One of the nice things about the creation/evolution debate
is that I am always running into interesting ideas that
I would never in a million years have thought of myself.
reaction to this is revulsion since it seems to make God
into a liar.
Let's look at it from another point of view. Suppose that
Georges Cuvier or Richard Owen were to study the same
eagle (well, not the *same* eagle of course, an eagle of the
same species). If Gosse is correct then they would presumably have
seen a completely different beast since special creation
would have been the reigning paradigm of that day. Question:
is God constantly changing organisms over time
so that they always look the way they should according to
the paradigm of that day? If so, perhaps we could detect
such changes by carefully studying the drawings of body
plans etc. in creationists writings prior to Darwin.
If Gosse is correct then we should be able to detect
some differences between those drawings and the ones
we find in modern textbooks today.
I think what we have here is a good illustration of
one of the basic flaws of teleological thinking, at
least in so far as its application in science. One
first observes the way things are and then constructs
some teleological scenario to account for it. In one
respect I cannot be critical of this since it is a
very natural thing for Christians to do. We learn
to always give glory to God in all situations and
so its natural for us to interpret everything we learn
about the world as being due to God's working.
The question is whether this approach is useful in
trying to discover how the world works, is it a
useful approach for doing science? I would contend
that it is not. Actually, this is what Feynman is
getting at in the quote in my tag line, except that
he extends the observation to all philosophical
thinking and not just teleology. I think it is
worthwhile reflecting on Feynman's comment.
Let's look at another example that I, to tell you
the truth, found quite surprising when I learned of
it. The battle to exclude teleological thinking from
biology was enjoined and won (for the most part) by
creationists (most notably Richard Owen) before Darwin
ever penned the Origin. This is an important point
I think. Though Owen was a creationist and believed in
design he did not consider design a useful concept in
conducting science.
As my final example, I'll give a marvelous quote from
the great Mechanician D'Alembert:
=====begin quote==============
The laws of equilibrium and of motion are necessary truths.
A metaphysician would perhaps be satisfied to prove this
by saying that it was the wisdom of the Creator and the
simplicity of his intentions never to establish other laws
of equilibrium and of motion than those which follow from
the very existence of bodies and their mutual impenetrability.
But we have considered it our duty to abstain from this kind
of argument, because it has seemed to us that it is based on
too vague a principle. The nature of the Supreme Being is
too well concealed for us to be able to know directly what
is, or is not, in conformity with his wisdom. We can only
discover the effect of his wisdom by the observation of the
laws of nature, since mathematical reasoning has made the
simplicity of these laws evident to us, and experiment has
shown us their application and scope.
It seems to me that this consideration can be used to
judge the value of the demonstrations of the laws of
motion which have been given by several philosophers,
in accordance with the principle of final causes; that
is, according to the intentions that the Author of nature
might have formulated in establishing these laws. Such
demonstrations cannot have as much force as those which
are preceded and supported by direct demonstrations, and
that are deduced from principles more within our grasp.
Otherwise, it often happens that they lead us into error.
It is because he followed this method, and because he
believed that it was the Creator's wisdom to conserve
the same quantity of motion in the Universe always, that
Descartes has been misled about the laws of impact.
Those who imitate him run the risk of being similarly
deceived; or of giving as a principle, something that
is only true in certain circumstances; or finally, of
regarding something which is only a mathematical
consequence of certain formulae as a fundamental law
of nature. -- D'Alembert
======end==============
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman