|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Hilarious, Karl.
Though I would prefer it if we could actually stick to the science rather than resort to name calling.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually, although the geological column is no-where complete, there are plenty of places with a good few tens of millions of years in once heap, and a few with hundreds.
Also, with the exception of a pretty big gap (in the Triassic IIRC) and a couple of smaller ones in the Tertiary, almost the whole of the column since the Cambrian is found in Britain. Which is just one of the reasons why the great age of the earth was first worked out by British scientists (almost all of whom were Christiansm, for what its worth)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb Karl.
In 'another place' I declared that the universe being 12-15 billion years old, like the cooled surface of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and life about 4.2 now I think, is God given fact.
Sanc, who is much nicer than I ever will be, disagrees.
I take on board all of the provisos as to what a fact is: Dawking declares evolution to be one and I'd have to agree.
If God is Creator, and I believe He is, then whatever processes over time are revealed by science, are facts. God given facts.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Opening post on thread I just closed in Purgatory quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
This is an interesting story.
Proponents of intelligent design, and many of the more old-fashioned creationists, maintain that the eye could not have evolved without divine intervention, as there is no evolutionary advantage to half an eye. Even Darwin wondered how it got there.
However, he said that if someone could show how the eye developed from earlier precursors, this difficulty would not be an issue.
while it is easy to see how a primitive eye could become more complex, the question of how it all started in the first palce has puzzled many scientists. The researchers in the article above have come up with a good explanation.
How will this affect Creationism/Intelligent design? Will the old "the eye couldn't have evolved" argument finally be laid to rest?
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It was laid to rest years ago. Creationists like to dig it up and give it another hundred lashes, but it's just as dead as it ever was.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Quite. The imperatives that drive creationism/ intelligent design are religious and social anxieties, not scientific data. It is one of (many) focuses for a sort of anxious, inchoate social conservatism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Quite. The imperatives that drive creationism/ intelligent design are religious and social anxieties, not scientific data. It is one of (many) focuses for a sort of anxious, inchoate social conservatism.
Callan, this comment is a clear ad hominem and frankly borderline hellish. It is out of place on this thread.
The fact that you do not distinguish between "creationism" (usually understood as young earth, flood geology, 7-day Genesis literalism), and the much more scientifically and philosophically nuanced approach(es) adopted in the Intelligent Design fraternity, suggests to me that you are unaware of the important scientific and philosophical issues involved.
Karl's comment on the evolution of the eye involves more wishful thinking than hard scientific reality. If you think the problem of the evolution of the eye has been solved scientifically, then I have a bridge to sell you. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The fact that you do not distinguish between "creationism" (usually understood as young earth, flood geology, 7-day Genesis literalism), and the much more scientifically and philosophically nuanced approach(es) adopted in the Intelligent Design fraternity, suggests to me that you are unaware of the important scientific and philosophical issues involved.
ID is only marginally closer to good science than YEC is. The difference between them is sufficiently small that most people who are looking at them from a distance (eg: from mainstream scientific thinking) would have great difficulty spotting the "important scientific and philosophical issues involved".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Callan is spot on. Both YEC and ID are driven by the same need to find something of which one can say "Ha! God must have done that!"
Required in no other area of science, and no more than a regurgitated God of the Gaps argument.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
The fact that you do not distinguish between "creationism" (usually understood as young earth, flood geology, 7-day Genesis literalism), and the much more scientifically and philosophically nuanced approach(es) adopted in the Intelligent Design fraternity, suggests to me that you are unaware of the important scientific and philosophical issues involved.
What Alan and Karl said.
ID is, of course, much more scientifically and intellectually nuanced than YEC. It is still an ideological rather than a scientific issue. ID Methodology consists at attempting to poke holes in Darwinism and triumphantly exclaiming: "Explain that!" It is distinguished from YEC by the sophistication of its rhetoric. Its methodology is painfully similar.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Callan said:
ID is, of course, much more scientifically and intellectually nuanced than YEC.
Well, at least we are agreed on something.
quote:
It is still an ideological rather than a scientific issue.
No, completely wrong. The issue is whether it is possible to be fully scientific whilst acknowledging the inadequacy of methodological naturalism and explicitly accepting some form of philosophical teleology. I’m sorry that you don’t seem able to see that.
quote:
ID Methodology consists at attempting to poke holes in Darwinism and triumphantly exclaiming: "Explain that!"
It’s a perfectly legitimate scientific task to demonstrate the weaknesses in any particular scientific theory. The things a theory cannot explain are vital evidence for the existence of a better theory somewhere. That’s how science progresses. I don’t see why the prevailing neo-Darwinism should be exempt, especially when you add in Darwinism’s social and political ramifications.
