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

[ercatli]

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

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 agree. There is no need to discuss further. You have agreed that he does understand the evolution of the eye, and that was all I was trying to point out. Let's leave it there.

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.)

I don't understand how your (1) is relevant. Yes perhaps (2) is true, but you haven't demonstrated it. You haven't demonstrated (3) either, for in the interview he is uncertain in his statements about his belief in God, as I showed in my last post.

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.

Your standards of evidence must be less than mine. If I was to interpret the interview, and the other material about the book which I referenced and which you don't mention, I would say the process appears to be this:

1. He is a formidable evolutionary biologist, and far from letting that knowledge go, it is his starting assumption.
2. Using that knowledge, he approaches Genesis and finds in it certain parallels with his (quite orthodox) evolutionary understanding.
3. Yes, he may be criticised for an unusual interpretation of Genesis, but that is a matter of historical literature, not science.

In support of this interpretation (which I accept is only provisional), check out his book's website (have you done that?).

• It says: "our scientific understanding of the history of the earth and of life has become complete", indicating he is basing his book on that.
• Then it says: "The Genesis Enigma reveals that this scientific understanding corresponds precisely with the creation account in Genesis.", indicating again that he takes the science as his basis, and then checks out Genesis to see how it fits.
• Then: "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.". Clearly, he is not using Genesis to interpret science, but science to understand Genesis.
• Then: "In fact the order and sequences of events in the entire Genesis creation account is astonishingly accurate." Again, "accurate" means the discoveries of science, and he is judging Genesis by how well it agrees with science.

Thus I think it is clear that your accusations are mistaken. He holds to science, and finds, perhaps quite fancifully, that Genesis agrees with it.

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

My point is that you haven't done the work, or at least you haven't shown evidence that you have done the work. I'm suggesting you read the interview and jumped to some conclusions. Tell me honestly:

1. When you made the comment about the eye, were you aware this was his speciality? (I wasn't, until I looked it up on Google.)
2. Before you wrote your blog comments, did you check out his own website, check what other interviews said, reviews of the book on Amazon, etc? (I did, and that's how I concluded your comments were poorly based.)

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".

Yes, so he starts with the truth of science, and tests Genesis accordingly. The fact that you disagree with his reported conclusions doesn't mean his science is wrong, but his conclusions about Genesis may be wrong. That is the difference.

but his aim and claims are to show how the Bible is compatible with science. It is a scientific book.

So, which part of science does he present wrongly???

which implies that currently he thinks he's found evidence that there IS, fair to say?

Yes, but we need to define "evidence". When I check the definition and usage, I find it means facts or reasons to believe something. But there can be conflicting evidence, as often occurs in court, and also in science. So he is saying its the strongest evidence he's seen for God's existence, but, presumably, as an atheist, he has, or used to have, evidence against God's existence also. he then has to weigh up the evidence for and against, and see where he ends up. My guess is that he's now leaning towards belief in God, but I would think the evidence allows us to say definitely.

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.

Let's leave aside my personal beliefs for the moment, though I'm happy to discuss later if it seems profitable. Let me outline my motives.

I came across the same interview you reported. I was interested, because he seemed to be coming from a totally different perspective from either atheists or christians. So I thought I'd "research" it a little more. I came across other reviews and then his personal website about him and the book, and the Amazon summary of the book. Then I came across your comments, which seemed to me to not have been based on the material I had read, and therefore contained several blatant inaccuracies and a lot of assumptions. All this on a page entitled "League of reason".

I don't have an opinion yet on Parker's thesis, but I prefer to remain open-minded until I have more information. So I was a little irked by your rush to judgment, with very limited information. I chose just one simple statement (about the eye) because I thought that would be easy to settle and made the point that we needed more evidence before we rushed into print with our preconceived views.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but I don't see a lot of point in discussing unless we can get some clarity on the matters I've mentioned above. Over to you. Best wishes.

 

[ladiesman391]

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

1. He is a formidable evolutionary biologist, and far from letting that knowledge go, it is his starting assumption.
2. Using that knowledge, he approaches Genesis and finds in it certain parallels with his (quite orthodox) evolutionary understanding.
3. Yes, he may be criticised for an unusual interpretation of Genesis, but that is a matter of historical literature, not science.

