Re: An Open Letter to [Hammond]

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:16:14 +0000 (UTC)

"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-BEE5D5.12021526092004@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <vJ-dnczNReimi8ncRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>
> > "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2b68957a.0409240140.4ff569f@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<g9ydnTo7Taixic_cRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> > > > "Larry Moran" <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:slrncl1r6p.lrc.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > >
> > > > > Several people here on talk.origins have met Bill Dembski and
there
> > > > > are at least a dozen who have communicated with him by email. We
know
> > > > > what he's going to say about your proof of God. We can hardly wait
to
> > > > > see how you'll respond. I hope you like humble pie.
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > No ***... what do you mean by that? the way I look at it
> > > > is that he is sitting in the Alamo down there in Waco and
> > > > the entire scientific community is calling him a whacko
> > > > because he believes in God, thinks God is provable scientifically,
> > > > believes in Intelligent Design, and believes in the Biblical
> > > > Creation. Hey.... I believe the same thing and the same
> > > > people are attacking me. I would think he would be a natural
> > > > ally... you seem to think otherwise.... why is that?
> > >
> > > Look at like this. You may have come across Ed Conrad in this group.
> > > He is a regular here and has the same dogged determinism as youself.
> > >
> > > Take a look at his work. He claims that he is doing true science. You
> > > also claim to be doing science and so does Dembski and so do
> > > scientists of the world, yet there are disparagy between what you
> > > think is Science and what others have taught me here.
> > >
> > > Why is that? You should find the answer, or at least get clue, by
> > > looking at Ed Conrad's posts and web site (www.edconrad.com). If Ed
> > > asked you if he agreed with him - what would you say? Compare that to
> > > the answer you get from Dembski.

[Hammond]
Dembski is a full time Associate Professor at Baylor, has 2 PhD's
(one in Mathematics btw) has published 7 books (by major academic
publishers like Oxford U. Press for instance) and inumerable scientific
journal articles, is the head of 2 Institutes, has a M.Div. from Princeton
and a B.S. in Psychology and an M.S. in statistics. Which means he
knows what Psychometry is as well as knowing something about God.
   As far as I know Conrad doesn't even have a high school diploma.
How the hell can you mention the two in the same breath?

> > >
> > > In short if I am to continue the discussion I don't want to talk about
> > > your ideas but how you feel you ideas should be presented and
> > > eventualy win out.
> > >
> > > Stew Dean
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Look.... Stew... the situation is this:
> >
> > 1. The bulk of the human population does not know whether
> > there is actually a God or not.... but what they DO KNOW
> > is that the principles of Religion are the best principles
> > humanity has ever devised for running society. And they
> > will defend it to the death as evidenced by the Allied
> > victory over the Nazis in WWII at the cost of 30 million
> > Christian lives.
> >
> > 2. "religion" is actually psychology, and the people most
> > knowlegeable about it are "people persons" not ivory
> > tower scientists who sacrifice 40 years of their lives
> > studying mathematical physics. this DOESN'T
> > mean scientists in general are not "religious"...
> > CERTAINLY anyone who would sacrifice 40 years of his
> > life searching for technical breakthroughs for the betterment
> > of humanity are "religious in principle" and do believe in the
> > "principles" of Religion. Isaac Newton and Einstein being
> > prime examples.
> >
> > 3. STUNNINGLY, it now appears that modern Science has
> > actually (by brute force) discovered a proof that "God"
> > is actually physically real, this proof coming from 55
> > years of computerized Factor Analysis in Psychometry
> > and 80 years of General relativity.
> >
> > 4. So NOW, the world has to engineer a meeting of the minds
> > between the non scientifically educated Religious Authorities
> > and the non psychologically oriented Scientists... to get
> > this discovery delivered to Humanity at large and the
> > world's governments in particular.
> >
> > 5. short of causing a riot.... the best method here is to
> > locae some academic genius who BOTH has an
> > outstanding scientific education, and who has a
> > theological education and is a firm proponent of
> > trying to find a scientific explanation of God.
> > So far it looks like Prof. Bill Dembski (Phd Math.
> > and B.S. Psyche and M.Div. Theology) and
> > a high profile defender of "Creationism" so called,
> > is the leading candidate. He is reading my papers now
> > having received them in the past few days.
> >
> > 6. I would hope to hell that people interested in SPoG
> > would try to help me to get Dembski to give us an
> > authoritative opinion on SPog, rather than opening
> > fire on him the minute they see the whites of his
> > eyes, as they have done with me.
> >
>
> *
> Hammond: You will draw less fire if you select someone like devout
> Christian Dr. Kenneth Miller, Harvard biologist -- now Professor of
> Biology at Brown University. He is the author of "Finding Darwin's
> God". He is also very approachable -- he will probably respond to
> your SPOG -- I rather doubt that Dembski will.

[Hammond]
That is disheartening... but I think you're right... I'll be suprised
if Dembski ever replies to me. Just a guess, but I think he's
more interested in selling books than anything else... I could be
wrong.... but....
   The problem with a guy like Miller is that he's only a biologist.
He has no degrees "hard science" (Math or Physics) like Dembski does
and unlike Dembski he has no knowlege of Psychometry or General Relativity.
Biology is only a small part of the SPoG.... Psychometry and General
Relativity are large chunks of it.
  If Dembski lets us down.... it may be a long wait for another candidate
to surface. But, I'll have to wait a couple of weeks to see if I hear from
Dembski... if not I guess my worst fears about him will be realized.

>
> earle

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================