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

[australopithecus]

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.

What he's doing is cherry picking and quote mining the bits of Genesis (very badly, it has to be said) that he thinks lends evidentiary support to his claim, and ignoring the bits he knows contradict it. He's doing what all creationists do, they're starting with a presupposed conclusion, then desperately trying to validate it with whatever they can. Whether he's supporting god-directed evolution of the eye or blatant spontaneous generation literalism is irrelevent, he's arguing from the 'God did it' conclusion, and quote mining Genesis to try and support the claim. If I was to judge his scientific credibilty based on this, then I'm afraid he'd get a very bad score.

He may very well be a brilliant biologist, but in this instance what he has done is not at all scientific.

 

[ercatli]

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

Hey guys,

I'm sorry if I've upset you, I certainly didn't mean to.

Let me make it clear. I haven't read this book, I don't know what I think of it or Dr Parker. I was responding to one and only one statement by Th1sWasATriumph: "Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"

Now I understand he/you said "seem" and that it was a surmise rather than a definite statement. But I nevertheless thought the facts showed that it was mistaken, and so I have tried to make that point, and question you about your reasons/evidence for making the surmise.

My reasons for thinking the statement mistaken have been given several times - he is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford Uni working primarily in the area of the evolution of sight, and has published and consulted on that subject, so he must know how the eye evolved. I don't see how anyone could reasonably say otherwise.

But you guys seem to have confused that with whether his views on Genesis are scientific and/or valid, a completely different question I would have thought.

So let me ask you: Are you saying that because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research? In particular, do you still think "he doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? If so, what evidence can you offer to show that conclusion?

Thanks.

 

[australopithecus]

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

So let me ask you: Are you saying that because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research?

I'd say if he's willing to stoop to such levels then I'd be less inclinded to give his opinion much credibility. That said he may be a great biologist, I'm not familiar with his work so I can't make a call on that, but if he's willing to quote mine Genesis in order to support a presupposed conclusion then I'd be weary of his work post-this book.

In particular, do you still think "he doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? If so, what evidence can you offer to show that conclusion?

He probably understands the mechanics of occular evolution, but if he's bringing deities on board to try and give them credit then whether he 'gets' it or not, he's still being an arse.

 

[ladiesman391]

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

So let me ask you: Are you saying that because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research? In particular, do you still think "he doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"? If so, what evidence can you offer to show that conclusion?

I don't have any more time to waste on explaining things to you, as Th1sWasATriumph said you appear to be a troll, so i'll give you one word answers:

"Are you saying that because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research?" YES!

"do you still think "he doesn't get how the eye could have evolved"?" NO! (In my opinion he knows how the eye evolved but is now using God as the instigator of evolution, which he can't prove.)

" If so, what evidence can you offer to show that conclusion?" NO evidence needed as I answered NO to the previous question.

 

[ercatli]

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

I don't have any more time to waste on explaining things to you, as Th1sWasATriumph said you appear to be a troll

I'm sorry I've apparently upset you but I really don't know why. All I've done is ask a few questions - does that make me a troll? Or would you rather people didn't ask questions?

Anyway, thanks for at least answering. It seems you (and australopithecus) don't agree with Th1sWasATriumph's original statement that "Parker would seem to be one of those people who doesn't get how the eye could have evolved", for you say "In my opinion he knows how the eye evolved" and australopithecus says "He probably understands the mechanics of occular evolution".

I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research, but that is your business. I was hoping for some evidence to support that conclusion, but I guess you aren't going to do that. * Sigh *

Thank you for responding, and best wishes.

 

[ercatli]

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

Guys,

Thank you for responding so far. I seem to have upset you, but I don't know why, and I'm sorry. So it is best to depart before things get nasty. Let me sum up.

Th1sWasATriumph made a statement that I thought was contradictory to the evidence, and therefore not reasonable. I thought a "League of reason" would be concerned about this. I asked him about it and first he defended his view, then pointed out that it was only a suggestion or a surmise or a speculation. But when I suggested the evidence was against his view and asked for evidence in favour, he has not done so but called me a troll instead.

