John G. West explains it:
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
About
- Josh McDowell says: "Thinking Christian is one of the better places I know of on the web to learn and practice solid Biblical thinking, and to understand what it means that Christianity is really true."
- About This Blog
- RSS Subscribe
- Podcasts
- Also blogging at
• First Things
• The Point - Follow Me on Twitter
Links:
-
Apologetics Search Engine
-
Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
- Always Have a Reason
- Another Ascending Lark
- Apologetic Junkie
- Apologetics 315
- Apologetics Guy
- Bringing Back the Tao
- Christian Apologetics and Intelligence
- Christian Apologetics UK
- Cold and Lonely Truth
- Deeper Waters
- Dove Theology
- Edgar Andrews
- Epagonizesthai
- Erik Manning
- Faithful Thinkers
- Gospel Apologetics
- Hard-Core Christianity
- Hieropraxis
- Hope's Reason
- Ichthus 77
- In Defense of the Christian Faith
- Jonathan Sherwin
- Josiah Concept
- MandM
- Possible Worlds
- Proslogion
- Ratio Christi
- Ratio Christi-Ohio State
- Razor Swift Research Group
- Reasons for God
- Rob Lundberg
- Robert Kunda
- Sarcastic Xtian
- Say Hello To My Little Friend
- Songs of a Semi-Free Man
- Talitha Koum
- The Aristophrenium
- The God Hypothesis
- The Poached Egg
- The Point Blog
- The Redeemed Mind
- The Two Books Approach
- Thinking Matters
- Thoughtful Christianity
- Tilled Soil
- True U
- Wintery Knight
-
Blogroll
- Acton Institute Powerblog
- Appeared to Blogly
- Attempts at Honesty
- Between Two Worlds
- Brian Trapp
- Cadre Comments
- Cerebration
- Christ the Tao
- Confident Christianity
- Constructive Curmudgeon
- e4e
- Evangel (First Things)
- Evangelical Outpost
- Evangelical Perspective
- God3′s Blog
- He Lives
- JP Moreland
- Keith and Kay Seabourn
- Logos and Love
- Manhattan Declaration
- Maverick Philosopher
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Moral Science Club
- musings
- My Christian Blogs
- One Eternal Day
- Parableman
- Parchment and Pen
- Paul’s Ponderings
- Pseudo-Polymath
- Quodlibeta
- Real Physics
- Scientia Media
- Scriptorium Daily
- Seaford Baptist Church
- SelahScript
- Signs of the Times
- Stand to Reason
- Talk Wisdom
- The BreakPoint Blog
- Think Christian
- Touchstone Mere Comments
- Uncommon Descent
-
Resource Center
- Bede's Library
- BeThinking
- BreakPoint
- C.S. Lewis Institute
- Campus Crusade for Christ
- Christian Classics Ethereal Library
- Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview
- Discover God
- Jesus.org
- Last Seminary
- LeaderU
- Library of Historical Apologetics
- Project Gutenberg
- Reasonable Faith
- Reclaim the High Ground
- Refractions
- Summit Ministries
- The Trinity Forum
This article is filled with paragraph after paragraph of relentless misinformation. It ignores facts, like the involvement of the Discovery Institute in the legislation, Louisiana’s historically pathetic educational history and continued current performance (imagine glorifying a province in Kurdistan for its educational system codifying that there be a healthy discussion of Holocaust denial), and, my personal favorite, calls an opponent hypocritical because she is an atheist and opposed the legislation, but then fails to apply the same standard in reference to the bill’s proponents and supporters.
Come on. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is trumpeting this legislation except for its religious proponents. And yet it’s being heralded on sites like this as a triumph for science education. Talk about hypocrisy.
Call it what it is: a triumph of religious organization, an act of political calculation, and another reminder that the state with perhaps our poorest historical and current educational standards supports politicians who will preserve that status quo well into the near future.
Hmm… I guess this means you don’t like it much, Tony. Did I get that right?
Here’s the link to the bill: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=498719
It’s two pages, and is worth reading before making comments.
The bill is what is law, not the secret hopes and desires of those sponsoring it. The hysteria around this bill seems unwarranted.