1. Yes he was.
2. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
3.The Bible is theological literature which renders Parkers book a hybrid of theology and evolution which is known as theistic evolution and "Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense" - Wikipedia.

My point is that you haven't done the work, or at least you haven't shown evidence that you have done the work. I'm suggesting you read the interview and jumped to some conclusions. Tell me honestly:

1. When you made the comment about the eye, were you aware this was his speciality? (I wasn't, until I looked it up on Google.)
2. Before you wrote your blog comments, did you check out his own website, check what other interviews said, reviews of the book on Amazon, etc? (I did, and that's how I concluded your comments were poorly based.)

1.In regards to this issue you stated earlier in your post "There is no need to discuss further. You have agreed that he does understand the evolution of the eye, and that was all I was trying to point out. Let's leave it there.".
2. I agree with Th1sWasATriumph in that the interview contains sufficient evidence to form an opinion on Parkers latest works, regardless of his speciality, an appeal to authority does not instantly make everything that person says true now does it ercatli? I hope you agree....

I'm an atheist (as there is no proof of a God and quote mining from the Bible and mixing it with a scientific theory does not constitute proof) and I think your own personal beliefs are relevant as it helps identify any bias you may have...

*note: click on the yellow writing to follow the links for explanations of the terms and I'd appreciate you read them before replying to my post, thanks.*

 

[ercatli]

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

G'day ladiesman,

It may come as a shock to you, but I am already familiar with the terms Occam's Razor (though I think it should be spelt "Ockham"), quote mining and theistic evolution.

But unfortunately I have nothing to say right now. I'm no longer sure what we are disputing. We are all agreed that my original criticism of the statement about Parker's knowledge of the evolution of the eye was valid, and we need no longer discuss it. That, and the corollary that we should better support our opinions with valid evidence, was really my only point.

What other points did you wish to make? It isn't entirely clear to me. (Sorry.)

 

[ladiesman391]

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

It may come as a shock to you, but I am already familiar with the terms Occam's Razor (though I think it should be spelt "Ockham"), quote mining and theistic evolution.

Ockham, occam depends on which dictionary you read, but if you understand these concepts how can you say:

He holds to science, and finds, perhaps quite fancifully, that Genesis agrees with it.

It's the "holds to science" bit i'm really focusing on, how can he still "hold to science" whilst quote mining genesis as a scientific reference, can you explain to me how that's possible because I don't understand that part of your argument? I understand that he is a biologist and has probably used some genuine scientific evidence in his book, but how can mixing it with religion to develop and support a theory (theistic evolution, not a scientific theory) be considered still holding to science?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

I don't understand how your (1) is relevant.

Because to look at only one sample in the pursuit of a particular hypothesis is equivalent to only digging one hole in an excavation site and basing your conclusions on the limited, or nonexistent, evidence you uncover. To simply address Genesis by itself, instead of all the other creation myths of other religions, is unscientific. There's a movement that believes the Qur'an predates science in very similar ways to Genesis - why hasn't he researched that?

Yes perhaps (2) is true, but you haven't demonstrated it.

I'm sorry, but are you [I had to edit this]? That sounds like throwaway adhom, but seriously! How can you fail to see how I've demonstrated it?</I>

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.

Also:

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

Parker has quote mined Genesis and decided which bits are and aren't irrational. Such is my demonstration of point 2.

You haven't demonstrated (3) either, for in the interview he is uncertain in his statements about his belief in God, as I showed in my last post.

And I demonstrated that he is, if not certain, as near as dammit. Do I have to quote myself back at you or can I trust you to read my post again?

There was the quote about how he'd accept proof against God, which shows where he currently stands. There's all the stuff about how he thinks that Genesis is scientifically accurate and that could only have happened with divine intervention, which shows he thinks God must exist in order for his conclusion to be true.

1. He is a formidable evolutionary biologist, and far from letting that knowledge go, it is his starting assumption.

Let's not go crazy. Formidable is altogether too emotive a word to apply here. He's a learned biologist. However . . . so what? Argument from authority? Hoyle was a skilled physicist, does that mean when he decided the universe was fine tuned by a deity he was right? Flew was a great philosopher, does that mean when he changed his mind he was right? His knowledge may be his starting assumption, but unfortunately he manipulates genesis to fit with it.