It seems to me there was three responses he could have made to me:

1. Agree the statement was a bit wild and unjustified.
2. Offer some decent reasons and evidence for his statement.
3. Call me a troll because 1 & 2 were too hard or he couldn't be bothered.

It is a pity that you all seem to have drifted towards 3, but c'est la vie! And it could have been a beautiful friendship! : ) I will continue to watch developments on this matter elsewhere.

Best wishes.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

All I've done is ask a few questions - does that make me a troll? Or would you rather people didn't ask questions?

You exhibit trollish qualities when I answer your question multiple times and you keep on asking it.

Let me try once more by requoting myself:

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.

There. Understand? He did understand ocular evolution, and presumably still does; however I find it at least possible that his mind has changed and led him to reject his previous knowledge, if he's capable of the sort of logicfails exhibited in his latest work.

I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research, but that is your business. I was hoping for some evidence to support that conclusion, but I guess you aren't going to do that.

The research he conducted for his Genesis Enigma book was unscientific at best. We have all provided details and evidence for this. He chose one sample out of potentially many, and then cherry picked the bits that supported his presupposition. However reputable and accurate his previous work is, this definitely isn't. As far as ocular evolution goes, I'd put it like this: Antony Flew presumably still understands a lot of his atheist philosophy against God - but he does he still subscribe to it? Parker's change in direction is extreme. It may not affect previous work of his, but it affects current and potential future work.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

Th1sWasATriumph made a statement that I thought was contradictory to the evidence, and therefore not reasonable. I thought a "League of reason" would be concerned about this. I asked him about it and first he defended his view, then pointed out that it was only a suggestion or a surmise or a speculation. But when I suggested the evidence was against his view and asked for evidence in favour, he has not done so but called me a troll instead.

I've tried a number of times to make my response and have clearly stated my evidence and reasons.

1. Agree the statement was a bit wild and unjustified.

Based on what I now know, my initial surmise was incorrect in its premise - however the end result is quite possibly the same. Whatever he once knew about the eye, if he's willing to shoehorn his speculation into the bible by unscientific means it's possible the fundamentals of his thoughts have changed.

2. Offer some decent reasons and evidence for his statement.

I did. Quite a few times.

3. Call me a troll because 1 & 2 were too hard or he couldn't be bothered.

Call you a troll because you seemed bound to ignore No.2, more like.

 

[ladiesman391]

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.

I was just about to bring that quote up, see ercatli he did answer your question, eat worms buddy.

I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research, but that is your business. I was hoping for some evidence to support that conclusion, but I guess you aren't going to do that.

We have all given evidence as to why there is no scientific credibility to using Genesis as a part of a thesis or science book and as you have said yourself "I can't understand how you can say...", there's no lack of evidence on our part, but there is a severe lacking in your ability to understand it.

 

[ercatli]

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

Based on what I now know, my initial surmise was incorrect in its premise

That was all I was asking for. Thanks.

I pressed on because you took a few steps to get here - first defending your statement, second saying it wasn't a definite statement, but still defending it, third calling me a troll for pressing the point, and only now, for the first time, agreeing that the statement was not justified. I'm truly sorry you found the process annoying, but I was simply pressing a point which we now actually all agree on.

Again, thank you, I appreciate that, and I apologise for any bad impression I gave. Can we part friends? : )

 

[ercatli]

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

We have all given evidence as to why there is no scientific credibility to using Genesis as a part of a thesis or science book ..... but there is a severe lacking in your ability to understand it.

I'm sorry mate, but there's only one problem with this.

I have never offered an opinion on whether his book is scientifically credible.

So any evidence you have given there was not relevant to my question. (Although I didn't think you offered any actual evidence there, only opinion.)

All I have ever asked was the justification for Th1sWasATriumph's statement about Parker not understanding the evolution of the eye. We all now agree that this was a mistaken allegation, given Parker's research record, so by definition, no-one offered any evidence for the statement. I pressed on because although you admitted the statement was unjustified, he didn't until now.

But now we are all agreed, the discussion has reached a happy conclusion and we can all go home. Hopefully we will all be more careful about making allegations in the future that cannot be supported, in which case we will all have profited from the exchange.

