At 09:26 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Bertvan wrote:
>Perhaps academic freedom is also healthy in biology. Perhaps ID has been
>rejected
>
>on its merits rather than on a perpetuation of the
>"impression". Have you considered
>
>this possibility?
>
>
>Hi Brian,
>I consider it legitimate for a materialist to reject any hint of design or
>teleology on what they consider its merits.
Hello Bertvan,
Here is an interesting historical example. One of the greatest, some say
*the* greatest principles of science is the principle of least action, a
teleological
principle. The principle was developed by Maupertuis in the mid to early
1700's,
if I remember correctly. It is commonly thought that teleological
principles were
acceptable at this time. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Maupertuis was
ridiculed by almost all of the scientific community. His only defender
(among well
known scientists, as far as I'm aware) was Euler, who later took Maupertuis
idea
and shaped into the calculus of variations. A similar principle, the
principle of least
time, was proposed by Fermat at about the same time (a little before), and
met with
similar ridicule and scorn.
To make matters worse, Maupertuis heaped his own abuse and ridicule upon the
traditional argument from design (ala Paley). So, the poor guy was caught
in the middle,
being hammered from both sides. But in the end, Maupertuis and Fermat won,
because
their principles worked.
The point is that principles that scientists might find objectionable from
a philosophical
point of view are nevertheless accepted, provided they work. Another
example of this is
the idea that the universe had a beginning.
sidelight: Let me try to anticipate an objection. Some may want to say that
the principle
of least action, while it may have been a teleological principle at the
time, is not a
teleological principle today. This view is, I believe, based on an
unfortunate misconception
that teleological = conscious intentionality or purpose. The general idea
of teleology
is more robust than this, it is not equivalent to design. Take, for
example, Maupertuis
acceptance of teleology while at the same time rejecting the argument from
design.
Well, I guess the story is not complete without adding that Maupertuis also
developed the
first theory of evolution which bears at least some resemblance to the
modern theory.
This is worth some reflection. Here's a guy that developed a great
teleological principle,
used it to "prove" the existence of God and then turned around and
developed a theory
of evolution.
>Most fields are a healthy
>mixture of materialists and non materialists. When the Kansas school board
>did nothing more than refuse to teach that the mechanisms of macro evolution
>are know "facts", they were attacked by the press as being religious
>extremists.
In the past I have tried my best to steer clear of the Kansas
business since I don't consider it to be any of my business. The people of
Kansas are free to educate their children however they see fit, provided there
are no constitutional issues of course.
Thus, I haven't really kept abreast of all the developments, though I have read
a few of the items posted here and on the asa list. But from what I've read,
I'm a little surprised by your statement. Do you have some evidence that this
is all they did? I thought there was a warning label for text books (you know,
like the surgeon generals warning on packs of cigarettes :), or I'm I
confusing the
Kansas case with another case? Oh, and didn't they consult a creationist
organization
to help them draft the revisions?
>The fact that no biologist spoke out in their defense suggests
>those biologists who are not materialists are intimidated by a those who
>appear to have some anti religious axe to grind.
The argument from silence is very weak. You make a strong claim. You need
more evidence than this.
>If Talk Origins is not an
>official spokesman for biology, biology should find some spokesmen other than
>Dawkins and Gould. I don't know why I'm protesting. This acrimonious
>controversy is going reach the talk shows soon, and that should be great
>entertainment.
hmmm.... Biology has no official spokespersons. There are no high priests.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 18:00:42 EST