2. Using that knowledge, he approaches Genesis and finds in it certain parallels with his (quite orthodox) evolutionary understanding.
3. Yes, he may be criticised for an unusual interpretation of Genesis, but that is a matter of historical literature, not science.

Criticised for an unusual interpretation? Sweet Jesus! He approaches Genesis, manipulates it, quote mines it, excises it and then ends up with a hypothesis that fits. It's NOT a matter of historical literature. He has manipulated his sample, which HAPPENS to be historical literature (although, of course, I really wouldn't label the bible as historical literaure.)

In support of this interpretation (which I accept is only provisional), check out his book's website (have you done that?).

• It says: "our scientific understanding of the history of the earth and of life has become complete", indicating he is basing his book on that.
• <I>Then it says: "The Genesis Enigma reveals that this scientific understanding corresponds precisely with the creation account in Genesis.", indicating again that he takes the science as his basis, and then checks out Genesis to see how it fits.
• Then: "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.". Clearly, he is not using Genesis to interpret science, but science to understand Genesis.
• Then: "In fact the order and sequences of events in the entire Genesis creation account is astonishingly accurate." Again, "accurate" means the discoveries of science, and he is judging Genesis by how well it agrees with science.

Thus I think it is clear that your accusations are mistaken. He holds to science, and finds, perhaps quite fancifully, that Genesis agrees with it.

Don't you see that's the problem? He begins with science and then makes Genesis fit. He more or less admits to it, by not entertaining irrational ideas. It is NOT A LOGIC AND COMMONSENSE RATIONALE to base a scientific hypothesis on one manipulated sample. Of course Genesis is astonishingly accurate with science, in his book - he took out the bits that don't work!

1. When you made the comment about the eye, were you aware this was his speciality? (I wasn't, until I looked it up on Google.)

No, I was not. I was, however, aware that he is\was a biologist of some standing.

2. Before you wrote your blog comments, did you check out his own website, check what other interviews said, reviews of the book on Amazon, etc? (I did, and that's how I concluded your comments were poorly based.)

Didn't check out his website (to be honest, I don't see how his own website could be expected to provided any critical insight - your quoting of it shows this to be the case.) No other interviews, and I read some reviews - though frankly I'm not sure what other reviews matter, although the ones I read were all very critical. Using the words he personally spoke when questioned critically about his book is surely an excellent starting point, and I'm really not going to apologise for that. You seem hung up on my surmise about the eye. Just let it go, I thought you said we'd dealt with that? It has no bearing on what we're discussing now.

Yes, so he starts with the truth of science, and tests Genesis accordingly. The fact that you disagree with his reported conclusions doesn't mean his science is wrong, but his conclusions about Genesis may be wrong. That is the difference.

He DOESN'T TEST GENESIS ACCORDINGLY. He takes Genesis and, right from the start, CUTS OUT THE BITS he thinks don't fit. His research is incredibly unscientific both in premise and practise. I've said this multiple times and given examples: only using one creation myth from one religion, manipulating this one sample.

So, which part of science does he present wrongly???

The scientific method in general, really. He's written a scientific book which is based on a decidedly unscientific approach and hypothesis.

My guess is that he's now leaning towards belief in God, but I would think the evidence allows us to say definitely.

The problem is that whilst he may say he's not sure, and welcomes evidence against God . . . that just doesn't fit both with other comments from the interview and with the book itself. He's seemingly certain that Genesis is scientifically accurate, and this can only lead to the conclusion that he believes in God. He's stated that this, to him, is the far more realistic conclusion to be drawn from the book and his research. If he's not certain, he's certain enough to write a book called "Why the bible is scientifically accurate" and then say that the only way Genesis could be so precisely matched with science is divine intervention. Certainty? Perhaps he's still hedging his bets. But it's a damn close thing.

I came across other reviews and then his personal website about him and the book, and the Amazon summary of the book. Then I came across your comments, which seemed to me to not have been based on the material I had read, and therefore contained several blatant inaccuracies and a lot of assumptions. All this on a page entitled "League of reason".

The problem is that your sources really aren't any better than mine. Reviews on the internet? Well, what does that prove? The Amazon summary is more or less the officially endorsed blurb for the book, and has no critical insight into it. His personal website . . . how is that going to provide critique? Whereas I worked from an interview with the author himself, conducted by a skeptic, who asked quite a few questions which revealed Parker's approach, attitude and beliefs. That's FAR more useful information that what could be gathered from Parker's website, a neutral Amazon summary and several vox pop reviews.