Thanks for your comment above, Mike, and especially for the note of sanity with reference to what the bill actually is. The Discovery Institute is not in the bill. Intelligent Design is not in the bill. There’s no looming theocracy in there, either:
Mike R.,
Not a lot of time to comment today, but I did read the link. I’m not a legislative lawyer, but it seems clear to me that the law requires (“I did take constitutional interpretation in college, and I do recall that “shall” is an imperative in legislation) that scientific theories be criticized by its teachers (as if the scientific theories listed have not withstood any criticism to date — the chutzpah here is truly amazing) but that that the law itself is religiously blind, although it seems obvious to me that the criticism offered by the teachers not be. If you want to pretend that you can know nothing about the law’s sponsors’ motives, you are free to do so. I prefer to assess things more realistically. (Btw, the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of “slavery” — this did not, however, prevent the document from allowing its practice for some 6 decades.)
Tony, if the scientific theories have withstood all this criticism to date, then what on earth are you worried about? The worst that can happen, if you’re right, is that students will learn how to probe a theory, and then they’ll find that it withstands the probing.
The threatiness attached to this is truly amazing.
The law specifically forbids using this to advance a religion, so I can’t imagine what you’re getting at in the second half of your comment.
“Real science, however, is a lot more messy — and interesting — than a set of ideological talking points.”
The best statement in the article.
Let’s apply this statement to “intelligent design”.
Where is the science? It appears that, so far, the alleged “controversy” between ID and evolutionary theory is nothing but talking points.
Please, where, where, where is the messy science of ID?
Until there is some, this topic has no place in grade school science classes, except as an example of pseudo science. Name one university, world wide, that has an undergraduate or graduate degree program in intelligent design. (Bible colleges don’t count.) Just one will do. Because there are none, nada, zip, zilch – why on earth would ANYONE think that this is a topic for grade schools?
The “threatiness” is actually the sound of the main support members of a particular worldview’s superstructure cracking under the weight of critical thinking that exposes its internal weakness and external contradictions… How’s that for mixed engineering/philosophy metaphors?
Dave:
I happen to be opposed, in its current form, for ID to be termed a modern empirical science. But your “historical pointer” comparison falls flat: Imagine yourself at the time when Darwin publishes his first works: “Name one university, world wide, that has an undergraduate or graduate degree program in Darwinian descent with modification…” By virtue of this approach you prejudge ID and don’t even want to give it a chance or time to prove itself… or fall flat on its face. Like Tony, what are you so worried about? And, if you think science as it is practiced today, is ideologically-free, then you don’t know how scientific findings are pseudo-philosophically and pseudo-scientifically interpreted.
“By virtue of this approach you prejudge ID and don’t even want to give it a chance or time to prove itself… or fall flat on its face.”
Quite the contrary. ID has been judged, refuted, and thus has failed so far. This is why no one is doing any real science in ID > nor can any BE done. “It looks designed, so I’m gonna stop looking” isn’t science.
Tony and I are not worried about a thing. Show us the science. We’d like a cut of the Nobel Prize that surely would result.
The place that science will show up is in universities. Please name one that’s working on something. Glad to see you agree that until such time and when its backed up by real science, that it has no place in grade schools.
Tom / Holopupenko,
There is a place for criticism of the theories listed in the Louisiana law. They are called Scientific Journals.
The Louisiana law is an infringement of political (mob) power into a technical field. It’s like requiring that criticism of France’s foreign policy be required in high school French classes.
Holopupenko, ID (God created it) was the biological explanation for life for almost two thousand years, and a lot longer if you don’t use Christianity as your time post. It has had plenty of time to come up with something. (I’m not proposing it be dropped, but excuse me for not waiting around with bated breath for it to finally, finally get the traction it deserves!) The Theory of Evolution replaced ID because it is, well, a better theory: it predicts and explains in ways that Darwin did not imagine when he first wrote The Origin of Species, and the Theory’s present version is vastly superior to the one Darwin first proposed.
Please, please bring on the criticism of Evolution and the other theories listed. It will only make the science stronger, better, and more useful. But telling students that the process of science is to be circumvented by politicians, virtually all of whom could not pass a college biology course, is a breathtakingly stupid policy.
“Please, please bring on the criticism of Evolution and the other theories listed. It will only make the science stronger, better, and more useful.”
Ditto.