As Thomas Kuhn noted, science will hold on to a longstanding poor theory rather than admit it has no theory. The true scientific task is to construct an obviously better theory, but even that is no guarantee that it will be immediately accepted.
quote:
It is distinguished from YEC by the sophistication of its rhetoric. Its methodology is painfully similar.
So the whole ID movement is simply sophisticated rhetoric, with no serious scientific substance of any kind? And of course we have guilt by association with the YEC shenanigans, just to complete the icing on the cake.
If these are the strongest criticisms that can be brought forward, then the ID world is clearly in a far stronger position than I thought. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
The issue is whether it is possible to be fully scientific whilst acknowledging the inadequacy of methodological naturalism and explicitly accepting some form of philosophical teleology. I’m sorry that you don’t seem able to see that.
Is that the issue? I'm sure that most scientists would agree that one can, however, the philosophical teleology that might be accepted by an individual on a philosophical level are not part of science. It strikes me that in fact this is striking at philosophical rather than methodological naturalism.
Given the successful way in which evolution does explain so much, I would suggest that the areas in which its explanatory powers are less strong (examples would be welcome) are grounds for considering how the theory can best be modified, rather than completely rejected.
I certainly fail to see ID as a better theory. I can think off the top of my head of a few things that ID fails dismally to explain - starting with the wiring of the vertebrate retina and moving onwards.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The issue is whether it is possible to be fully scientific whilst acknowledging the inadequacy of methodological naturalism and explicitly accepting some form of philosophical teleology.
So, what is science then if not methodological naturalism? I agree you can be fully scientific and acknowledge the inadequacy of methodological naturalism in addressing, say, the beauty of a work of art. But, how can you be fully scientific if you consider methodological naturalism to be inadequate to address questions of the nature of the material universe.
quote:
It’s a perfectly legitimate scientific task to demonstrate the weaknesses in any particular scientific theory. The things a theory cannot explain are vital evidence for the existence of a better theory somewhere. That’s how science progresses. I don’t see why the prevailing neo-Darwinism should be exempt, especially when you add in Darwinism’s social and political ramifications.
I don't think anyone is saying Darwinism should be exempt from what you correctly identify as good science. Where ID differs from good science is the motivation for such criticism. Rather than trying to get to a better understanding of the phyisical universe ID seeks to find evidence that the phyisical universe is beyond understanding. ID seeks to find gaps in understanding, not to try and fill them by better science but to fill them with "God did this" and thus put them beyond the bounds of science to explain. Naturally, scientists don't react well to claims that they can't investigate something interesting.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
No, completely wrong. The issue is whether it is possible to be fully scientific whilst acknowledging the inadequacy of methodological naturalism and explicitly accepting some form of philosophical teleology. I’m sorry that you don’t seem able to see that.
Well, thats rather the point. The moment it does that, it ain't science. If science got more data and better results by rejecting methodological naturalism and importing a philosophical teleology, I'm sure it would adopt same. Those who objected on philosophical grounds would be left behind like those indignant Victorian clergymen, who insisted that evolution was incompatible with Genesis. But as ateleological methodological naturalism is the only game in town, at present, it seems rather unlikely that this will happen. Without methodological naturalism there can be no scientific method, at least as it is understood at present. What you want is science to effectively censor itself in accordance with your theological beliefs.
quote:
It’s a perfectly legitimate scientific task to demonstrate the weaknesses in any particular scientific theory. The things a theory cannot explain are vital evidence for the existence of a better theory somewhere. That’s how science progresses. I don’t see why the prevailing neo-Darwinism should be exempt, especially when you add in Darwinism’s social and political ramifications.
As Thomas Kuhn noted, science will hold on to a longstanding poor theory rather than admit it has no theory. The true scientific task is to construct an obviously better theory, but even that is no guarantee that it will be immediately accepted.
(My italics - The Lord hath delivered him into my hand!)
And it was you who claimed that my suggestion that ID derived from social conservatism was hellish?
Of course, Darwinism is falsifiable, that is why it is a scientific theory. ID isn't because it is predicated on the existence of a deity. Metaphysics, not science.
quote:
So the whole ID movement is simply sophisticated rhetoric, with no serious scientific substance of any kind? And of course we have guilt by association with the YEC shenanigans, just to complete the icing on the cake.
If these are the strongest criticisms that can be brought forward, then the ID world is clearly in a far stronger position than I thought.
I am only a poor humanities graduate, who knows little of such matters. But my understanding is that, yes, your first sentence adequately sums up the view of most serious evolutionary biologists as to the adequacy of ID. I'd have thought that was pretty damning, myself. Clearly they haven't thought of the social and political implications of their opinions.