So I was a little irked by your rush to judgment, with very limited information.

About the eye, your irk may be partially justified. About everything else, I don't see I've acted on very limited information. He's shown himself to be unscientific in a number of different ways.

 

[ercatli]

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

It's the "holds to science" bit i'm really focusing on, how can he still "hold to science" whilst quote mining genesis as a scientific reference, can you explain to me how that's possible because I don't understand that part of your argument? I understand that he is a biologist and has probably used some genuine scientific evidence in his book, but how can mixing it with religion to develop and support a theory (theistic evolution, not a scientific theory) be considered still holding to science?

Thanks mate, that's very clear. Here's my brief answers.

1. Neither of us has read the book, let's keep remembering that. We are only guessing, and definite statements about the book (which you two seem prone to make) cannot be justified. But my guess is that he is not using Genesis as a scientific reference. Rather he is using his conventional evolutionary science as his reference, and then examining Genesis in that light. My reasons for thinking this come from his book's website, which I referenced previously. Here is the reasoning again:

• It says: "our scientific understanding of the history of the earth and of life has become complete", indicating he is basing his book on that.
• Then it says: "The Genesis Enigma reveals that this scientific understanding corresponds precisely with the creation account in Genesis.", indicating again that he takes the science as his basis, and then checks out Genesis to see how it fits.
• Then: "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.". Clearly, he is not using Genesis to interpret science, but science to understand Genesis.
• Then: "In fact the order and sequences of events in the entire Genesis creation account is astonishingly accurate." Again, "accurate" means the discoveries of science, and he is judging Genesis by how well it agrees with science.

I think that is pretty clear. So can I suggest you either demonstrate with evidence that your view of what he is doing is correct, or accept this interpretation?

2. I don't really have any argument, I have made my main (only?) point. Here I am simply and continually pointing how much you and Th1sWasATriumph have made assumptions you haven't supported with evidence.

3. Theistic evolution are your words, I don't recall him using them anywhere (can you show where he has?), so I think it is another case of assumption without evidence. My guess (remember, neither of us has read the book) is that the book is not science but metaphysics, but it is based on impeccable science. I think you need to learn to separate science out from metaphysics. If an atheist can make a statement about God in a scientific context (e.g Richard Dawkins' comment that Darwin allowed him to be a fulfilled atheist) and not do harm to his science, then I can't see why Parker cannot do the same and say evolution allows him to consider being a fulfilled theist (if that is indeed the case, which neither of us really knows).

So my main answer is - you shouldn't form such strong opinions about a book you haven't read, and any opinion you do want to express should be more clearly explained and demonstrated (because I think your beef about his mix of science and religion hasn't been clearly explained, let alone demonstrated).

And that was why I raised all this in the first place. I don't have any particular view about Parker's book yet, but I think I have at least researched it slightly more than you two guys, and I objected to your making sweeping statements with little explanation and evidence.

Hope that answers the questions. I don't think I have any more to say, unless you do. Thanks for the discussion. Best wishes.

 

[borrofburi]

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

He begins with science and then makes Genesis fit... Of course Genesis is astonishingly accurate with science, in his book - he took out the bits that don't work!... He DOESN'T TEST GENESIS ACCORDINGLY. He takes Genesis and, right from the start, CUTS OUT THE BITS he thinks don't fit.

This is the primary problem. He admits to it himself:

If it was written with God's help, why is so much wrong?
It's the authors adding their artistic interpretation, shoehorning the facts into the type of story people would be able to understand.

This answer is pretty much "anything that's wrong is human, everything else is divine", this is NOT testing your source material, there's no falsifiability.


The other major problem with all this is that the bible could have easily been more scientifically accurate, as shown in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961HnrLqbTA

 

[ladiesman391]

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

But my guess is that he is not using Genesis as a scientific reference. Rather he is using his conventional evolutionary science as his reference, and then examining Genesis in that light.

So if I quote mined Hansel and Grettel and used nuclear physics as a reference and sub titled it "Why Hansel and Grettel is Scientifically Accurate" you would still think I'm holding to science? That I have written a "science" book?

