From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 22:18:13 EDT
george murphy wrote:
> What I pointed out is that the primary "idea" being
> presented - is negative -
> i.e., naturalism is wrong (with disregard of the distinction
>between methodological &
> metaphysical naturalism) rather than positive.
And I think that is a valid viewpoint. One does not need to make
whatever distinctions you
want to impose in order to take the position that science works
strictly on the unproved
assumption that the universe obeys a series of physical laws without
any interaction with
anything external to this universe. (Take this as my definition)
>
>
> > I think that is precisely the point that many anti-science folks
>are trying to
> > raise. Science is neat ,but it really rests on pure faith in naturalism.
> > Scientists point to the many times it has worked in the past and
>then extrapolate
> > that it should be accepted as a universal truth (ignoring all
>current problems, I
> > might add). That is indeed philosophy, not science. Science
>itself only rests upon
> > this philosophy lest it crumble. Why is it necessary to believe
>that science is
> > some magical approach that can figure out everything about God's
>universe while God
> > never interacts with His creation? That is surely theology.
>
> Again you are failing to distinguish between types of naturalism.
The naturalism I stated above -- the basic assumption upon which all
of science rests.-
>
>
> > I think that the suggestion that this be discussed in public schools in a
> > philosophy class is a fine one. Why would a theologian ever
>disagree with it?
>
> Few schools below the college level offer classes in philosophy.
Sure they do. Check out the textbooks in your local school. The
"philosophy" is taught
within the subjects at the discretion of the teachers and by the
selection of the
textbooks. For an example of textbooks that teach the "theory", check out
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/textbooks/ It is evolutionary
theory that is taught in
these books.
> Maybe they
> should but they don't. In any case, I certainly wouldn't object to
>"the controversy"
> being taught in public schools under the rubric of comparative
>religion, sociology, or
> political science. But the opponents of evolution want it taught
>as science, which it
> isn't. Of course there is scientific controversy about how
>evolution has taken place
> but not about whether it has taken place.
Then why do public school textbooks introduce Darwin and his
theories? Are you saying that
Darwin was establishing the "fact" of evolution rather than his
theory? Evolution is
taught in schools just like Dawkins says. It is "the only game in
town". Where no solid
evidence exists, the theory takes over. How can their be any other
game if you are to
insist that scientific naturalism (defined above) is not open for
discussion within the
science class itself?
Speaking of what is not customarily taught in schools: I was never
taught evolution as a
subject pre college. Why is it such a necessity now? (And I have
always lived in the
ultra-liberal Northeast.) I'm certain that those who have introduced
it so strongly into
the pre college curriculum have nothing but best scientific motives.
No humanist/atheistic
motives could possibly exist ;-)
I think that it is naive in the extreme to believe that humanists do
not consciously push
evolutionary theory in pre college as a means to promote their
atheistic notions.
BTW I do believe in evolution. I just disagree that any theory of
evolution should be
taught in public schools if alternatives to scientific naturalism (as
defined above) are
not allowed.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 29 2002 - 23:22:39 EDT