Loren Haarsma wrote:
"First, we should distinguish between (at least) three types of
literature:
--Professional literature (journals and graduate textbooks)
--Educational literature (middle/high school and early college
textbooks)
--Popular literature (books, articles, public debates)"
Agreed.
LH "Second, we must remember that scientists are an excitable lot..."
Yes - there are sociological and psychological aspects of
science which we will do well to point out to students.
LH "So just what are the defects and "unjustified grandiose
extrapolations" found in neo-Darwinian literature? Here are three
that I have encountered:
1) The claim that the data, and macroevolutionary theory in general,
supports the "no-Creator" hypothesis.
2) The glossing over of macroevolution's "weak areas" [....]
3) The dismissal of the possibility that a Creator could have guided
evolution and, perhaps, performed supernatural miracles at strategic
points in biological history (e.g. to overcome the "weak areas")."
Given time, I am sure we could all expand on this. Things
that come to mind as I write are: the way "story-telling" is
presented asscience; the lack of a critical evaluation of hypotheses
and alternative explanations; the lack of a coherent methodology for
the testing of assumptions and theoretical concepts (eg - the Limits
of Variation discussion).
LH "In my mind, the first defect is the worst, and the one we should
address most forcefully. It has no place in the educational or
professional literature (nearly EVERY scientist would agree with
this), and it should be exposed in the popular literature, whenever
possible, for the philosophical blunder and religious bias that it
is."
It seems to me that this is where Phil Johnson is putting the
emphasis: pointing out that many contemporary scientists are equating
naturalism with science. The same story appears in areas of science
distinct from evolutionary biology.
To illustrate this point, I would like to refer you to a
strongly worded article by John Maddox, the Editor of *Nature*. It
appeared in the 17th March 1994 issue of *Nature* with the title
"Defending science against anti-science". In his view, science faces
a "torrent of attack" and a fight against it must be mounted. "There
is a need for concerted action against the forces of anti-science;
simply ignoring the critics will not suffice to counter the
phenomenon".
Who are the enemies of "science"? The context refers to
philosophers who are undermining the special status of scientific
knowledge; cultural critics who consider the reductionism of
contemporary science to be most unhealthy; new age and eastern
mystical devotees who deplore the concept of objectively-
reachable data; and radical feminists who object to the
`androcentrism' of established science. These seem to be the
"post-modernism" forces which appear to threaten the scientific
establishment.
But Maddox also writes about placing `religion' in the anti-
science fold. He says: "The idea that religion may be a way
of organizing one's appraisal of one's place in the world is not
very different from what astrologers tell their clients. In
other words, it may not be long before the practice of religion
must be regarded as anti-science".
By making such a sweeping statement about the practice of
religion, Maddox does not bring light to this complex issue.
Rather, as is apparent in his essay, he shows an attitude which
is becoming prevalent in science: a commitment to naturalistic
philosophy and a rejection of all other sources of truth. I
think he is just the tip of an iceberg - Maddox's attitude is
widespread.
How do we respond? I am personally pursuing the line that
naturalism is itself a form of anti-science. (That is - attack
is the best form of defence!) Naturalism is the revival of the
deductivist approach to knowledge which does not have a good
track record in the history of science.
LH "The second defect should be addressed if for no other reason than
that it is harmful to scientific progress."
Agreed.
LH "The third defect is the trickiest one to address in the
educational literature, especially given the public school climate
here in the U.S. Given the large number of people, including
scientists, who support this possibility, I do think an "acceptable"
way can, and should, be found to offer this hypothesis as one way of
dealing with the "weak areas" of evolutionary theory."
I welcome this comment. It is undoubtedly controversial. I
have already written enough in this note - so will apologise now for
not trying to develop an argument. It has a direct bearing on Steve
Clark's questioning as to whether "science" can ever be practised
within a paradigm which is based on the concept of an active
Creator/Designer.
LH "So if I am asked to support educational literature reform which
[1] opposes all "no-Creator" bias, [2] makes a fair and honest
assessment of the areas where the data is weak or contradictory to
macroevolution's claims, and [3] at some point, carefully offers the
hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer (and Assembler) as one possible
"solution;" then you will have my support."
I am encouraged!
LH "If on the other hand I am asked to support educational literature
reform which proposes that [1] the "weak areas" of macroevolution are
_evidence_ for supernatural activity in biological history and [2] are
_evidence_ that people only believe in macroevolution because of a
philosophical bias towards (or a theology tainted by) Naturalism; then
I must decline."
You are right about [1]: each explanatory theory must stand on
its own feet and not "win" by default. I think [2] needs a
qualification - as some do have this bias. This is why I have
included the material from John Maddox. I accept that some advocates
of macroevolution are genuinely persuaded that this is a satisfactory
explanation of the data and which makes successful predictions.
Thanks for the discussion,
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***