>On July 31, 1996 at 8:01 PM Brian D. Harper wrote:
>
>
>>>(NR) If *unsupervised* and *impersonal* don't rule out TE, then look at the
>>>conspicuous absence of the supernatural in the list of that which *affects*
>>>evolution: natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and
>>>changing environments.
>>>
>>
>>(BH) I take it then that you acknowledge Dawkins, Futyama, Gould, the NABT,
>>and the PUKE (Priesthood United to Kommunikate Evilutionism) as the
>>Royal Priesthood of Science and whatever they say must be true?
>
NR:===
>No. You take it incorrectly. I've merely noticed that Dawkins, Futyama,
>Gould, and the NABT fuel our culture's current (i.e., since about 1950
>A.D.) religions philosophy--Naturalism. Even though what they communicate
>about Christianity is false, Christians are unwise to ignore the atheistic
>message they are sending to our culture.
>
If all you had done was notice the above then I would not have replied. What
you also did was say that TE is untenable, an oxymoron, based only on the
authority of a few high priests. They might be wrong, no?
NR:==
>To align ourselves with them, as TE's do, propogates confusion because
>non-christian culture understands TE in the same way Gould advocates TE:
I hope I only have to say this once, TE's do not align themselves with
"them". Many creationists, on the other hand, spend a great deal of
energy aligning TE's with "them". This is bearing false witness.
NR:==
>i.e. Science provides _knowledge_ about reality. Religion provides
>_belief_. Beliefs don't have to have to do with reality. Therefore,
>religion need not be influenced by reality. "Whatever you do," Gould would
>say, "don't try to tell me your religious beliefs have anything to do with
>knowledge of reality." (See the Scientific American book review of Darwin
>on Trial by Gould (1992))
>
You might want to do some more reading. You might be surprised to find that
many scientists (many of whom are atheists or agnostics) oppose Gould and
Dawkins et.al. just as much as you do. I have posted many examples of this
to the reflector. Perhaps you missed them since you are new here. I'll
repeat a few, apologies to those who have seen them already.
First, a quote from an article by Heinz Pagels, the article is cited very
frequently in the anthropic principle literature:
======= begin pagels ====================================
There does exist a line of thinking that _is_ in direct
competition with the anthropic principle. Edward Harrison,
in his textbook _Cosmology_, advises his readers early on:
"We shall occasionally refer to the anthropic principle,
and the reader may, if it is preferred, substitute the
alternative theistic principle." The theistic principle
is quite straightforward: the reason the universe seems
tailor-made for our existence is that it _was_ tailor-made
for our existence; some supreme being created it as a home
for intelligent life. Of course, some scientists, believing
science and religion mutually exclusive, find this idea
unattractive. Faced with questions that do not neatly fit
into the framework of science, they are loath to resort to
religious explanation; yet their curiosity will not let
them leave matters unaddressed. Hence, the anthropic principle.
It is the closest that some atheists can get to God.
-- Pagels, H. (1985). "A Cozy Cosmology," <The Sciences>
25(2):35-38. also in <Physical Cosmology and Philosophy>,
Ed. J. Leslie, Macmillan, New York, 1990, pp. 174-180.
======== end pagels =======================================
Since last quoting this I checked the textbook Pagels mentioned
out of our library. Sure enough, its just as Pagels describes. In
fact, there is a whole section devoted to this. The full reference
is: Edward R. Harrison, <Cosmology: The Science of the Universe>,
Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Next, here is an example of Brian Goodwin beating up on Richard
Dawkins:
======= begin Goodwin ==========================================
Dawkin's description of the Darwinian principles of evolution
can be summarized as follows:
1. Organisms are constructed by groups of genes whose goal
is to leave more copies of themselves. The hereditary
material is "selfish".
2. The inherently selfish qualities of the hereditary material
are reflected in the competitive interactions between organisms
that result in survival of fitter variants, generally by the
more successful genes.
3. Organisms are constantly trying to get better (fitter). In a
mathematical/geometrical metaphor, they are always trying to
climb up local peaks in a fitness landscape to do better than
their competitors. However, this landscape keeps changing as
evolution proceeds, so the struggle is endless.
4. Paradoxically, humans can develop altruistic qualities that
contradict their inherently selfish nature by means of educational
and other cultural efforts.
Does this look familiar? Here is a very similar list of principles
from another domain:
1. Humanity is born in sin; we have a base inheritance.
2. Humanity is therefore condemned to a life of conflict and
3. Perpetual toil.
4. By faith and moral effort humanity can be saved from its fallen,
selfish state.
So we see that the Darwinism described by Dawkins, whose exposition
has been very widely (but by no means universally) acclaimed by biologists,
has its metaphorical roots in one of our deepest cultural myths, the
story of the fall and redemption of humanity. Dawkins did not invent this
evolutionary story; he just tells it with great care and inspiration,
in terms that clarify the underlying ideas of Darwinism. And what we
see so clearly is a myth with which we are all utterly familiar. [...]
-- Brian Goodwin, _How the Leopard Changed its Spots_, Charles Scribners, 1994.