 

[ercatli]

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

G'day Th1sWasATriumph

We seem to be falling foul of ercatli's rule for forums, where posts grow exponentially as each tries to answer every point of the other. I think it is time to break the cycle, so I'm not going to answer all your points. Instead I'm going to sum up, and invite you to respond to that. Here is my summary:

1. As we have now agreed, you made an injudicious statement about Parker's understanding of the evolution of the eye, and I objected to that. I don't say this to go over old ground, but to point out that the reason this occurred was that, on your own admission, you had not checked what his expertise was. In the vernacular, you went off half-cocked - not a sexist expression but one from gunfighting! : )

2. I am primarily suggesting that you have similarly "jumped the gun" in your overall assessment. You accuse a significant research scientist of being unscientific without having read his book, and without even having read what he says about the book on his own website. You don't even think it is necessary to have done that to understand what he is doing, for you say: "I don't see how his own website could be expected to provided any critical insight", as if we can judge a person's intentions without hearing their explanation! The strength of your opinions is disproportionate to the evidence you have gathered so far.

3. My quick summary of your main beef is that you disagree with his conclusion that perhaps God is the best explanation of the evolutionary facts, you think he has selectively used Genesis as if it was scientific in support of this unscientific theory (you use "quote mine" - in my view quite inaccurately - several times per post), and you think this makes him a poor scientist and his book poor science.

In all this you make assumptions, without any justification, about the sort of book he intended to write. You seem to assume that he was trying to write a scientific book on a par with his previous books which were clearly scientific.

4. I have at least researched Parker's views a little more than you have so far. My assessment, albeit still based on limited evidence, is that your assumptions are objectively, and almost entirely, in error. I have quoted from his website to point out quite clearly, from his own words, that his intention is different from the one you have assumed. He has not used Genesis as a scientific source (so he cannot have quote-mined it!) - rather, he has assumed orthodox evolutionary science and has tried to fit Genesis into it. You may legitimately criticise that effort, you may disagree with him, he may even be objectively wrong (though we can't know that until we read the book), but that is not science. In my view, based on his own statements, he assumes science, and tests what metaphysical conclusions he can come up with. And that is a valid and honourable pursuit, regularly attempted by atheists, theists and agnostics alike.

5. So my challenge to you is this:

(a) I suggest you modify you language of strident certainty to one of more circumspect uncertainty. Otherwise you make a mockery of the "reason" in your title, and you show more prejudice than reason.

(b) You either stop making the assumption that his book is using Genesis as a source of science and accept what I have pointed out from his own words (in which case the majority of your criticisms fall away) or else you behave scientifically and reasonably yourself and gather some evidence, read his own summary of the book, perhaps even (shock! horror!) read the book itself, and present a reasonable argument for your view that he is attempting to derive science from Genesis.

If you are unwilling to do these things, I don't see much point in continuing our discussion.

I hope this frankness doesn't upset you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but I feel we have to break the cycle somehow.

Best wishes.

 

[ercatli]

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

This answer is pretty much "anything that's wrong is human, everything else is divine", this is NOT testing your source material, there's no falsifiability.

G'day borrofburi, thanks for joining the discussion. This would be the sort of criticism that many christians or historians would make, I imagine - they would say poor understanding of history, or of historical literature. But I am guessing he is using evolutionary science to "test his source material", and is not much worried if he transgresses historically. But then, I haven't read the book, have you?

The other major problem with all this is that the bible could have easily been more scientifically accurate

I suppose you can say that, just as it could easily have been shorter or longer, or in cartoon form, or written in Swahili, or full of pictures, or ..... almost anything. But that observation doesn't really help the discussion.

Best wishes.

 

[ercatli]

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

So if I quote mined Hansel and Grettel and used nuclear physics as a reference and sub titled it "Why Hansel and Grettel is Scientifically Accurate" you would still think I'm holding to science? That I have written a "science" book?

Ah, ladiesman, more "quote mining!" Please see my note to your compadre where I suggest that this is an inappropriate phrase.

But your main point is exactly what I have been saying, so we have reached some agreement which is good. I have been saying all along that I'm guessing his book isn't a science book in the normal sense of the word. Rather, he uses science to draw some metaphysical (and perhaps some literary and historical) conclusions. That is why I think his book is not bad science, as has been accused, but may or may not be bad metaphysics based on good science.

