On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:39:23 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>Abstract: A good deal of the evolution/creation debate has to do
>with differing philosophies of science. Recently, Randy Landrum
>posted a prototypical creationist philosophy of science that is
>reminiscent of Baconian science that is common to creationists. I
>discuss this point below.
This is disappointing. Steve perpetuates the "`official caricature'
of the creation-evolution debate" that all "creationists" can be
lumped together with *young-Earth* creationists:
"The Weiner article and book review illustrate what I would call the
"official caricature" of the creation-evolution debate, a distortion
that is either explicit or implicit in nearly all media and textbook
treatments of the subject. According to the caricature, "evolution"
is a simple, unitary process that one can see in operation today and
that is also supported unequivocally by all the fossil evidence.
Everyone accepts the truth of evolution except a disturbingly large
group of biblical fundamentalists, who insist that the earth is no
more than ten thousand years old and the fossil beds were laid down
in Noah's flood...Of course the official caricature utterly
misrepresents the scope of the controversy. Creationists are not
necessarily Genesis literalists or believers in a young earth, nor do
they necessarily reject "evolution" in all senses of that highly
manipulable term. A creationist is simply a person who believes that
God creates-meaning that the living world is the product of an
intelligent and purposeful Creator rather than merely a combination
of chance events and impersonal natural laws." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", 1995, pp73-74)
>SC>At 12:01 AM 12/8/96 -0800, Randy Landrum described his philosophy
>of science as follows:
>SC>I do...believe that science is the systematized knowledge derived
>from observation. It is a branch of knowledge, esp. one that
>systematizes facts, principles, and methods. According to my
>understanding evolution does not fit that definition.
>
>In my own perception I believe science to be the pursuit of truth
>without religion belief, or agenda.
I would agree with the "science to be the pursuit of truth", part.
But why is "religion" ruled out as "truth"? This already indicates a
*naturalistic* "belief" and "agenda".
Elsewhere (Sun, 15 Dec 1996 re: a couple of questions) Steve Clark wrote:
SC>I too have problems with the term, "methodological naturalism."
>It seems to me that the term literally defines science. The realm
>of science knowldege is naturalism, and a distinguishing feature of
>scientific knowledge is that it is tested by empirical methods.
So already it seems that Steve has either: 1. contradicted himself;
or 2. identified " truth" with " naturalism"?
>SC>I submit that this represents an archaic philosophy of science that
>was first proposed by Bacon and quickly rejected by philosophers and
>scientists who followed (especially Descartes). However, this
>Baconian Inductivist view of science permeates the philosophy of
>creationists, especially those at the ICR.
I have no brief for the "ICR", but since they are all *scientists*:
"leading participants on the creationist side-who are often portrayed
as Bible-thumpers, but have science Ph.D's-are in fact scientists"
(Bethell T., "A Challenge to Materialism", New Republic, August 1,
1983, pp34,36 in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", 1991,
Vol. I, p5)
it may be the "Baconian Inductivist view" they hold is more by virtue
of their being *scientists*, than being "creationists":
"This [Baconian inductivist] picture of proper science became
powerfully influential and provided some of the components of early-
twentieth-century positivism. The underlying ideal, here again, was
that science was thoroughly empirical and non speculative and that it
proceeded systematically, methodically, according to specified rules,
with every move rationally justified in terms of an inductive logic.
Philosophical, metaphysical or theological principles, hypotheses,
flights of fancy-indeed, anything not ultimately empirical-were to play
absolutely no role in the processes of science. This in fact is the
picture of science one typically finds in dictionaries, in older science
texts and in some contemporary writing." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle
of Beginnings", 1996, p107)
SC>What follows is an excerpt from a paper I wrote and presented at
>a local forum last year. The title of the section quoted is, HOW
>DOES CREATIONISM VIEW SCIENCE?
See above. This is too generalised, by lumping all "creationism"
(YEC, OEC, PC and MC) together as though they were one view. It
might be "how does" *young-Earth* "creationism view science"? or "how
does" *the ICR* "view science"?, but even that would be difficult to
encompass as one unified "view".