======== end Goodwin =======================================================
Here is a quote from one of my favorite articles by Karl Popper. Sorry
about the length, but this is brilliantly written:
======== begin Popper ==============================================
The Darwinian Revolution is still proceeding. But now we are in the
midst of a counter-revolution, a strong reaction against science and
against rationality. I feel that it is necessary to take sides on
this issue, if only briefly; and also in a Darwinian lecture, to
indicate where Darwin himself stood.
My position, very briefly, is this. I am on the side of science and
of rationality, but I am against those exagerated claims for science
that have sometimes been, rightly, denounced as "scientism". I am on
the side of the _search for truth_, and of intellectual daring in
the search for truth; but I am against intellectual arrogance, and
especially against the misconceived claim that we have truth in our
pockets, or that we can approach certainty.
It is important to realize that science does not make assertions
about ultimate questions--about the riddles of existence, or about
man's task in this world.
This has often been well understood. But some great scientists, and
many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The fact that
science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has
been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles;
while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. And the success
of Darwinian natural selection in showing that the _purpose or end_
which an organ like the eye seems to serve may only be apparent has
been misinterpreted as the nihilist doctrine that all purpose is
only apparent purpose, and that there cannot be any end or purpose
or meaning or task in our life.
Although Darwin destroyed Paley's argument from design by showing
that what appeared to Paley as purposeful design could well be
explained as the result of chance plus natural selection, Darwin
was most modest and undogmatic in his claims. He had a
correspondence with Asa Gray of Harvard; and Darwin wrote to
Gray, one year after the _Origin of Species_:"...about Design.
I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I
cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of
chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the
result of Design." And a year later Darwin wrote to Gray:
"With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show a
white flag than to fire ... [a] shot ... You say that you
are in a haze; I am in thick mud; ... yet I cannot keep out
of the question."
To me it seems that the question may not be within the reach of
science. And yet I do think that science has taught us a lot
about the evolving universe that bears in an interesting way
on Paley's and Darwin's problem of creative design.
I think that science suggests to us (tentatively of course) a
picture of a universe that is inventive or even creative; of
a universe in which _new things_ emerge, on _new levels_.
[omitted description of various levels of emergence-- BH]
I think that scientists, however sceptical, are bound to admit
that the universe, or nature, or whatever we may call it, is
creative. For it has produced creative men: it has produced
Shakespeare and Michelangelo and Mozart, and thus indirectly
their works. It has produced Darwin, and so created the
theory of natural selection. Natural selection has destroyed
the proof for the miraculous specific intervention of the
Creator. But it has left us with the marvel of the creativeness
of the universe, of life, and of the human mind. Although science
has nothing to say about a personal Creator, the fact of the
emergence of novelty, and of creativity, can hardly be denied.
I think that Darwin himself, who could not "keep out of the
question", would have agreed that, though natural selection
was an idea which opened up a new world for science, it did
not remove, from the picture of the universe that science
paints, the marvel of creativity; nor did it remove the
marvel of freedom: the freedom to create; and the freedom
of choosing our own ends and purposes.
To sum up these brief remarks:
The counter-revolution against science is intellectually
unjustifiable; morally it is indefensible. On the other hand,
scientists should resist the temptations of scientism.
They should always remember, as I think Darwin always did,
that science is tentative and fallible. Science does not
solve all the riddles of the universe, nor does it promise
ever to solve them. Nevertheless it can sometimes throw
some unexpected light even on our deepest and probably
insoluble riddles.
-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355.
=========== end Popper ==========================================
BH:==
>>Why isn't this done? Here is my suspicion. Some people really like
>>the idea of a Royal Priesthood, they just want a different set of
>>Priests.
>
>
NR:==
>I wouldn't mind new "Priests" who didn't affirm the self-refuting claim of
>scientism--i.e. the only source of knowledge is science.
As I expected, too bad.
NR:==
>(this
>self-refutes because if science is the _only_ source of truth, how do they
>know science is the only source. This claim comes not from science, but
>from philosophy)
>
>>>(NR) So if you're in the TE camp, please consider rejecting TE on the
>>>basis >>that it refutes itself. Or at least wait to affirm TE until
>>>after you aquire
>>>cultural authority and use it to change the meaning of the word evolution.
>>>
>>
>>(BH) The predominant meaning of creationism is literal, fundamentalist,
>>young earth creationism. Will you reject being a creationist until
>>you gain the cultural authority to change this definition?
>
>Brian, the meaning of creationism is not decided by public opinion poll.
>Nor is it decided by a small "priesthood" of scientists. It's meaning is
>decided by the Bible and general revelation (recieved in part through
>_testable_ science), which are the two sources of truth God endorses.
>(Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-20)
I see. You accept the High Priests definition of evolution and reject their
definition of creation. How convenient. This was the point, of course.
You don't particularly like having your views defined by the High Priests of
Naturalism. Nor do I.
I'll tell you what, I'll be gracious and allow you your
interpretation of scripture without ridiculing it. Will you do the same?
[...]
========================
Brian Harper | "People of that kind are academics, scholars,
Associate Professor | and that is the nastiest kind of man I know."
Applied Mechanics | -- Blaise Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================