Again, my apologies for upsetting you, but it seems like we have at least accomplished something. Best wishes.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

I'm truly sorry you found the process annoying, but I was simply pressing a point which we now actually all agree on.

Thing is, I said from quite an early stage that he DID understand the eye. I'm not sure why you needed me to formally announce how my initial surmise was just that, a surmise, when my subsequent answers to you implied it clearly.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

I have never offered an opinion on whether his book is scientifically credible.

All I have ever asked was the justification for Th1sWasATriumph's statement about Parker not understanding the evolution of the eye.

Well, that's not strictly true:

I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research, but that is your business.

Are you saying that because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research?

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 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 think those questions and statements are what led to the discussion of Parker's current credibility as a scientist and researcher, especially in light of his most recent work. You certainly offered an opinion on whether the book is scientifically credible when you said "'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 made a few statements and questions asking whether he's still being scientific, defending his integrity - your opinion on the book is that it's scientifically credible, based on these statements. Our position is that, because his most recent work is a bit of a sciencefail, he's not currently being scientific. Nothing to do with his previous work at all. Right now, he lost the game.

 

[ercatli]

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

Thing is, I said from quite an early stage that he DID understand the eye. I'm not sure why you needed me to formally announce how my initial surmise was just that, a surmise, when my subsequent answers to you implied it clearly.

I don't want to be difficult when we have agreed about the original point, but I think this is worth continuing a little longer. Because, unless I have misread the discussion, this statement is not correct.

I have tracked through the discussion, and it goes like this (#xx refers to post number in this discussion):

#5. My initial question critical of your statement that Parker didn't understand how the eye evolved.
#6. You defended your statement.
#7. I re-stated my question.
#8. You qualified your statement by pointing out the word "seem", but you still defended your statement.
#11. I questioned you again.
#15. Again you pointed to "seem" but still defended the statement.
#18. I said "so it's just a suspicion?".
#20. You referred to "seem" again and called me a troll.
#22. I asked whether you had evidence for your tentative conclusion, because I felt there was evidence against it.
#26. I summed up, drawing attention to the fact that you were still supporting your tentative statement.
#27. You agreed he did understand and retracted your original statement.
#30. I concluded.

Now you see that sequence is pretty much what I summarised in a previous post. It took 6 posts by me and 5 responses by you for you to move from defense, to qualification, to mild insult to retraction. As far as I can see, you didn't say "from quite an early stage that he DID understand the eye". You qualified your statement to "it seems he doesn't understand" from early on, but it took all that time for you to admit that he did understand.

So it was a worthwhile process, especially as it can help illustrate my next point.

You certainly offered an opinion on whether the book is scientifically credible when you said "'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 made a few statements and questions asking whether he's still being scientific, defending his integrity - your opinion on the book is that it's scientifically credible, based on these statements.

See, here is another example of you jumping to false conclusions. Let me make a few things quite clear.

• I have not read the book, so can have no real opinion about it. If you haven't read the book, I recommend you take a similar attitude, which is one of reason.
• It is not true that my "opinion on the book is that it's scientifically credible". I have no idea how good or bad the book is. I would doubt it was science in the strict sense of the word, because it seems to go beyond science into metaphysics, but I don't really know that.
• My statement "'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" says nothing about the book, only about him, and is based on the evidence that he is a respected researcher. Scientists can and do many things that are not scientific - loving their partners, doing the shopping, listening to music and going to the toilet, etc - but none of them necessarily makes them less of a scientist. We have to judge on the evidence - reason again.

So this too is instructive. You believe Parker is wrong, perhaps without ever reading his book. Your eagerness to criticise him apparently leads you to make an unfortunate statement about his understanding of the evolution of the eye. (I'm guessing you didn't realise then that this was his area of specialisation?) Then when I question your statement, you and several others assume (wrongly) that I'm defending Parker's whole viewpoint, and attribute to me several viewpoints that I have never expressed and in fact don't hold.