So this is progress! Thanks, and best wishes.

 

[ladiesman391]

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

Ah, ladiesman, more "quote mining!" Please see my note to your compadre where I suggest that this is an inappropriate phrase.

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." Sorry, but I think it's very f$%king appropriate.

But your main point is exactly what I have been saying, so we have reached some agreement which is good.

Whoa, I never said I agreed with you, I asked you some questions to to understand your position better.

I have been saying all along that I'm guessing his book isn't a science book in the normal sense of the word.

It's definitely not a normal science book that is true, I understand what you are saying in that he is researching metaphysics and cosmology and he ties evolution in with God (which means he is going down the theistic evolution path, you can't deny that). So it's a book about evolution, metaphysics and cosmology (both considered philosophy) and theistic evolution, three of which are not considered modern science or follow scientific method so it cannot be considered a science book as such, as it does not satisfy the scientific method. His associates would criticise him for not following scientific method as whatever conclusions he draws in his book cannot be empirically or experimentally proven. The book is more of a personal opinion. The fact that he has quote mined the Bible distorts his metaphysical study even more and draws even more criticism upon himself. When he subtitles his book "Why the Bible is Scientifically Accurate" he is not necessarily incorrect, he may be able to find parallels between modern science and the Bible but this comes back to the Occams Razor theory, I'm sure anyone could pick up a science book and a fiction book and find some correlation between the two and say that the fiction book is scientifically accurate as there is parallels between it and a science book. All in all it's not very scientific to mix the Bible with modern science even if a correlation between the two exists and the modern science is accurate, it's kind of misleading and lazy really, the book will not be filed in the Science section in the library if it is I'm sure his associates would cry "foul".

 

[ercatli]

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

so it cannot be considered a science book as such

That is where we agree (as far as we can know anything when neither of us have read it!).

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." Sorry, but I think it's very f$%king appropriate.

You miss my point. All you say would be true if he was using the quotes to prove something scientific from Genesis, as say a creationist might. But he is not a creationist, and my understanding, which you seem to be agreeing with, is that he is seeing if Genesis can be understood in the light of modern evolutionary science. It would be quote mining if he cherry picked science, but not if he is interpreting Genesis based on science. You ought to be happy - he regards (I am assuming) science as his primary authority, and is interpreting Genesis accordingly.

But let's leave it shall we. We have reached some agreement over whether the book is science (we both think it is not, primarily) and hence whether it is bad science (if it is not science then it cannot be bad science). I don't actually care that much about the quote mining charge in this context as his approach appears to be common in the study of historical literature. I think further dispute would be pointless until either of us reads the book.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

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

I am busy for a little bit but will be replying when I can. However, in brief, considering I'm basing my stance on stuff Parker personally said in an interview ABOUT his book I don't see how I could be jumping to conclusions. Even starting from a perspective of science, fitting Genesis to it is utterly foolhardy! He is quote mining. He is cutting the bits that don't fit with his assumptions to support his hypothesis. How can that be anything BUT quote mining?

Also, my point regarding his website is that whilst it may state his aims, it won't state potential problems. The interview, however, states his aims, claims and potential problems thereof. It is hardly a limited source from which to base criticism.

 

[ercatli]

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

Even starting from a perspective of science, fitting Genesis to it is utterly foolhardy!

Well, that's an opinion. I don't have any opinion on that, and don't see how anyone can without reading the book.

He is cutting the bits that don't fit with his assumptions to support his hypothesis.

Not "cutting" - I don't think he is using scissors or anything! - but rather "interpreting". Since he is (apparently) trying to interpret Genesis in the light of science, that seems OK.

How can that be anything BUT quote mining?

You seem to be a bit obsessed with this. Quote mining is when you selectively use your primary source or data. I don't think he's doing that, but neither of us really knows.

Also, my point regarding his website is that whilst it may state his aims, it won't state potential problems. The interview, however, states his aims, claims and potential problems thereof. It is hardly a limited source from which to base criticism.

Again, you have different standards of evidence to me. I think that interview is a very limited source, and anything else you could get would be helpful - unless you're going to conclude in a certain way come what may.

Just warning you, I think this discussion has probably passed it's use-by-date, and I doubt anything much of value will arise from here. I'll read any further comments you make, but I don't know if I'll keep going after that. There comes a time ....