>SC>The late medieval period ushered an increasing emphasis on method
>in natural philosophy that first developed into what is called
>rational inductivism. Inductive logic has its origins with
>Aristotle, but it was Francis Bacon who took this to the extreme and
>developed a new approach to science called eliminative or Baconian
>Inductivism...the way that science is to be done, according to Bacon,
>is for a completely rational observer to record observational data
>in some purely objective manner, totally free from all prejudices
>and having no prior preference concerning what theory should be
>correct. Data collected in such an objective manner are then
>organized by the logical process of induction, again without the
>influence of any presuppositions. From this, correct
>generalizations will emerge out of the organized data....So,
>contrary to the Baconian inductivist view, when scientists collect
>data, we do so with certain presuppositions about what data are
>likely to be relevant and irrelevant to the particular study. When
>scientists organize data, it is done according to previously
>conceived theories about how the data should fit together. Finally,
>conclusions that we make from empirical data are not simply the
>logical consequences of the data. Rather, they are the results of
>creative insights on the part of the observer.
I agree with Steve here yet I am a creationist! (albeit not a young-
Earth creationist).
SC>With this background, let us now look at the how creationists view
>the scientific method..Simply stated, the classical creationist
>position holds that the acceptance of uniformity in nature
>represents a philosophical presupposition that is inherently
>anti-theistic. Furthermore, according to creationists, since the
>uniformitarian view embodies a philosophical presupposition. They
>claim that it is unscientific to hold such a presupposition when
>doing science because this interjects an unacceptable subjectivity
>into science. If this sounds suspiciously close to the Baconian
>inductivist model of science, it is because creationism defines
>science according to the Baconian view. In numerous publications,
the definition of science used by the Institute for Creation
Research is as follows (12):
>
>"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body
>of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically
>classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general
>laws which include trustworthy methods for the discovery of new
>truths within this domain."
Steve's reference was not attached to my copy of his post, so It is
only fair to point out that "the Institute for Creation
Research" was only using the definition in the Oxford Dictionary:
"creationist attempts to disqualify evolution on grounds that it
violates some philosophy of science requirement frequently begin
with a formal definition of science, and the definition cited by several
creationist authors is that contained in the Oxford Dictionary: `A
branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of
demonstrated truths or with observed facts Systematically classified
and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and
which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth
within its domain' " (Ratzsch, 1996, p136)
I would suspect that the majority of non-creationist scientists would
also hold a similar view.
>SC>[again, this is very close to Randy's definition of science]
So because "this is" allegedly "very close to Randy's definition of
science", it is therefore "common to creationists"?
>SC>With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to
>the fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since
>theories have no place in this inductivist view of science,
>creationists argue that evolution is not science. But they use an
>archaic Baconian version of science that, as I explained above, is
>really unworkable.
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:28:43 -0800, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
[...]
AC>While I agree with your assertions and divisions, I would submit
>that not only ICR views science the way you assert, but all
>scientists view their science this way. It is only the science of
>others that is viewed as subjective and preconceived. Witness the
>willingness of (22?) Nobel Laureates to sign a statement asserting
>that Evolution is a FACT, antithetical for someone subscribing to a
>non-Baconian view of science.
I agree with Art here. It is noteworthy that Darwinists apologists
like Gould, Dawkins and [the late] Sagan, do not take the ICR to task
on this popular view of science, because it is the same view they
cultivate. In any event, arguably the ICR are just fighting fire
with fire. If leading Darwinists claim that "evolution is not a
theory but a fact":
"Evolution is a fact, not a theory" (Sagan C., "Cosmos", Macdonald:
London, 1981, p27)
then why are not creationists are entitled to respond in those terms
that "evolution is not a fact, but a theory"? What TEs like Steve
seem to want to do is to `disarm' creationism while leaving those in
power (the Neo-Darwinists) with their `weapons' intact.
>SC>Food for thought?
It would be more digestible for this creationist if Steve started
realising that the ICR does not speak for all creationsts and that
there is what Ratzsch called a "newly emerging upper tier of the
creationist movement" that does not fit the evolutionist "official
caricature":
"The newly emerging upper tier of the creationist movement, however,
seems to have little patience with the vague popularized treatments
and is, again, undertaking to do the meticulous detail work that a
genuinely scientific creationism requires." (Ratzsch, 1996, pp84-85)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------