Reflectorites
On Sun, 14 May 2000 21:26:09 -0700 Allen & Diane Roy wrote:
[...]
>>DB>Upon graduation from U.of Mich. in 1949 I was a convinced (and
>>>outspoken) "believer" that evolution was a proper and sufficient
>>>scientific explanation for the origin and diversity of life on planet
>>>earth.
>SJ>It is interesting how often evolution is couched in religious terms,
>>i.e. "believer". One shouldn't have to *believe* a scientific theory-
>>one should *know* it. If one has to believe it, then arguably it is not
>>science. Or if it is science, then other things that are believed
>>should not necessarily be arbitrarily exluded from science.
AR>Evolutionism is a religion.
As this is AFAIK Allen's first response to one of my posts, a welcome to
the Reflector from me to him.
AR>From Merriam-Webster: Religion: A cause, principle, or belief held to with
>faith and ardor.
To be fair, this is only one of the definitions which the online Webster's
dictionary gives:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion
Main Entry: re£li£gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
- re£li£gion£less adjective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I must say that I disagree with 4. above it as it stands. It seems to me
that a Christian could have a belief in the "cause, principle, or system of
beliefs" about democracy (for example), "with ardor and faith" without it
being necessarily his/her "religion".
It seems to me that the essential criteria for a belief being a "religion" (or
*effectively* a "religion"), is the extent to which it is about *ultimate*
reality.
Therefore, I would agree with Allen that "Evolutionism" (i.e. a belief in
evolution") is a "religion" (or *effectively* a "religion"), if it is held to be
an ultimate reality.
But some evolutionists may not hold evolution to be an ultimate reality.
Most evolutionists would probably hold that materialism (i.e. matter is all
there is); or naturalism (i.e. nature is all there is); as their ultimate reality.
For them, materialism/naturalism is (or effectively is) their "religion".
AR>This definition covers all forms of religion:
>
>1. Christianity
>2. Islam
>3. Judaism
>4. Hinduism
>5. Buddhism
>6. Shintoism
>7. Animism
>8. New Age
>9. Occultism
>10. Evolutionism
>11. Beatlemania :)
I would therefore agree with 10. but probably not 11 (I note the ":)").
Worship of pop-stars has many outward elements of "religion" but it
probably is not about ultimate reality.
AR>While most people of the Western world tend to think of Christianity and a
>supernatural God when they hear the word religion, it really covers a much
>larger field than that.
Agreed. That is IMHO why most evolutionists are so hostile to
Christianity. It is because intuitively the recognise Christianity as a rival to
their own (unacknowledged) `religion' of evolutionism.
So when they try to dismiss creationism/ID as "religion" and their own
view as "science" they are effectively trying to preserve their `religion' from
challenge.
AR>How does Evolutionism qualify as a religion. There are four philosophical
>tenets which must be accepted on "faith."
>
>1. Naturalism/Materialism: Mater/energy is eternal and that that is all
>there is.
I would regard materialism/naturalism as their basic `religious' position and
evolutionism a manifestation of it.
AR>2. Actualism (a derivative of Uniformitarianism. The present is the key
>to the past: The same processes working today were in process in the past,
>but not necessarily at the same rates. i.e., this is Non-uniform
>Uniformitarianism)
"Actualism" is IMHO a corollary of materialism/naturalism. If
matter/nature is all there is, then it follows there is nothing which can have
come in between (i.e. intervened in) the chain of cause-and-effect.
Therefore "the present", *must* be causally continuous with "the past" and
must be "the key" to it.
AR>3. Abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis" is also a corollary of materialism/naturalism. If matter/nature
is all there is, and life exists today, then matter/nature simply *must* have
been able to originate itself.
AR>4. Darwinism
"Darwinism" is probably not essential to materialism/naturalism or even to
evolutionism. Darwinism (i.e. evolution by random variations and natural
selection) is simply the best (or the least worst!) explanation of life's
complex designs, given the basic `religious' assumptions of
materialism/naturalism.
AR>None of these have be proved. And since they are assumptions it would be a
>logical fallacy to attempt to prove them within any paradigm that assumes
>them true.
Agree about "1. Naturalism/Materialism" and its corollary "2. Actualism".
But disagree about "3. Abiogenesis" and "4. Darwinism". These latter can
be (and have been) tested and have been found wanting. But they survive
because of the prior `religious' faith commitment of evolutionists to
materialism/naturalism.
