Ignoring his previous career, this work isn't scientific at all.

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

What are you actually saying here? Are you saying he's stopped being a scientist? On what basis do you say that? I don't get that impression at all.

What i'm saying is that anybody that starts referring to the Bible for scientific explanation is not a scientist, a theologist maybe, but not a scientist. As far as I'm aware God cannot be proven to exist with physical evidence and reasonable logic so until Parker can prove God's existence, with physical evidence and reasonable logic, any claims he makes that involve the Bible (and God) cannot be considered scientific claims, they are statements of personal belief (which is not science, it's faith). It seems to be more of a personal preference, for Parker, to believe that God is the creator of all which we see, touch, smell, taste and hear (which Parker has said himself in the interview: "what I'm saying is that if the evidence doesn't necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we're better off with religion."). Make sense ercatli?

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I'm sure he DID understand how the eye evolved; my point is (based on his quote mining of the Bible to slot the eye into his theory that Genesis is scientifically accurate) that right now he might very well have changed his mind."

OK. So you think "he might very well have changed his mind". So it is just a suspicion then?

Do you actually see any evidence that he has changed his mind about the eye? I understand you think that if he believes in God then he may have somehow lost his science, but have you any evidence that that is the case? (After all, I assume evidence is what a "league of reason" is all about?)

I actually don't see any evidence of that. In fact, the interview suggests quite the opposite, e.g. "But if I find evidence there isn't a God then as a scientist that would satisfy me too".

On this website about the book it says: "Needless to say, the 'seven day' creation story, where the universe and life were supposedly created in seven actual days, along with other irrational ideas will not be entertained in the The Genesis Enigma, with its logical and commonsense rationale."

And on the book blurb at Amazon, it says: "Does modern science - while agreeing with Darwinian evolution, the big bang theory and the complexity and deep age of the universe - prove the order of events as described in the Bible to be true? In engrossing detail, respected scientist Andrew Parker brings the latest discoveries of science to bear on this controversial and contentious question."

I'd say he's still just as much a scientist as ever, but he's re-thinking some of his metaphysics in the light of his science.

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I'd say he's still just as much a scientist as ever, but he's re-thinking some of his metaphysics in the light of his science.

You still don't get it ercatli.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Do you still he think has satisfied the scientific elements?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

OK. So you think "he might very well have changed his mind". So it is just a suspicion then?

Holy crap, you are a troll! That's twice now I've mentioned qualifying my statement with "seem". It can't be that you didn't spot it. I told you from the outset that it wasn't a cast iron assertion on my part, and indeed it was a question I've emailed directly to Dr. Parker.

Do you actually see any evidence that he has changed his mind about the eye? I understand you think that if he believes in God then he may have somehow lost his science, but have you any evidence that that is the case? (After all, I assume evidence is what a "league of reason" is all about?)

You say the second 'Let there be light"¦' refers to the evolution of the eye but you edited out the rest of the line, which clearly refers to the Sun, Moon and stars. There's no mention in Genesis of the evolution of the eye.
Um, OK. I'll probably have a look at this in more detail again. The first page of the Bible doesn't spell out the eye but it doesn't spell out any of the science in detail.

Quote mining in order to fit the eye into Genesis? Now, remember I said "seem". You are stretching the issue further than is needed. He knows how the eye has evolved; he may have abandoned his intellectual position on that knowledge. Since he thinks a whole bunch of other nonsense, I wouldn't be surprised.

the interview suggests quite the opposite, e.g. "But if I find evidence there isn't a God then as a scientist that would satisfy me too".

I have to cf that with

But what I'm saying is that if the evidence doesn't necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we're better off with religion.

How he can think the evidence he's found for God - evidence which he arrived at by stripping out the bits of Genesis that he doesn't think works - is compelling, is just another indication of his stumbling. The world is full of evidence that there isn't a god. No claim of God has EVER been proved true. Hoyle was dismayed by the complexity of physical laws and arrived at the conclusion that it was all fine tuned by a God; this seems very similar as a conversion.

I'd say he's still just as much a scientist as ever, but he's re-thinking some of his metaphysics in the light of his science.

I KNOW he's removed things like the 7-day creation story. But on what basis? "They don't work?" My issue is how he knows that the bits he's left are somehow more accurate. He thinks that Genesis matches up to science very precisely - but only after removing all the stuff he doesn't like.

Quite how he can label some things from Genesis as irrational, whilst not seeing how his own work is unscientific and irrational in the treatment of the subject matter and hypothesis, is . . . strange.

Ladiesman has it right. It's not scientific to even consider god as any kind of cause for anything, considering the lack of any sort of proof. The interview was full of contradictions. Thinking Genesis has it right (once the incorrect bits are excised, of course) without considering the scriptures of other religions as source material? That's not scientific. That's picking a sample group of one on which to base your hypothesis. Not good times.