But the “criticism” can’t be mere assertions. Bring the science, bring the evidence, bring the facts. You do realize, Tom and Holopupenko, that scientists will LEAP at the chance to reveal mistakes or overturn long time “accepted” answers. Indeed, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein are three examples.
I agree wholeheartedly, Dave.
Tom,
If you agree wholeheartedly, then why do you characterize the article you linked to with the post title “Good News From the Origins Debates?”
What’s not to agree with there?
Tom – what exactly is the “Good News” about the Louisiana bill? What good does it do that wasn’t already permitted? If “critical thinking” was supposedly stifled previously, why isn’t this needed in other subjects? Why single out political topics? Answer > this is all about politics, not science nor education. This is all about the Wedge Strategy. Louisiana is using its children as political pawns. Shame.
Dave, I suggest you re-read what you wrote. With a little thought you may realize that your answer is contained in your question; and it’s not the Wedge strategy at all. I’ll let you work on that….
Very patronizing Tom, but glad you agree. It IS all about politics.
How do you explain the existance of the Wedge Strategy and the fact that the Discovery Institute is the source of both the Wedge Strategy AND the concept of the Louisiana Act? Just coincidental or the strategy in action?
Tony:
Your assertion, “ID (God created it) was the biological explanation for life for almost two thousand years, and a lot longer if you don’t use Christianity as your time post” is an ignorant one with terms thrown around sloppily.
First, do you know how long the modern empirical science of biology has been around? Hint: “modern” means since around the time of the Enlightenment. That’s, what? Four hundred years…
Second, do you know how long the sciences as a whole have been around? Since their infancy in the High Middle Ages… which makes them, oh, about 700 years old. No, neither the Greeks nor Romans nor Egyptians nor Chinese nor Muslims, etc. practice science as we understand it today—see Duhem and Jaki on this.
Third, ID has been around since the late 1980’s. If you’d like to conflate ID with the pseudo-science called creationism, then have a ball… but don’t expect any critical thinker to take you seriously.
Fourth (most important in terms of the level of ignorance), the argument from design is a philosophical one that the sciences can’t critique given their limitations, and originated in the Middle Ages—not in Ancient Greece. You sound more like the philosophically-challenged Richard Dawkins than what those philosophical arguments actually say… which leads me to suspect you read Dawkins’ critiques of Aquinas but didn’t read Aquinas himself. But, I could be wrong…
Fifth, the sciences don’t validate the sciences—that would be circular reasoning. Something (philosophical reflection) upon nature had to precede the sciences in order to establish the basis upon which the sciences can do their good work. Point? Science didn’t pop out of the air and doesn’t stand upon scientific but philosophical principles. The scientific method is a species of the epistemic cycle. I could go on and on, but the other point is the sneaking scientism lurking the background of your comments.
Sixth, I don’t think anyone here is opposed to descent with modification as a possible mechanism for evolution (the current weaknesses of the various evolutionary theories notwithstanding). What they’re opposed to is the “just so” pseudo-explanations and philosophical naturalism snuck in—in some cases imposed on others (see Lewontin quote)—to what should be limited to science. ID, for among other reasons, is wrong because it’s trying to impose scientific categories upon philosophical arguments. EvolutionISM is wrong, for among other reasons, because it’s trying to impose philosophical categories upon scientific arguments. At the end of the day, science, philosophy, and faith suffer because of high-strung egos such as Dembski’s and Dawkins.
Seventh, I’m an MIT Ph.D nuclear engineer (published in the U.S. and internationally) AND a natural philosopher in the Thomistic tradition, so please do not lecture me how science is conducted. If you (Dave) think scientists “leap” at every opportunity to overturn theories, you’re only kidding yourself. Trust me, there’s as much back-biting, betrayal, territoriality, sheer hatred of competing hypotheses and theories, and pseudo-scientific interpretations in the sciences as there are in other fields… in some cases, I think there’s more… like in the pseudo-science of global warming or SETI “research” or “cold fusion.” Should I continue? Galileo?? Boy, that’s revealing bit of ignorance. Do you think Galileo was able to prove—scientifically… really scientifically—that the earth rotated on its axis or some of the other things he proposed? If you do, you need to go back and reread your history. The Church, her mistakes notwithstanding, was the first in line to demand verifiable demonstrations from Galileo. When he couldn’t, but cantankerously decided to present his findings as “true,” the Church reacted… poorly, but certainly understandably. That later others were able to provide real scientific demonstrations of what Galileo suspected does not support Galileo’s hot-headed, bombastic approach.