Like I said at the start, I think there is a lesson here. Reason requires us to be reasonable, not rabid. We need to respond to what people actually say, not to what we think they are saying. And to do that we need to actually read what they say before we launch into criticism. My posting here was to make that one point.

I'm sorry to lecture you a little here, especially as I genuinely respect you for being willing to retract (many people wouldn't do that), but it was in response to your continued misunderstanding of me. If you write a blog and express your opinions freely, I hope you can accept my expressing my views in return. Thanks for providing me with that opportunity.

Best wishes.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

That post puts you squarely back on the "troll" platter. From a very early stage I was making the point that he did understand the eye but may now have abandoned this knowledge in light of his study of Genesis, and my support of this was the quote mine that Graeme Green pointed out.
You are making it seem as if I suddenly reversed my position and said that he did understand in my last post, which is complete nonsense. I've been saying it since my second reply to you, I think. Your insistence on a formal retraction can only, in my mind, be attributed to pettyness considering I've been agreeing that he understood the eye from an early stage - with the rider that whatever he once knew or understood may now be anathema to him. Now that, certainly, is a surmise - but considering the nature of his book and research and the interview, it's a fairly reasonable one.

In fact, in my first reply to you we find this (useful bits underlined):

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.

Which is me addressing his work on the eye in light of his Genesis Enigma book.

And my second reply to you was fairly unequivocal:

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.

In light of that, your statement

As far as I can see, you didn't say "from quite an early stage that he DID understand the eye". You qualified your statement to "it seems he doesn't understand" from early on, but it took all that time for you to admit that he did understand.

becomes manifestly incorrect. I started calling you a troll because you kept forcing the issue of Parker understanding the eye despite me saying repeatedly that he DID, just quite possibly has abandoned that understanding. And I was saying that almost from the start of our debate.

My statement "'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" says nothing about the book, only about him, and is based on the evidence that he is a respected researcher. Scientists can and do many things that are not scientific - loving their partners, doing the shopping, listening to music and going to the toilet, etc - but none of them necessarily makes them less of a scientist. We have to judge on the evidence - reason again.

On the contrary. It says everything about the book. Sure, a scientist can do unscientific things, but I don't think many people would assume that loving, or doing shopping, or having poop, actually interferes with their scientific career. Also, those things aren't unscientific in the sense of being directly oppositional to scientific thinking - they are just not directly related to science. You are trying to equate day to day activities with an actual BOOK OF SCIENCE that he has written, which is subtitled "Why Genesis is scientifically accurate". It's not as if a scientist's work and his credibility are disconnected from each other. If a scientist writes a book which is unscientific, his credibility suffers. You were trying to say that he's as scientific as ever, which would infer that his new work is as scientific as ever. Since this is a science book, his scientific attitude is directly linked to it. Had he written an unscientific book that didn't attempt to masquerade as science, his credibility and scientificness (that should be a word) would be unaffected.

We have to judge on the evidence

The evidence from the interview is enough, surely? He admits that he's decided to remove the bits of Genesis that he doesn't think works, to the extent of truncating a single verse to support his argument (and he gets called out on this.) He hasn't researched a healthy number of other religious texts in order to make a comparison, which would be the scientific way of assessment; his book is on Genesis. Scientists don't take a sample group of one and base all their conclusions on it. And - let's not forget - he thinks God actually exists. He believes in the existence of something which has never been proved, based on evidence he's gathered by cutting the source material for his research into workable bits (but only one particular God, of course, because he ignored other religious texts). Bear in mind, this isn't a book of theology. This isn't something he's written as a result of burgeoning faith as an offshoot of his work. He is saying that Genesis is scientifically accurate. He is a scientist; his recent work is incredibly unscientific yet is written as science; his credibility suffers. I don't see how you can possibly defend him as being as scientific as he ever was in the light of all this. Do we really need to read the book, considering the interview?

Like I said at the start, I think there is a lesson here. Reason requires us to be reasonable, not rabid. We need to respond to what people actually say, not to what we think they are saying. And to do that we need to actually read what they say before we launch into criticism. My posting here was to make that one point.