But thanks for letting me play in your garden for a while. : )

 

[borrofburi]

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

G'day borrofburi, thanks for joining the discussion. This would be the sort of criticism that many christians or historians would make, I imagine - they would say poor understanding of history, or of historical literature. But I am guessing he is using evolutionary science to "test his source material", and is not much worried if he transgresses historically.

My criticism had nothing to do with "history" and everything to do with the scientific method: there is no falsifiability when you create categories "divine" and "human", and simply put everything that fits in "divine" and everything that does not fit in "human failure". I can do that with any document in the world, does that mean every document in the world is divinely inspired?

I suppose you can say that, just as it could easily have been shorter or longer, or in cartoon form, or written in Swahili, or full of pictures, or ..... almost anything. But that observation doesn't really help the discussion.

It does help the discussion, it directly refutes the idea that genesis had to be vague "because of the times", an idea that was presented by Parker himself, as I quoted him responding to the question of "why is so much of genesis wrong?", Parker responds: "It's the authors adding their artistic interpretation, shoehorning the facts into the type of story people would be able to understand."
The concept that the bible could have easily been much more scientifically accurate even in the language of the day directly refutes this claim.

Just warning you, I think this discussion has probably passed it's use-by-date, and I doubt anything much of value will arise from here. I'll read any further comments you make, but I don't know if I'll keep going after that. There comes a time ....

I find this regrettable, we've barely had any exchanges at all. However I do recognize that we're effectively ganging up on here, you have to read and respond to 3 times as much stuff as any of us do, and in a sense, that is unfair.

 

[ercatli]

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

My criticism had nothing to do with "history" and everything to do with the scientific method: there is no falsifiability when you create categories "divine" and "human", and simply put everything that fits in "divine" and everything that does not fit in "human failure". I can do that with any document in the world, does that mean every document in the world is divinely inspired?

Again, let's remember we are both going only by one short interview, plus (in my case, not sure about you) his website and a few other reviews. We're both only guessing. But I'm guessing you've made wrong assumptions here about his process. You seem (to me at least) to be assuming he started off with the assumption that Genesis is divinely inspired and then selected for his own convenience parts of it as human and divine.

I don't find any evidence of either of those, and I think they are quite unlikely. I think (as I keep saying) he started off with evolutionary science, and tested Genesis to see how much he could fit in. I don't know why he did that, as a mild atheist. I think he was surprised to find, in his view, how much fitted in, so he began to draw the conclusion that divine inspiration was the most likely explanation.

And yes, there may be no falsifiability in that process, rather it's a matter of probability. But outside science, that's often the case, and even inside science sometimes. Rather than just charge him with being unscientific, I think critics should demonstrate that with clear examples (if they want to be bothered).

It does help the discussion, it directly refutes the idea that genesis had to be vague "because of the times", an idea that was presented by Parker himself, as I quoted him responding to the question of "why is so much of genesis wrong?", Parker responds: "It's the authors adding their artistic interpretation, shoehorning the facts into the type of story people would be able to understand."
The concept that the bible could have easily been much more scientifically accurate even in the language of the day directly refutes this claim.

Again I think you are claiming too much based on too little. I don't see how it directly refutes anything. No matter what was written down, you could say it could have been more accurate, which makes you "guilty" of lack of falsifiability if you want to think that way (I don't, but the rest of you seem to want to). Just for fun, I'll post (following this) a little piece I wrote a while back on the Bible and science.

I find this regrettable, we've barely had any exchanges at all. However I do recognize that we're effectively ganging up on here, you have to read and respond to 3 times as much stuff as any of us do, and in a sense, that is unfair.

Thanks for this kind comment. The 3:1 ratio is no problem - I've been on forums where it's been more like 15:1! My comment was directed mainly at Th1sWasATriumph, because our discussion seems to be going round in circles. I'm happy to continue what seems to be interesting, friendly and productive, but I think we may have squeezed all the juice out of this lemon. I only joined in on a whim, as I've described above, and with the simple purpose of pointing out one obvious error and drawing a lesson from that. I've achieved the first, but am making little progress on the second.

Thanks and best wishes.

 

[ercatli]

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

borrofburi and I have been briefly discussing whether Genesis should be expected to contain more accurate scientific information if it was divinely inspired. The following little short play in one act gives a humorous (I hope) take on this while also making a serious point. I hope you enjoy it.