[ 02. November 2004, 15:56: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The fact that you do not distinguish between "creationism" (usually understood as young earth, flood geology, 7-day Genesis literalism), and the much more scientifically and philosophically nuanced approach(es) adopted in the Intelligent Design fraternity, suggests to me that you are unaware of the important scientific and philosophical issues involved.
ID is only marginally closer to good science than YEC is. The difference between them is sufficiently small that most people who are looking at them from a distance (eg: from mainstream scientific thinking) would have great difficulty spotting the "important scientific and philosophical issues involved".
I think I have to disagree here.
YEC is simply unbelieveable if you think there is a real objective world out there. It is flying in the face of all observation. Down there with a flat earth and the moon being made of green cheese. I frankly, think everyone who thinks they believe it doesn't really understand the issues.
The only let-out is the Omphalos - the world as a sort of great big virtual reality, a fake creation (in which case of course all scientists would have to carry on assuming the world was old because God would have done the faking so well that worjing with a young earth would lead to wrong results!)
An Old-Earth creationism, whether pinned on "Intelligent Design" or not, can be made compatible with observation. I'm not saying the various versions are true, but it is at least possible to believe them.
Though, in the end, I suspect they go the way of all "God of the Gaps" theories. There are (probably) no gaps in creation. God's design and natural processes are indistinguishable. (At least to us on the "inside")
So the really funny thing is that whichever approach you take the scientist thinking about the origins and history of life has to go about things the same way - ID, or even YEC+Omphalos make no practical difference!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can think off the top of my head of a few things that ID fails dismally to explain - starting with the wiring of the vertebrate retina and moving onwards.
Bending over backwards to be fair, the most common forms of ID seem to assume divine intervention in the origin of life, and maybe in the very first bactreria-like creatures, but evolution by natural processes since then. With perhaps a push to the human species.
Now as we don't actually know much about the origins of life, and there are persuasive arguments (most recently from Carl Woese who knows what he's talking about) that normal evolutionary methods can't tell us much about it, there is a big gap for ID to make assertions about.
But thats all they can be, assertions. It might genuinely be impossible to know, short of a time machine. Or divine revelation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Callan said:
Well, thats rather the point. The moment it does that, it ain't science. If science got more data and better results by rejecting methodological naturalism and importing a philosophical teleology, I'm sure it would adopt same. Those who objected on philosophical grounds would be left behind like those indignant Victorian clergymen, who insisted that evolution was incompatible with Genesis. But as ateleological methodological naturalism is the only game in town, at present, it seems rather unlikely that this will happen. Without methodological naturalism there can be no scientific method, at least as it is understood at present. What you want is science to effectively censor itself in accordance with your theological beliefs.
Callan, the last sentence is absolute bollocks - I have no desire to censor anything in the realm of truth and knowledge– so I suggest you withdraw the inference. Before I became too ill to work, my whole professional existence depended on a solid foundation of scientific and technological knowledge applied intelligently. In the nuclear world I have seen plenty of things censored, but it wasn’t because of someone’s theological beliefs!
The idea that we must accept, as a basic starting position, an ateleological methodological naturalism is not something determined scientifically. Such a starting position is clearly an a priori philosophical decision, and not scientific at all. Nevertheless, I will be the first to concede that science has achieved many great results using such a methodology.
However, that doesn’t mean such a methodology will deliver true results on every occasion. There are many cases where it will give results that are not even partially correct. As a simple example, I refer to the role of accident investigations where the role of human psychology interacting with technology is often essential in understanding “what went wrong”. In this case you simply can’t leave intelligent purpose out of the equation and expect to be correct.
Incidentally, my reference to “social and political ramifications” was a poorly worded reference to how Darwinian ideas have been adopted in academic fields far removed from biology. As I wrote, I particularly had the so-called science of “evolutionary psychology” in my sights.
quote:
Alan Cresswell said:
I don't think anyone is saying Darwinism should be exempt from what you correctly identify as good science. Where ID differs from good science is the motivation for such criticism. Rather than trying to get to a better understanding of the physical universe ID seeks to find evidence that the physical universe is beyond understanding. ID seeks to find gaps in understanding, not to try and fill them by better science but to fill them with "God did this" and thus put them beyond the bounds of science to explain. Naturally, scientists don't react well to claims that they can't investigate something interesting.
Alan, with respect, I think you are being a little naďve. Hard-line Darwinists such as Dawkins (and many others) have not hesitated to draw all sorts of philosophical and theological conclusions from their supposedly value-free scientific work. They disingenuously use the prestige of a supposedly naturalistic science as the basis for the acceptance of their distinctive personal views.
Would anyone have given a moment’s notice to Panspermia (the theory that primitive life on earth was seeded from outer space) if its proposer (Francis Crick) had not coincidentally been the discoverer of the structure of DNA? Would anyone listen to Dawkins’ personal world views about “selfish genes” and the desirability of atheism if he were not an Oxford professor for the “public understanding of science”?