Well, I have responded to what he's actually said.
And not that it's really important - certainly no more than a personal annoyance - but the similarity in jacket design between TGE and TGD is really quite great. More suspicions. It makes it look like a deliberate, direct rebuttal.

 

[ladiesman391]

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

ercatli, just for arguments sake, are you a christian or deist, atheist, muslim etc ?

I have not read the book, so can have no real opinion about it. If you haven't read the book, I recommend you take a similar attitude, which is one of reason.

Yet you also said

I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research

That sounds like an opinion in relation to his book to me, so how you can dispute anything Th1sWasATriumph or myself has said about Parkers latest works if you haven't read the book either? By disputing or discussing any comments made in relation to Parkers book you are contradicting your own words "I have not read the book, so can have no real opinion about it."...

Also I think Parker's new works fits this description to a tee:
"Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation." - Wikipedia.

 

[ercatli]

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

And my second reply to you was fairly unequivocal:

"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 can see where the problem is. In the statement "he DID understand", the word "did" is past tense, which you contrast with his present views, which you question.

So the plain meaning of your posts is exactly as I outlined in my previous post, that you didn't think his current understanding of the eye was good, regardless of how it was in the past. It was only later that you clearly agreed that his present understanding was probably as good as his past understanding.

If your intention from early on was to speak of Parker's present views, but you unfortunately used the past tense, then Iet's agree your use of tense was misleading and let the matter rest, shall we?

If a scientist writes a book which is unscientific, his credibility suffers.

The point is, you haven't demonstrated this yet. You've not given any indication you've actually read it, and you've not offered clear evidence that the book is unscientific. You've just assumed it. You may well be right, but reason surely requires you do the work first.

Further, his purpose may be to write something not so much scientific as metaphysical. Again, you need to read it before you judge.

he thinks God actually exists. He believes in the existence of something which has never been proved, based on evidence he's gathered by cutting the source material for his research into workable bits

This is another example of assumption presented as fact. Does he think God actually exists? I don't think the interview says that. He thinks this is the best evidence he's seen for God, but doesn't say what he concludes from it. he says: "I don't think I've proved the existence of God. I've proved there is space in the universe where God might exist." Notice the word "might"? And also: "what I'm saying is that if the evidence doesn't necessarily point one way or another" - which again shows uncertainty.

But I'm not sure there's much point in discussing further. You seem willing to jump to conclusions in ways that don't reflect reason to me. I only joined this thread to make the point about your statement about his understanding of the eye, which I could see was mistaken. I think many of your other views about him are assumptions also, but I can't imagine us getting anywhere on them if we have had so much trouble getting to a conclusion here.

So having made my point, I'm not sure we should take it much further. What do you think?

 

[ercatli]

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

"I have not read the book, so can have no real opinion about it. If you haven't read the book, I recommend you take a similar attitude, which is one of reason."
Yet you also said
"I can't understand how you can then say because he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science, that makes him less of a scientist when he is conducting his research"
That sounds like an opinion in relation to his book to me, so how you can dispute anything Th1sWasATriumph or myself has said about Parkers latest works if you haven't read the book either? By disputing or discussing any comments made in relation to Parkers book you are contradicting your own words "I have not read the book, so can have no real opinion about it."...

Oh c'mon mate! Saying "he has written a book that finds parallels between Genesis and evolutionary science" is expressing an opinion???? Surely that's a fact that no-one disputes (regardless of whether we agree with the book or not)? I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here! What other "opinion" have I expressed?

As for disputing what you have said, I have consistently indicated my main problem was not that I thought you were wrong about Parker, but that you offered no evidence. I am pretty disappointed in this post - it doesn't show the "League of Reason" in a very good light!

It's OK to realise you let your enthusiasm get the better of you. Better just accept it and move on, not try to justify yourself in this way.

So let's just can the rest of the discussion, shall we?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

I can see where the problem is. In the statement "he DID understand", the word "did" is past tense, which you contrast with his present views, which you question.

So the plain meaning of your posts is exactly as I outlined in my previous post, that you didn't think his current understanding of the eye was good, regardless of how it was in the past. It was only later that you clearly agreed that his present understanding was probably as good as his past understanding.