The ease by which you throw around such unsubstantiated generalizations is appalling, and it only serves to undermine your position and betray how threatened you really are by ID. (Remember: I don’t view ID as a science… yet.) The first word in the name of this blog is “thinking,” and it shouldn’t only apply to Christians… take that admonishment to heart.
(Sorry, Tom.)
That’s a good addition here, Holopupenko.
Dave, is there politics involved here? I can’t resist the urge to quote Johannes Brahms in reply. The story is told that someone came up to him after a concert, all aghast and agog, and informed him that a phrase in one of his compositions was identical to one that Beethoven had written. Brahms’s answer was classic. Loosely translated, his answer was, “Well, d’oh!” In German he actually said, “Das kennt jeder Esel.” You can use your Internet translator for a more literal translation than the one I gave.
Of course there’s politics involved. There was a state legislature involved, and a governor, too! (It appears to me they might have even followed a democratic process.) There were interested parties lobbying on both sides of the issue (gasp!). The schools are politically run organizations governed by political bodies. Textbook decisions are made by political bodies. Even science classes have to deal with that.
I know I’m being sarcastic, Dave, maybe even patronizing, but I can’t understand why it seems so awful that a legislative change affecting a politically run institution might have politics associated with it.
So why was it necessary to apply politics specifically to these subjects and not other subjects? Because they are politically charged subjects, obviously. The Discovery Institute was not responsible for making them that way. They’ve been that way for years.
Hi Tom,
Your translation is a little off – owing to an incomplete knowledge of English slang. The proper translation would be “well, duh”.
I plead an alternate opinion on this.
Sorry, but I still disagree with you, Tom.
I can see that we are gong to have to go at this tooth and nail.
As per normal usage;
D’oh = oh, for cryin’ out loud!
Duh = what was your first clue, Sherlock?
I think when you admit your error here you will also see that your worldview is irrational and that you are incapable of drawing informed conclusions.
Oh yeah? Well, so’s your old man! (That’ll teach you)
Wow.
I never saw that coming.
Well played, sir.
I knew that might be a tough one for you to field!
But if we’re “gong” to have to go at this, then it ought to be with a mallet (for the gong). We could use the same mallet on the nail. The tooth may be unnecessary in that case.
Anyway, now that all that has been properly settled, I yield, and I admit my worldview is irrational and I am incapable of drawing informed conclusions. (I’ll also admit I’m scared to death somebody is going to quote this out of context!)
More later.
More later? But I’ve already yielded! Something else for me to be scared to death about…
(Actually I just went back and edited “I yield” into my previous comment. I’m trying to escape further pummeling by the master.)
Ok, if you are letting me off the hook with your 2:25 posting then the master of broken quotes and links has only this riposte.
Aagh! Too good for me.
Holopopenko,
You gave me a long post and I don’t have a lot of time today so I’m going to have to respond in pieces, probably over the next several days.
Thanks for the tips on the history of science. But I believe the basic point I was making, and that you have tried to twist into an accusation of historical ignorance, is that the notion that “God created it” has been around for a lot longer than the origins of the ID movement. Yes, ID is not creationism, or spontaneous generation, but it comes from the same lineage and is based on the same assumptions, so implying that it represents something refreshingly transformational (a gestalt switch, revolutionary idea) potential similar to Darwin’s Origins is something I think you’re going to have trouble selling — at least not if you expect, as you said to me, “any critical thinker to take you seriously.”
So what’s your basic argument here? That you have earned a Ph.D in nuclear engineering from MIT, that you therefore know how science works better than anybody here, and that because you’re education has also taught you that philosophical assumptions are the underpinning of all scientific knowledge… The Louisiana law is a good thing?
You wrote: “Trust me, there’s as much back-biting, betrayal, territoriality, sheer hatred of competing hypotheses and theories, and pseudo-scientific interpretations in the sciences as there are in other fields…” But doesn’t this kind of statement support the argument that science does not lack critical thinking, and that the Louisiana state legislature’s new law is, at best, misguided?