There is no control on this behaviour from the scientific world, even though such behaviour falsely claims the scientific high ground before a public that is generally scientifically illiterate. In such an unbalanced scenario, it is only to be expected that a robust response is likely to come from other able members of the scientific world who can see the games being played.
This is the context in which the ID fraternity has been making its case. They are convinced that it is quite possible to do science with integrity from an explicitly theistic perspective, as were many of the early famous scientists (such as Sir Isaac Newton, who was a young earth creationist to boot). Part of the battle is for scientists to be more self-aware and open about their own philosophical positions.
I think the criticism that ID simply resorts to “God of the gaps” thinking is simplistic. It doesn’t reflect the reality of much ID material that I have read on the Internet. I think it is caricaturing it to suggest that “God did this” represents the end of the investigation for the ID world. Rather, the question is whether an understanding of intelligence and purpose abroad in the universe, in combination with conventional scientific tools, helps us to arrive at a true knowledge.
quote:
ken said:
Bending over backwards to be fair, the most common forms of ID seem to assume divine intervention in the origin of life, and maybe in the very first bacteria-like creatures, but evolution by natural processes since then. With perhaps a push to the human species.
As far as I can see the ID world is actually a very broad church, and there are many different viewpoints within it. Compared to hard-line Darwinism, it comes across to me as refreshingly open and liberal in its culture. Even some theistic forms of Darwinism are probably compatible with ID ideas.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Compared to hard-line Darwinism, it comes across to me as refreshingly open and liberal in its culture.
Eh?
I was almost with you until you wrote that.
WTF is "hard-line Darwinism"?
Its a set of biological theories, not a political party.
BTW the big proponent of panspermia wasn't really Crick but Hoyle & Chandresekar - and the idea goes back at least to Arrhenius.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
ken said:
I was almost with you until you wrote that.
WTF is "hard-line Darwinism"?
It’s a set of biological theories, not a political party.
It’s the extension of Darwinism beyond its possible application in the biological realm into a dogmatically-held unified theory of life, the world and everything. It is a blend of biological Darwinism with a heavy dose of philosophical naturalism and lots of other big words that I can’t think of right now.
The net result is a rigid ideology. Your idea of a “political party” is not far off, especially in the heavily politicised world of public education in the USA. It seems to be held with a psychological tenaciousness that would make the most convinced YEC blush. See the devoted Internet disciples of Richard Dawkins for the most obvious example of this.
In general terms it’s a subset of liberal fundamentalism, of which there have been plenty of examples on the Ship.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... It might genuinely be impossible to know, short of a time machine. Or divine revelation.
I actually agree with you on this. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
[QUOTE]ken said:
[b]It?s the extension of Darwinism beyond its possible application in the biological realm into a dogmatically-held unified theory of life, the world and everything. It is a blend of biological Darwinism with a heavy dose of philosophical naturalism and lots of other big words that I can?t think of right now.
"Political conservatism" is the phrase you are looking for.
What you are describing is what we used to call "social Darwinism" then "Sociobiology" then "Evolutionary psychology".
And far from being held rigidly it is discussed and criticised and held up for inspection as much as - probably more than - any other branch of science.
quote:
The net result is a rigid ideology. Your idea of a ?political party? is not far off, especially in the heavily politicised world of public education in the USA.
Not really. Except among a few far-Right neocon/libertarian types. And they are very much in the line of fire.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Alan, with respect, I think you are being a little naďve. Hard-line Darwinists such as Dawkins (and many others) have not hesitated to draw all sorts of philosophical and theological conclusions from their supposedly value-free scientific work. They disingenuously use the prestige of a supposedly naturalistic science as the basis for the acceptance of their distinctive personal views.
Yes. So? I never mentioned Dawkins [i]et al[i/], quite deliberately as I consider that when they step beyond the scientific fields in which they are undoubtably good scientists they cease to be good scientists and become very poor philosophers. In discussing what science is and how it works focussing on a small minority of scientists who have gained some notoriety in publishing their philosphical opinions widely isn't very constructive.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Callan, the last sentence is absolute bollocks - I have no desire to censor anything in the realm of truth and knowledge– so I suggest you withdraw the inference. Before I became too ill to work, my whole professional existence depended on a solid foundation of scientific and technological knowledge applied intelligently. In the nuclear world I have seen plenty of things censored, but it wasn’t because of someone’s theological beliefs!
The idea that we must accept, as a basic starting position, an ateleological methodological naturalism is not something determined scientifically. Such a starting position is clearly an a priori philosophical decision, and not scientific at all. Nevertheless, I will be the first to concede that science has achieved many great results using such a methodology.