This is becoming semantic tense juggling. If he DID understand, he still possesses that knowledge - he may simply have rejected it. I could decide to play piano instead of guitar, but I'd still know how to play guitar. Do I really need to spell out things that are clearly inferred? I believe I mentioned Flew, and how he would still understand his older philosophy even if he no longer follows it.

The point is, you haven't demonstrated this yet.

A scientist who suddenly comes out with a book that's speculative, narrow and based on clear manipulation of the source material - that is not going to help credibility in scientific circles.

You've not given any indication you've actually read it, and you've not offered clear evidence that the book is unscientific.

I have not read it. I kind of thought that an interview with the author is good enough to begin with. The evidence is massively, abundantly clear for it being unscientific - I suppose I'll have to make a handy list for you or something.
1) Study of only one sample to reach the conclusion (evidenced by the interview)
2) Manipulation and excisement of this one sample in order to make the "facts" fit (as evidenced by the interview)
3) Using this manipulated data as positive proof for God despite the data being manipulated, which negates the research in the first place (in the interview.)


Seriously, how can you possibly disagree? His statements from the interview bear all the hallmarks of someone who is bypassing standard scientific enquiry to serve their own personal presupposition.

You've just assumed it. You may well be right, but reason surely requires you do the work first.

I have done the work. Read the interview again and see if you can disagree.

Further, his purpose may be to write something not so much scientific as metaphysical.

His stated aim in the writing of the book is to demonstrate how Genesis is compatible with scientific thought. The book is even subtitled "Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate". You may make whatever excuses you feel necessary (I don't see how you can suggest his intentions are metaphysical when YOU haven't read the book either; at least my speculation on the purpose of the book is borne out by hefty evidence) but his aim and claims are to show how the Bible is compatible with science. It is a scientific book.

Does he think God actually exists? I don't think the interview says that. He thinks this is the best evidence he's seen for God, but doesn't say what he concludes from it. he says: "I don't think I've proved the existence of God. I've proved there is space in the universe where God might exist." Notice the word "might"? And also: "what I'm saying is that if the evidence doesn't necessarily point one way or another" - which again shows uncertainty.

The book is based on the conclusion that Genesis was written with divine intervention:

You have to conclude that either the author made extremely lucky guesses or something strange was going on: divine inspiration.

He may seem to show uncertainty, but this quote shows where his thoughts really lie:

But if I find evidence there isn't a God then as a scientist that would satisfy me too.

which implies that currently he thinks he's found evidence that there IS, fair to say? He's convinced by his own research. And for a scientist to say that the evidence doesn't point one way or the other . . . his proof is based on personally manipulated evidence. I hate to keep going back to that point, but it's balls. It's a horrible position to adopt.

Also, since the book is titled "Why the bible is scientifically accurate", that logically means that he believes his statements about there being divine intervention in the writing of it. He's not suggesting it; he's saying it "is". No uncertainty there. And that means, based on his comments in the interview, that he thinks divine intervention is directly confirmed.

But I'm not sure there's much point in discussing further. You seem willing to jump to conclusions in ways that don't reflect reason to me. I only joined this thread to make the point about your statement about his understanding of the eye, which I could see was mistaken. I think many of your other views about him are assumptions also, but I can't imagine us getting anywhere on them if we have had so much trouble getting to a conclusion here.

I really can't see that I'm jumping to conclusions bar the thing about the eye. Feel free to quit this if you want. However, I'm also interested in your personal beliefs. Atheist? Christian? Agnostic? Muslim? The fervour with which you're responding to me, especially considering you became a member purely for that reason, is suggesting to me some sort of deeper agenda. I genuinely can't see how you can think he's been scientific (when he isn't) or that he's being metaphysical (when the point of the book is clearly to explain Genesis in light of modern science.) I've shown clearly that he believes in God and is unscientific in this new work. If you think I'm being unreasonable, that's entirely your affair.

 

[ladiesman391]

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

I second everything that Th1sWasATriumph has said in the post directly above especially the bit about your own personal religious beliefs ercatli??