This is evident when pressure is put on "Abiogenesis" and "Darwinism".
Evolutionists will typically adopt a `scorched-earth' policy and retreat to an
unfalsifiable philosophical position by typically saying something like:
`evolution is a fact, even if we don't yet know exactly how it occurred'.
Then when the threat has passed, they will start asserting "Abiogenesis"
and "Darwinism" again:
"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to appear
and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are absent, Darwinists
can just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to
explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed. When critics
appear and demand empirical confirmation, Darwinists can avoid the test
by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms,
particularly at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less
important role. The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even
if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the
critics have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back
door." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, pp.153-154).
Thus what is most basic is the position they retreat to: unfalsifiable
philosophical materialism/naturalism. If they don't know how evolution
occurred, then they can only `know' that it is a fact because of their prior
basic materialist-naturalist `religious' faith that nothing else *could* have
happened.
AR>Science can be and is done within the Evolutionary paradigm
>based on these assumptions. This religious paradigm guides the observation
>and question asking process in developing a hypothesis. Then after
>experimentation it interprets the data within the paradigm. Science does
>not and cannot prove evolution because Abiogenesis and Darwinism are
>assumptions.
If the claim is that "Abiogenesis and Darwinism" cannot be tested and
found false, I disagree. They can be, and have been, tested and found to be
seriously wanting, if not false.
But if the claim is that materialist-naturalists *cannot admit* that
"Abiogenesis" and "Darwinism" (or something very much like it) are false,
and still remain within their materialistic-naturalistic paradigm, I would
agree.
AR>Creationary Catastrophism has its similar paradigms
>
>1. Creation Ex Nihilo: Mater/energy is not eternal, it was created by God
>2. Catastrophism: Global and larger catastrophes can and have occurred
>leaving their record in the rocks
>3. Creation of Kinds:
>4. Genetic Variation:
With the possible exception of "1. Creation Ex Nihilo" I also disagree that
the above cannot be tested and found to be false.
I know that some YECs claim that both creation and evolution are
ultimately untestable alternative models. For example Gish has written:
"We do not know how God created, what processes he used, *for God
used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural
universe*. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We
cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative
processes used by God. As we have pointed out earlier, evolutionists have
not witnessed any real evolutionary changes take place nor will this be
possible in the future. They, likewise, will never be able to know how their
postulated evolutionary changes may have taken place." (Gish D.T.,
"Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record," 1986, p.35. Emphasis in
original).
But the fact is that YECs (including Gish) *do* try to test and falsify
evolution claims, and evolutionists *do* try to test and falsify creation
claims. To claim that an opponent's position itself is unfalsifiable and then
to proceed to try to falsify it, is simply incoherent. In fact to claim that
one's own position is unfalsifiable, and then try to defend it, is equally
incoherent. I remember seeing somewhere that other YECs (e.g. Kurt
Wise), did not agree with Gish on this, because it would remove YEC from
being, even in principle, scientific.
Personally I regard "Creationary Catastrophism" (which I take to be a
species of YEC/Flood Geology), is a sub-model within the larger Judeo-
Christian creationist paradigm. It has a right to make its claims within that
paradigm (or outside it for that matter), but it should not make out that it is
*the* creationist paradigm.
My personal position within the larger Judeo-Christian creationist
paradigm, is a broad creationist sub-model which I call Mediate Creation,
and which I put forward as fully scientifically testable against all the known
scientific *evidence*. That is, I do not protect it from criticism, by
withdrawing it into an unfalsifiable realm, but in fact I *welcome* robust
criticism of it.
Briefly this holds that after the original immediate ex nihilo creation of the
`raw materials' of the universe, God mediately formed and filled His
creation working both naturally and supernaturally through existing natural
processes and materials at each stage. This position is in fact a generic
broad creationist position which would be consistent with most versions of
YEC on one hand and with most versions of TE on the other. It thus
provides the necessary metaphysical framework by not restricting unduly
how God *might* have created, in order to look at the evidence and see
how God most probably *did* create.
I hold that this model is broadly concordant with both the pattern of
creation revealed in Genesis 1-2 and with the *facts* of science, based on
the historic Christian `two-books' view of reality, as for example, stated by
the late Christian philosopher-theologian Bernard Ramm:
"If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that
the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to
some very positive theory of harmonization between science and
evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech
in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then
the two books of God must eventually recite the same story." (Ramm B.L.,
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 1967, p.25)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 16 2000 - 10:16:39 EDT