In response to my post:
>>Heads up on this piece by Eugenie Scott in the latest Science (on the web
>>at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5467/813).
>>
>>It's a reasonable piece from the point of view of an evolutionary
>>creationist (theistic evolutionist). There seems to be some lack of
>>recognition that some scientist use evolutionary theory to propogate their
>>philosophical/religious commitments. But I agree with her for the most part
>>that most scientists are evolutionists because of the evidence and not
>>because of philosophical/religous pre-commitments.
>
Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
><< There seems to be some lack of
>recognition that some scientist use evolutionary theory to propogate their
>philosophical/religious commitments. >>
>
>
>Such as? Do they do this in the name of science? or do they do this when
>expressing opinions?
and
Richard Wein wrote:
>Terry, I wonder why you think she *should* comment on the fact that some
>scientists use evolutionary theory to support their philosophical/religious
>views. (I've changed the words "propagate" and "commitments" as those
>seem a little loaded.) Is it relevant to the topic of her article?
>
>There seems to be an implication (or am I being oversensitive?) that you
>think it's improper for scientists to do this. But I can't see why.
>Scientists are as entitled as anyone else to express their philosophical
>views, and, if they think that evolutionary theory supports their views, why
>shouldn't they say so? It's also common (perhaps *more* common) for
>physicists to use physical theories to support *their* philosophical views.
>
>Richard Wein.
I have no problem with scientists expressing their philosophical/religious
views. In fact, given my belief that "life is religion" they can't help it.
However, let's not erect a double standard here. Here's an example. Random
events (random in the sense that they are described by statistical laws)
are behind many physical, chemical, and biological phenomena discussed in
evolutionary theory. I have no problem accepting that--to me that is part
of the scientific description of this process.
But does that mean that there is no God or controlling agent behind those
random events? Some say no and conclude that there is no direction to
evolution, there is no goal, there is no purpose--not just in a physical,
chemical, and biological sense, but also in a philosophical and relgious
sense. They not only do this in their popular books and articles but in
their scientific pronouncements. But I say yes--that God governs these
random events (Proverbs 16:33--"the lot is cast but its every decision is
from the Lord") and that even though the phenomena observed follows
statistical laws that God is still behind them, governing them, sustaining
them, causing them. Of course, this knowledge of God's governance does not
come from the phenomena itself--it is revealed to us from outside the
phenomena or above the phenomena. Now do you think Eugenie Scott would
think it appropriate for me to say this in my science classroom or in a
scientific book or article (even as religious belief or personal
opinion--notice how easy it is for religion to be labeled personal opinion,
but not science)?
It seems to be okay to espouse atheism in the midst of one's science, but
it doesn't seem to be okay to espouse theism.
Here's a question to test our thinking here:
When Carl Sagan said "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will
be", was he making a scientific statement or a philosophical/religious
statement? Was he a scientist expressing his religious opinion? Is *Cosmos*
(the book or the film series) science or is it a mixture of religion and
science?
Finally, in general, I think it's philosophically naive to say that one can
do science without at the same time doing philosophy and/or religion. Thus,
our attempts at calling this or that science and this or that religion are
doomed to failure. Personally, I think the reason that young earth
creationism (YEC) and even ID creationism is so wrong has nothing to do
with the importing of religion/creationism into science. It's that it's bad
science! As Eugenie pointed out, most "creationism" is "anti-evolutionism".
If this is true, then the claims of the YEC or IDC can be weighed in the
balance of science. For example, I think that the claims of the failure of
radiometric dating are soundly refuted scientifically. I also think that
the claims of the failure of evolutionary mechanisms to explain irreducible
complexity are also soundly refuted scientifically.
The problem is that both sides use propoganda and appeal to popular
audiences and even political processes to wield their influence. So science
becomes a majority opinion based on who has the best propoganda machine. In
general I think that the YEC is more guilty of this than IDC or of
mainstream science, IDCers are now doing it and it seems that Eugenie's
piece is a call for scientists to start doing it. This is a sad state of
affairs. Unfortunately, it is somewhat unavoidable. Education to a large
degree is propogandizing. What's in the textbooks is what is the majority
opinion among scientists and is second, third, or even fourth hand
information to the readers. It might even be second and third hand
information to the authors themselves.
I am an evolutionist who runs in fundamentalist circles. This past year I
have been teaching high school chemistry from a creationist textbook in a
Christian school. Most of the material is indifferent to the philosophical
perspective of the text. The discussion of radiometric dating is okay but
includes the typical YEC warning that there are so many assumptions built
into dating that you can't trust the dates if they extrapolate to beyond
dates that can be reasonably confirmed by other methods. But the text does
acknowledge the billion year range half-life of uranium isotopes. In these
Christian school circles, YEC is as integrated into the culture/education
as evolutionary ideas are integrated into public schools. It's amazing!
Well, I think I have gone to rambling so I better stop now. Richard, I
think some of my answer here gets to your question of a few weeks ago. If
you don't mind, why don't you re-phrase the question in light of this post
and I will try to answer it in a timely fashion.
TG
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 12:51:03 EDT