Reflectorites
I am trying to wind down this thread too. This will be my last post on
it unless Susan comes up with anything new.
I also apologise for this `bombing run' but another `window' appeared
between assignments and I have now nearly caught up with my
backlog!
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:02:21 -0500, Susan Cogan wrote:
>>SJ>Here is a test of "dogmatism". I have in the past stated that I am prepared
>>to admit that I could be completely wrong about theism, Christianity, ID
>>and/or creationism and that atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution could be completely right.
>SB>I have invited Chris and other atheists to similarly state publicly that
>>they could be completely wrong about atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution and that theism, Christianity, ID and/or creationism could be
>>completely right.
>>
>>To date, AFAIK, no atheist has been willing to admit this.
Richard *claims* to be willing to admit this. I have asked him to clarify if
he is admitting that he "could be completely wrong about atheism,
Darwinism, and/or naturalistic evolution and that theism, Christianity, ID
and/or creationism could be completely right."
SB>atheism/Darwinism and Christianity/creationism are two big lumps in
>your mind. They are four separate issues for me.
They are "four separate issues for me" too.
On "atheism/Darwinism", there were atheists before Darwin and there are
no doubt atheists today who are not Darwinists. Fred Hoyle comes to
mind. But Darwinism is probably the view of evolution that *most* atheists
hold.
On "Christianity/creationism" there are creationists like Lee Spetner and
Gerald Schroeder who are Jewish.
SB>Theism:
>Someone once asked H.L. Menken what he would do if he died and woke
>up in heaven and saw Jesus surrounded by the apostles. He said he
>would walk up to Jesus and say "Sir, I was wrong."
If Jesus is who the Bible says he is, then it will be too late. One of the most
devastating things that Jesus said was that He won't judge us by God's
standards, he will judge us by our *own* standards:
Mt 7:2 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
And *no one* could claim that was unfair!
SB> afraid it
>would take a similar level of evidence for me to admit the same thing.
The problem is not "evidence" but *attitude* to the "evidence". As Pascal
pointed out there is enough evidence for those who are willing to accept it,
but not enough evidence to force those who are unwilling to accept it:
" There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate
and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
(Pascal B., "Pensees," 1966, p.73)
SB>Darwinism:
>The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. I'll probably believe it
>until the Theory of Gravity is proved untrue and things start
>floating up off the ground.
Even some biologists don't find "The evidence supporting it is
overwhelming":
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman
that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth- century religion has virtually become a religion itself
and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are
certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious
fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral
reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science
itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a potential revolt
from within rather than a siege from without. What is even more
surprising is that these doubts are arising simultaneously from
several independent branches of science. With a growth in the
appreciation of the philosophy of science-largely due to the
influence of the philosopher Karl Popper-has come a doubt about
whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking, scientific. Is the theory
actually testable-as good theories must be? Is the idea of natural
selection based on a tautology, a simple restatement of some initial
assumptions? From within biology the doubts have come from
scientists in half a dozen separate fields. Many palaeontologists are
unconvinced by the supposed gradualness of Darwinian evolution;
they feel that the evidence points to abrupt change-or else to no
change at all. Some geneticists question Darwin's explanation for
the 'origin of species', feeling that natural selection may have
virtually nothing to do with the events that lead to the appearance
of new species. Among other scientists, for example among
immunologists, embryologists and taxonomists, the same feeling
seems to be growing: there is a lot more to evolution than Charles
Darwin envisaged, and even the modern synthesis of evolutionary
ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism," 1982, p.10)
SB>Christianity:
>Christian morality with its Middle Eastern emphasis on blame/shame
>and its neurotic dualism will probably always turn me off.
Is Susan suggesting that feeling "blame" and "shame" is not *real*? There
is a name for those who feel no "blame" or "shame" - psychopaths.
SB>Christianity is also intensely authoritarian. Democracy is a pagan
>idea that Christians have never been comfortable with and I'm very
>fond of democracy.
Christianity itself is not "authoritarian", but some human *interpretations*
of it have been and are. Where Christianity has been *mixed* with politics
or nationalism or philosophy, it has been "authoritarian". The New
Testament itself contains the teaching of what has been called the doctrine
of "The Priesthood of All Believers":
1 Pet 2:9 "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises
of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
The democracy that Susan enjoys in America owes itself to the
congregational democracy of its founding *Christian* Pilgrim Fathers.
SB>Creationism:
>An attempt to use the force of the Federal government to require
>teaching the mythology of one of the many religions practiced in the
>US in public schools. No thanks!
I doubt that any major creationist organisation wants "to use the force of
the Federal government to require teaching" of "creationism" (in an overtly
Christian Biblical sense) "in the US ... public schools."
But since "creationism" *is* a major issue (40%+ of the USA public
believe it), and many (if not most) Biology textbooks contain a caricatured
dismissal of Christian creationism at the beginning of their section on
Evolution, a fair and unbiased description of major creationist positions
(e.g. YEC, Progressive Creation and Theistic Evolution) should be taught
in schools, either in the introduction of science classes or in social studies.
The ID Movement's position is to "teach the controversy", i.e what the
dissenting views about evolution and its evidentiary problems *actually
are*:
"How can students become skilled in public discourse about
evolution if they learn only a caricature of the dissenting views and
never find out about the evidentiary problems? What educators in
Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the
controversy." Of course students should learn the orthodox
Darwinian theory and the evidence that supports it, but they should
also learn why so many are skeptical, and they should hear the
skeptical arguments in their strongest form rather than in a
caricature intended to make them look as silly as possible. They
should also learn that there really is a tension between the idea that
a supernatural being called God brought about our existence for a
purpose and the contrasting idea that we are products of an
unguided and purposeless material process. Why else would
persons who want to mock the Christian fish symbol choose to
decorate their automobile bumpers with a fish with legs? You can
paper over the tension by saying that some scientists are "religious"
in some vague sense, but why not face up to the problem and
educate people about the various options? Denying the obvious isn't
good education, and in the long run it won't build credibility for
science.
The "teach the controversy" formula probably has the support of
about two-thirds of the American public, and some members of the
majority of the Kansas state board of education have endorsed it
publicly. With such a genuinely liberal educational approach readily
available, the only reason for turning to a propaganda campaign
instead must be that the science educators are not confident that
their cherished theory can survive the kind of teaching that
encourages critical thinking."
(Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth," 2000, pp.82-83)
SB>There's nothing scientific about
>creationism and ID is just a propaganda campaign that collapses when
>real scientific evidence is required of it. See Christian views of
>democracy above.
Good. Then Susan would *support* teaching the controversy?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet
unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent
times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of 'spontaneous
generation.' It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed
spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful
experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due
to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never
arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes this is still the only
possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to
some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find
very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the
present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is
opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an
unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be
admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that
reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not
yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of
physics and chemistry." (Sullivan J.W.N., "Limitations of Science," [1933],
Pelican: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1938, pp.122-123)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:49 EST