Hi Robert
Did not Whewell also give us the term "uniformitarian" (in his criticism of
Lyell) and also point out that all science is theory laden, even our
observations? I think he said "We see everything through a mask of theory", a
remarkably modern (or should I say post-modern?) comment.
GB
Jon
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Wiiliam Whewell was a leading intellectual at Cambridge in the early
> 19century and gave us the term scientist. He also critiqued Lyell in 1830
> and gave him the terms Eocine Miocene and Pliocene for the Tertiary. He was
> a devout Christian of evangelical leanings and is only now getting the
> recognition he deserves. He was at school at Lancaster Grammar School (6
> miles from where I live) with Richard Owen of dinosaurs. The two had a fight
> at school and one sufferd a broken nose and I hope it was Owen!!
>
> I am currently reading a book for a book review (this will not be the book
> review) but it has application to the current discussion we are having about
> why apologists seem to pick and choose what observational data they will
> deal with and what data they refuse to accept. THIS IS A SERIOUS CHARGE The
> book is William
> Whewell's _Of the Plurality of Worlds_ edited by Michael Ruse, University of
> Chicago Press 2001. The book was originally published in 1853 and this is a
> facsimile reprinting. I need to set the intellectual landscape for this
> argument.
>
> Whewell was writing about 9 years after Chambers' _Vestiges_ which was the
> first book to really bring evolution into the intellectual landscape (it was
> very poorly done so he won few converts). The issue which occupied Whewell's
> attention was the problem that astronomy was presenting to Christians at
> this time by showing that there were so many worlds. The atheistic argument
> WHO PUT FORWARD THIS ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT? CHAMBERS WAS NO ATHEIST BUT A WOOLY
> LIBERAL ANGLICAN OF DEISTIC TENDENCIES. HE MOST CLEARLY BELIEVED IN SOME
> DIVINE POWER
> of the day pointed out that there were lots of stars each of them should
> have planets around them, many of those planets filled with intelligent
> life.
>
> Whewell in 1833 had agreed that life on other planets was
> probable, but after the Vestiges was published, it became perfectly clear
> that life on these other planets might be evolved and Whewell changed his
> position because he could not reconcile evolution with Christian faith.
> Furthermore, the atheistic argument WHO BY? pointed out that each of those
> planets
> with intelligent life would need their own savior and therefore God would
> not see the earth as a special abode or be 'mindful of man'. Why would a God
> of a universe full of intelligent life pay any special heed to a small blue
> planet circling an otherwise unremarkable star? Whewell chose to take on
> this argument in a very fascinating book. While Whewell seems to be correct
> that life is rare in the universe, his approach to it was unfortunately
> typical of the way apologetical institutions seem to deal with problematical
> issues. Looking back on his argument gives us perspective on this approach
> and lets us see clearly what RTB and other apologists are doing with
> anthropological and evolutionary data clearer. I THINK HERE YOU FAIL
> COMPLETELY TO JUDGE WHEWELL BY THE TERMS OF 1850, IF SO YOU WOULD LIKEN HIM
> TO POLKINGHORNE AT NOT RTB
>
> Whewell then attacks the concept of life on planets around the nebula (what
> we call galaxies) by denying that they are really galaxies or separate star
> systems. He did discuss some very good evidence indicating the modern view
> was correct. however, he chose to reject that data. Instead of the points of
> light telescopes reveal in the galaxies being stars, Whewell claims that
> they are comets around a much smaller object.WHAT WAS THE VIEW OF
> CONTEMPRARY ASTRONOMERS? GEORGE MURPHY HAS ANSWERED THIS
>
> "And if we suppose a large mass of cometic matter thus to move in a highly
> resisting medium, and to consist of patches of different densities, then
> some would move faster and some more slowly; but all, in spirals such as
> have been spoken of; and the general aspect produced would be, that of the
> spiral nebulae which I have endeavoured to describe. The luminous matter
> owuld be more diffused in the outer and more condensed in the central parts,
> because to the center of attraction all the spirals converge." William
> Whewell, Of the Plurality of World's, edited by Michael Ruse, (Chicago:
> University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 128
>
> And, thus, since we know that life can't exist on a comet, we don't need to
> worry about life in the nebula!
>
> Today, there is hardly a Christian who denies that galaxies are actually
> star systems, but Whewell denied this IN SPITE OF MUCH EVIDENCE THAT THIS
> WAS THE CASE. He didn't believe the sense data! I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE
> COMPETENT ON THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT THIS STRIKES ME
> AS AN INACCURATE CRITICISM OF WHEWELLHe hypothesized some
> improbable situation in order to avoid the impact of astronomical data. He
> let his theology drive him to doubt the obvious. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, YOU NEED
> TO UNDERSTAND WHEWELL AND CONSIDER HIS WIDE EXPERTISE. THERE IS NO WAY HE
> WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A GLARING BLUNDER. IF HE WAS WRONG ABOUT GALAXIES THEN
> SO WERE MANY OTHERS.This approach is much like
> the anti-evolutionist who denies transitional forms are transitional forms
> because his theology drives him to that position. If one wants to reject
> evolution, one certaintly can't accept transitional forms. (see
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm). When we deny sense
> data, like Whewell did, we look very silly to future generations of
> Christians. AND WHEN WE MAKE DUBIOUS COMMENTS LIKE THIS.
>
> "Intelligence, as we see in the human race, in order to have those
> characters which concern our argument, implies a history of intellectual
> development: and to assume arbitrarily a history of intellectual development
> for the inhabitants of a remote planet, as a ground of reasoning, either for
> or against Religion, is a proceeding which we can hardly be expected either
> to assent to or to refute." William Whewell, Of the Plurality of World's,
> edited by Michael Ruse, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 47
>
> What astounds me in this is that Whewell laid out a perfectly logical and
> convincing (to me) case that intelligence must act universally like ours
> does, and then he rejects this consequence when it goes against his
> preferred point. YOU HAVE NOT MADE YOUR POINT
>
> And this is what concerns me most about Christianity's apologetical
> efforts.
> We seem to be hidebound to deny observational data while inconsistently
> expecting everyone to accept the observational data for the resurrection.
> The Bible warns us not to be double minded.
>
> I WOULD SUGGEST YOU FIND OUT MORE ABOUT WHEWELL AND MID 19 CENTURY VIEWS OF
> GALAXIES BEFORE CONTINUING WITH YOUR REVIEW.
>
> ALSO DONT JUDGE HISTORICAL CHARACTERS BY OUR OWN IDEAS
>
> MICHAEL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 15:58:47 EST