However, that doesn’t mean such a methodology will deliver true results on every occasion. There are many cases where it will give results that are not even partially correct. As a simple example, I refer to the role of accident investigations where the role of human psychology interacting with technology is often essential in understanding “what went wrong”. In this case you simply can’t leave intelligent purpose out of the equation and expect to be correct.
With hindsight, the word 'censor' was unhelpful and I withdraw it.
If methodological naturalism doesn't work, however, I would expect to see it breaking down in a realm of scientific fields. This appears not to be the case. Within your own field, I would imagine, methodological naturalism is the sole acceptable method of inquiry. If a nuclear reactor goes wrong, I doubt whether anyone would be terribly amused if someone postulated evil spirits as an explanation. (Alvin Plantinga, who I understand is a supporter of ID, has argued that all natural evil derives from the freewill of supernatural evil entities. I find this suggestive, not to mention amusing). I submit to your greater knowledge of the literature but I am unaware, to multiply examples, of any ID theorist criticising big bang theory, which is odd given that this is precisely the sort of area where the hand of the deity might be expected to be discerned. It seems a little counter-intuitive to argue that Planck time could be expected to run itself, but that the evolution of the eye required God to pop by and make a few discreet adjustments - quite apart from anything else it seems bad theology. God continually working within his creation is one thing, God being obliged to nip back at strategic intervals in order to fix bits is quite another.
To be honest, I am not sure that accident investigations are a precise analogy. Human intervention is empirically testable and therefore falsifiable in a way in which divine intervention is not. If I hit a snooker ball at a certain speed and angle a geometer, with access to all the data, will be able to tell you whether the ball will enter a pocket. What he can't tell you is whether someone will walk into the room and pick the ball up, just before it rebounds of a cushion. But a mischeivous teenager is otherwise subject to the laws of science. The geometer, when told that there was a teenager in the room and that the ball did not enter a pocket on the rebound does not need to postulate an entity outside the scientific frame of reference to explain what happened.
[ 03. November 2004, 08:59: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Surely the point is this: It is possible to criticise certain scientific principles. Even with all the evidence in front of you, it is possible to say 'no, sorry that just doesn't add up'.
But to then say 'well, in that case we are forced to accept this other position x' seems a ludicrous extension of the Sherlock Holmes 'lie' that all truth is capable of being reasoned and therefore all explanations are available to be considered and accepted/rejected. I would be very surprised if we do not later find that many things we observe are actually fully explained by ideas we haven't yet thought of.
It isn't an either/or. To reject the one is not to accept the other. And science can deal with uncertainty, whereas I'm afraid any entrenched position cannot.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
To be honest, I am not sure that accident investigations are a precise analogy. Human intervention is empirically testable and therefore falsifiable in a way in which divine intervention is not. If I hit a snooker ball...
A human hitting a snooker ball in order to win a game is not a very good analogy of God's ongoing intervention in creation. ("Providence" as we used to call it)
A better analogy would be a human writing a novel in which another human hits a snooker ball in order to win a game.
Within the frame of reference of the novel there is - if the novel is well written - no way of telling the intervention of the author from the "natural processes" within the story - because they are all the same thing. All of the story is written by the author. If the author chose, and if they are a good writer, all of the story may seem to arise from its premises.
In a similar way there is no way that we can tell God's intervention from natural processes becauses they are all God's creation. The only way we could possibly know would be from direct revelation.
Looking around the universe for little anomalies that are evidence of the existence of God just doesn't work. It can't work - unless God makes it work. You can't do an experiment on God.
It makes a good novel though - its partly what Moby Dick is about and more explicitly Dan Simmons's Hyperion books - which are to some extent spin-offs from Moby Dick.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Ken: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pvequalsnrt
Apprentice
# 8819
|
Posted
Methodological Naturalism - "The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes." according to the National Academy of Sciences in the US.
The problem with methodological naturalism is that it blinds us. It says that even if the data suggests intelligence, we must ignore it. There is no scientific justification for this position.
I have found one the most helpful papers in trying to understand the faith/reason evolution/bible clash to be Alvin Plantinga's Faith and Reason
It is interesting because he explores the atheistic attachment to evolution, describing it as the "only game in town for the nontheist".
Posts: 8 | From: Liverpool | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pvequalsnrt:
Methodological Naturalism - "The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes." according to the National Academy of Sciences in the US.
"The theory that explains everything explains nothing." To go for unnatural processes means you can not produce reliable results - and a process can be made "natural" once you understand it.
quote:
The problem with methodological naturalism is that it blinds us. It says that even if the data suggests intelligence, we must ignore it.
That's a very interesting theory. One that doesn't look as if it will be tested as the data doesn't suggest intellegence. (Stupid Design is a just about supportable hypothesis even if it can't be tested...)
quote:
There is no scientific justification for this position.