Moses (about 1400BC and the traditional author of the first 5 books of the Bible) is discussing science with his brother Aaron.

Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?
Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?
Moses: It's Yahweh again. Keeps telling me all this strange stuff about strangeness and charm and spin, and quarks and gravitons and dark matter. I don't mind not understanding, but I need to know how to write this stuff down.
Aaron: Tell him we're just stone-age goat-herders living a subsistence existence, and you're the only one who can read and write. Ask Him for something simpler, like why does the sun rise every morning?

Moses goes away up Mt Sinai, and returns 3 days later.

Moses: He says the sun doesn't rise in the morning, it's the earth moving.
Aaron: I've felt the earth move once or twice (snigger), but not usually in the morning!
Moses: Nothing like that bro', we live on a giant ball, and it goes round and round on its axis, and that makes the sun look like it's moving.
Aaron: What's a ball?
Moses: Dunno, bro', I asked him that and he started to talk about radii and something called a pie, and three point one four one six, whatever that means. When he saw I didn't get it, he said "forget it!" and muttered under his breath about next time I'll just say 3.
Aaron: Did he tell you anything else?
Moses: Two more things. One was that when he said we came from the dust of the ground he meant we had gradually evolved for billions of years.
Aaron: What's billions?
Moses: Dunno mate, but I think it's a number greater than two.
Aaron: What does evolved mean?
Moses: He says it actually took him more than 6 days to make all this. I told him I didn't really care how long he took, I wasn't in any hurry.
Aaron: What was the other thing you learnt?
Moses: He said that one day people would find it easier to believe all this came about by chance than believe in him. I said, no, I was willing to believe all the other crazy stuff about quarks and pie if He said so, but I couldn't come at that!
Aaron: What did he say then?
Moses: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, that's more like it, now you're talking my language! He just smiled and said, thanks.

 

[borrofburi]

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

but I think we may have squeezed all the juice out of this lemon. I only joined in on a whim, as I've described above, and with the simple purpose of pointing out one obvious error and drawing a lesson from that.

I think I we've mostly reached that point in our conversation as well, I (am fairly certain I) understand what you're saying, but I can't seem to properly communicate what I am saying. However:

Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?
Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?
...
Moses: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, that's more like it, now you're talking my language! He just smiled and said, thanks.

You clearly missed the point of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961HnrLqbTA
The point was that it described scientifically accurate things, with no scientific inaccuracies, in the language of genesis. It didn't talk about quarks or spin or anything else, it did however use genesis-like language to say that the earth revolved around the sun and other things.

 

[ercatli]

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

You clearly missed the point of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961HnrLqbTA
The point was that it described scientifically accurate things, with no scientific inaccuracies, in the language of genesis. It didn't talk about quarks or spin or anything else, it did however use genesis-like language to say that the earth revolved around the sun and other things.

I didn't miss the point of the video, I just haven't watched the video. I don't watch many videos, I find them a slow and rather unreliable method of gathering info, and my connection is only ADSL1 (at present) so they are a bit of a pain to watch.

But I do understand your point, and I accept that if the writer of Genesis knew modern science he/she could have possibly made it closer to modern science, possibly. But I'm saying that that doesn't really prove anything. To prove your point, you need to state your hypothesis (I'm guessing that you are suggesting that if God was the direct author of Genesis he could have done better), then demonstrate how you know what God's objectives were and how making Genesis read more like modern science would achieve those objectives better than what is there.

And even then, you'd only have an argument to me if I believed God wrote Genesis and I agreed with what you thought of his objectives, which I have not given you any information about yet, one way or the other. So you have a big task.

You see, my purpose here hasn't been to promote my viewpoint, but to try to help you guys see that bald statements of certainty based on minimal evidence and reason don't really prove anything. They are a poor basis of belief or disbelief. I think you guys pride yourselves on reason (this is a League of Reason), but many of your statements (most of the statements in the original post) are (in my view) based on preconceived opinion and assumption, and developed via incomplete reason. I suggest that many more of your beliefs and disbeliefs are similarly poorly based. Not very friendly of me, I guess, but that's what I think. I have demonstrated the truth of that in one easy example, which ought to be enough to encourage you to re-think a little.

So have we got somewhere now?