Occam's Razor is admittedly not a scientific proposition- just one extremely useful to science.
quote:
I have found one the most helpful papers in trying to understand the faith/reason evolution/bible clash to be Alvin Plantinga's Faith and Reason
It is interesting because he explores the atheistic attachment to evolution, describing it as the "only game in town for the nontheist".
Such a pity he's wrong on so many issues. He claims that he's rebutting the view that where science contradicts scripture, it is scripture that should be discarded. The real state of affairs is that where the real world conflicts with either current scientific theory or current theological theory, it is the real world that is right and both scientists and theologians need the humility to be able to reform their views in this light. Scientists have it. Creationists usually don't.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pvequalsnrt:
I have found one the most helpful papers in trying to understand the faith/reason evolution/bible clash to be Alvin Plantinga's Faith and Reason
It is interesting because he explores the atheistic attachment to evolution, describing it as the "only game in town for the nontheist".
I wish I had a bit of time to read the article (sorry, I'll try and get to it at some point), but he is right ... evolution is the only game in town. At least, at the moment, scientists will continue to probe the theory, collect more data etc and it's always possible that sooner or later the evidence will start to push the theory beyond any option but to ditch it in search of something that better explains the data. Unfortunately for those who hold to the various Divine Intervention Creationist positions (ie: those who hold that God acted to create by intervening in the natural order in a way inherently inexplicable to science; including YEC, ID etc) there have been no such problems since Darwin first proposed his theory (to the contrary, all such investigation has strengthened the theory), and there's no guarantee that even if the theory is eventually discarded in favour of a better theory that that better theory would be any more favourable to Divine Intervention in Creation.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The real state of affairs is that where the real world conflicts with either current scientific theory or current theological theory, it is the real world that is right and both scientists and theologians need the humility to be able to reform their views in this light. Scientists have it. Creationists usually don't.
I would say "Scientists usually have it. Creationist usually don't". Just to be fair and accurate (there are some scientists who seem to demonstrate a distinct lack of humility).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The real state of affairs is that where the real world conflicts with either current scientific theory or current theological theory, it is the real world that is right and both scientists and theologians need the humility to be able to reform their views in this light. Scientists have it. Creationists usually don't. [/qb]
I would say "Scientists usually have it. Creationist usually don't". Just to be fair and accurate (there are some scientists who seem to demonstrate a distinct lack of humility).
Point definitely granted.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Interesting
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Very interesting Geo.
I was wondering when this would happen, having read the letter to Philosophy Now which obliquely hinted at it, and look forward to reading a more substantive treatment of Flew's change of mind.
Flew's article on Falsification is perhaps the strongest case in favour of atheism I have ever read and should, IMV, be made compulsory reading at all theological colleges and seminaries.
I have always darkly suspected that a certain type of militant atheist was really a closet believer who was angry with God. I'm not sure if this represents vindication of this theory or not.
[ 10. December 2004, 19:21: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
....I have always darkly suspected that a certain type of militant atheist was really a closet believer who was angry with God. I'm not sure if this represents vindication of this theory or not.
It vindicates your theory, for me. I had noticed that tendency in Atheists as well.
I'll check out that Falsification book. Sounds interesting.
[edit for being a dimwit]
[ 10. December 2004, 21:03: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
There's more detail here and some first hand quotes from him. He still seems to be very much in touch with the Secular Web people.
He was asked what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," and replied
quote:
"I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."
Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin."
Flew also says
quote:
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.
but he says he is basing this on Gerald Schroeder's book The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (2001) and that
quote:
he has not yet had time to examine any of the critiques of Schroeder. Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin
It seems to be good old fashioned 18th century style Deism - plus Darwinism after the first cause has kicked things off with the single-celled organisms - and I don't think that's what most of those arguing for intelligent design have in mind. To quote Flew from another article
quote:
``I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,'' he said. ``It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.''
I don't think that'll make him too popular with the sort of people who want evolution thrown out of school textbooks!
cheers
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
I don't have any problems with Darwin - if you see his theory through the eyes of Irenaeus, and his thoughts on the dynamic creation.
What do you think?
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I don't have any problems with Darwin - if you see his theory through the eyes of Irenaeus, and his thoughts on the dynamic creation.
Can you explain in a nutshell what Iranaeus's thoughts on the dynamic creation are? Ta muchly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I don't have any problems with Darwin - if you see his theory through the eyes of Irenaeus, and his thoughts on the dynamic creation.
Can you explain in a nutshell what Iranaeus's thoughts on the dynamic creation are? Ta muchly.
No, not really. But maybe an extract from this discussion might help you:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I understand the point you're making but I think an important part of God's composition is "becoming". This implies an unfinished state short of a goal. I feel creation is in a continual state of flux and no thing is finished...He may be writing even as we're interpreting.
You are wonderful! Irenean theology emphasises that we and the world are in a state of becoming.
«The trinity has profound existential meaning. The triune nature of God points to an interior spiritual life in him and and this life is the whole world. The revelation of the triune God is the antithesis of the conception of god as pure act. An abstract being which does not display within itself any concrete existence. There is in the holy trinity the One and there is his Other, and there is and egress, an issue a solution in the third... A static conception of God cannot be maintained. The Christian God can only be understood dynamically. In God there is a creative dynamic process which is accomplished in eternity.»
-Nikolai Berdyaev "the Divine and the Human."
Or maybe i'm just way off.
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Irenean theology emphasises that we and the world are in a state of becoming.
Clearly if the world is seen as being in a "state of becoming" then one is forced into a position where God resting after completing Creation has got to be metaphorical - He hasn't completed creation yet. And, if the 7th day is thus metaphorical, logically so too must the previous 6.
I can't see how someone following the teaching of Ireneus (if the above quote does correctly summarise Irenaen theology on this point) would have any difficulty with evolution. Indeed, Irenaen theology would almost drive you to accept evolution.
Of course, it doesn't follow that someone accepting evolution as an accurate description of the method God employed in creation is Irenaen.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Irenean theology emphasises that we and the world are in a state of becoming.
Clearly if the world is seen as being in a "state of becoming" then one is forced into a position where God resting after completing Creation has got to be metaphorical - He hasn't completed creation yet. And, if the 7th day is thus metaphorical, logically so too must the previous 6.
I can't see how someone following the teaching of Ireneus (if the above quote does correctly summarise Irenaen theology on this point) would have any difficulty with evolution. Indeed, Irenaen theology would almost drive you to accept evolution.
Of course, it doesn't follow that someone accepting evolution as an accurate description of the method God employed in creation is Irenaen.
Yes, i agree. I'm very influenced by Irenaeus, and I don't have any problems with the theory of evolution.
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Clearly if the world is seen as being in a "state of becoming" then one is forced into a position where God resting after completing Creation has got to be metaphorical - He hasn't completed creation yet. And, if the 7th day is thus metaphorical, logically so too must the previous 6.
Gerhard von Rad in his Genesis commentary speculates that the Sabbath day of rest actually constitutes God's future intention. It was the ongoing process toward God's Sabbath of shalom that created so much agony. The struggle of God was not so much with the original creation itself, but with human response to it. From the beginning the creation narratives were in themselves not pointing to a past completed action by God, but where rather oriented towards the future. This future was indeed God's rest, but was creation's rest as well.
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
From the beginning the creation narratives were in themselves not pointing to a past completed action by God, but where rather oriented towards the future.
Pity this is the opposite of what one would interpret given the tenses of the verbs.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've said before (probably on this thread) that I've always found the idea that the "7th day" of rest is sometime in the future attractive. That doesn't make the whole narrative refer to future events. I think it's more that the first "6 days" are symbolic of the current status; God is creating the heavens and the earth, he is in the process of creating humanity in his image, this process won't be complete until the second coming.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think, as regards the original intention of the writers, that I should invoke my brother in law's first Rule of Theology.
Who knows, eh?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
I'm sorry to turn up, say my bit and ruin the flow of the thread, but I will anyway
I notice a lot of people saying YEC isn't scientific, and ID isn't much more, and this being a problem. As someone who comes from a scientific background (well, engineering really - useful science) I personally wouldn't hold science quite this high up. There was a wonderful documentry recently when Stephen Hawkins publically recanted one of his books, saying he now reckoned it wasn't correct or something or other. The documentry interviewed many scientists, many of whom were very confused. Some decided they disagreed with Hawkins recent conclusions because the information in the book seemed to work and they had spent years treating these as truths.
Now this is very far from this debate I realise, but my point is this - why do we trust our scientists so much? It seems ever since we stopped being frightened of what they were doing we started treating them as our high priests. We now look to them to explain natural disasters and occurences. We look to them to explain why people are how they are, and why they do what they do.
I see nothing wrong with the study of science, I am just questioning the trust which we give to scientists themselves, who ultimately define what modern day science is, and who are ultimately human and capable of error. I certainly know in the engineering world that all too often the pursuit of the best way of doing something is often prioritised lower than cost and effort.
Having said that I am equally sceptical of the desperate stuff I see in creationist journals, full of scientists desperately trying to find factual encouragement for those who pin their entire faith on the earth being less than a few thousand years old.
Personally I don't think I'll mind which was true at the end of the day. My faith is centered on Jesus, and any creationist or darwinist who does the same is ok in my book (not a very impressive book to be in)
[ 12. January 2005, 15:15: Message edited by: Tiffer ]
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
There was a wonderful documentry recently when Stephen Hawkins publically recanted one of his books, saying he now reckoned it wasn't correct or something or other.
I'm sorry -- you have to be more specific -- recanting is not usually a word associated with a scientist deciding that an aspect of one of his hypotheses or theories didn't hold up. Using language like "recanted" to imply that therefore we can't trust any scientific conclusion is logically fallacious. It is in the proper nature of scientific enquiry to set forth falsifiable premises, test them, and build on the findings if they are taking you in the right direction, or reject them if it becomes clear they are unsupported. That is because science is answering different questions in a different way than theology.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It is hardly unheard of for a scientist to admit they were wrong. Albert Einstein famously described his cosmological term in General Relativity (to give a static universe, in accordance with then current understanding) as the greatest blunder of his career. Admitting to mistakes is a much greater mark of a genuine seeking after truth, in any area of enquiry, than any amount of fudging to fit all data to some preconceived notion of the right answer.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
why do we trust our scientists so much?
"we" don't. Science is increasingly unpopular and mistrusted. People trust astrological new-age fluffy-bunny neo-pagan psychobabble tosh more then science.
quote:
It seems ever since we stopped being frightened of what they were doing we started treating them as our high priests.
Other way round. My grandparents generation trusted "experts" back before WW2. My parents generation still trusted doctors and lawyers and suchlike but were dubious about science & technology (I blame The Bomb). My generation think we know it all ourselves and place no faith in any expert or professional (why else is there so much crappy DIY around?)
quote:
We now look to them to explain natural disasters and occurences.
But explaining how natural disasters (& other natural processes) work is science. Anyone who tries to do it is doing science. Some of them do ti well, others badly. We'd hope that the better educated and more experienced ones woudl do it better.
quote:
I see nothing wrong with the study of science, I am just questioning the trust which we give to scientists themselves, who ultimately define what modern day science is, and who are ultimately human and capable of error.
But whoever said otherwise?
At least science is done in the open and more or less everything is published so anyone who wants can check it.
Unlike what business does.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
...Stephen Hawkins publically recanted one of his books, saying he now reckoned it wasn't correct or something or other....
That would of course be physicist, best-selling author, and occasional TV guest star Stephen Hawking, holder of the Lucasian chair in mathematics. As an engineer myself, I believe that exactness counts.
Hawking has invented and reinvented theories of black holes and quantum gravity in a most laudable way. It never seems to bother him to say "I used to think X, but because of Y, I now think Z." A man to admire, intellectually, at least.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
Yes I agree, I am glad Hawkins stood up for what he thought was true, I think I would have just let everyone go on believing what I thought was wrong. And my point isn't that we can't trust any scientific conclusions Laura, and I only used recant because I can't think of a better word! My point was that we should keep in mind that some of the things we take for granted will be revealed to be nonsense in 50 years time, and that is just a fact secure in the history of science. Much will continue getting closer to the truth and more and more exact, but it is still good to keep that in mind. Bear in mind Laura I am just questioning our trust in them, not demeaning it.
Ken when I said back when people were frightened of scientists I meant more centuries ago, when they used to torture people for saying the world was round etc.
I do still think people trust science and scientific conclusions these days however, but I see your point. Certainly on this thread there have been many who do.
DNA is a case and point - my mother swears by DNA, and yet she has no idea of the science of any of it. I do know that when people started trusting DNA testing they were convinced it was fool proof, and years later "they" admitted that there were many mistakes made as a result of primitive testing.
In science at school we were told every couple of years to "forget what we learnt before" because essentially we had been taught simple models of the truth that were so approximated they were actually no use to anyone - that is fine, we were being taught the methods and principles of science, but when this carries over into real world scenarios, eg aerodynamics, it becomes more worrying.
I know a fellow who is quite high up in British aerospace thingys, and did some work for the harrier a few years back etc who basically told me that the majority of their scientific research involves crashing planes, because the theory of aerodynamics is so approximated that it is practically useless to real life scenarios. It gets to the point when what kids learn in school about why a plane flies is what most people would call a lie, not even an approximation.
Evolution is another one. The majority of western people believe in evolution, and yet I am yet to hear someone give me a really good explanation of how it really works in practice. I am not saying there isn't one necessarily, but all I have ever had through 10 years of the best schooling money could buy (the Queen paid ) is small instances of where survival of the fittest has applied, like when a stronger twin outlives the weaker who has disabilities, therefore the stronger has lots of offspring. And yet I often hear people saying that they don't need to believe in God because we now have a scientific reason for our existance (which is silly in itself) and these people can't even coherently explain what they are now basing their life on.
ANyway, sorry for the rant!
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