You started out your comments on this blog with the taunt that those of us who find the Louisiana law repugnant do so because our worldview cannot withstand critical thinking. Do you mean that you think that the Louisiana legislature has the power to overturn my worldview? Because I’m not sure what exactly it is you’re so gleeful about on this one.
Tony:
There was no “twisting” into historical ignorance: the ignorance you not only displayed but promoted to support your overall position, was/is blatant. Moreover, your last comment actually amplified your inability (or perhaps refusal?) to distinguish between empirical, philosophical, and theological categories and arguments: “… same lineage and same assumptions”? Sorry, but that’s truly absurd.
You really missed the point of my background: it was to stop your self-centered lecturing to other people—not to use it as a premise in any argument. You’re blinded by your own hatred and fear of ideas that are different from your own.
Your last two paragraphs aren’t worth anyone’s time… To play Esko’s game: you may enjoy the last word.
Tony,
Apart from some impatience, Holopupenko is right on track.
The design argument is not just of Judeo-Christian lineage. The Greeks used it, and in some form I’ll wager it’s in every culture of the world.
You act as if his basic point in regard to his educational background is hard to find—but then you quote part of it in the next paragraph. His point was that he knows how scientists act, and your previous representation of science was not true to reality. How odd that you missed that… it wasn’t hard to see.
You wouldn’t know this, but at times in the past I have taken Holopupenko to task for voicing assumptions like he did here:
I still don’t think he can really know that as surely as he has stated it. Yet on the other hand, for you to miss his meaning in what I just explained is hard to understand. If I were you I’d be appalled for missing it, and I would certainly wonder how I could have made such a mistake. I might even be worried about myself.
I’m going to let Holopupenko speak for himself about whether your last two paragraphs are worth one’s time. I have some responses.
In a word, no. I mean, if you think it does, you’ll certainly have to explain it to us, because I don’t see the connection at all.
I think I can safely speak for him: In a word, no. Now I’ll speak for myself again. I’m going to suggest you go back and read what he wrote. He referred to
I can’t imagine how you got something out of that about Louisiana’s legislature overturning your worldview. He was just saying that this particular worldview’s weaknesses are being exposed. Now, if you think that it’s under some potential threat from Louisiana’s legislature, I’d say that’s evidence that he’s right.
Tom,
You referred me back to Holopupenko’s original quote, which I’ll paste back here in full:
And as explanation, you say that “He [Holopupenko] was just saying that this particular worldview’s weaknesses are being exposed.”
How do you both conclude that my world view is exposing internal weaknesses and external contradictions as a result of the Louisiana state law? Don’t you think maybe you’re confusing a political victory for an intellectual one? I wasn’t trying to be especially coy when I expressed that Holopupenko’s taunt seems premature.
But I do mean this sincerely — what do you mean when you say, as a result of the Louisiana state law, “this particular worldview’s weaknesses are being exposed.”
You wrote, “The design argument is not just of Judeo-Christian lineage. The Greeks used it, and in some form I’ll wager it’s in every culture of the world.” That was my point. That was why I specifically mentioned a timeline that would go back further if one didn’t confine the design argument to a Christian time post.
Lastly, with regards to Holopupenko’s arguments, I agree with some of them — it was sloppy of me to use the term “biological” to cover both ancient and modern study of the natural world, for instance. And, yes, I do think he is a little quick with his assumptions about my worldview, motives, etc. (Clearly, I am not going to write about science to a level appropriate for Holopupenko, nor philosophy with you, etc.) Still, as we’ve said before, the heat is part of the fun of these things, and pretty much always I enjoy the discussions.
Tony, please see here for the antecedent to this discussion. Holo and I were referring to your outrage, and your apparent belief that this law was part of some awful religious agenda. This, as I pointed out, is out of proportion to your expressed sense of confidence that evolution can face up to the challenges presented to it. If your position is so strong, what on earth are you worried about?
Holo suggested that your worry might reflect something real: that your worldview is not facing up to the challenges as successfully as you claim.
The Louisiana decision is not a cause of any of this. It is merely the occasion upon which the discussion has been raised.
Okay, okay Tony… I’ll pull back… a little. (Thanks for the reminder, Tom.) Just a suggestion: it’s not “fun” to employ rhetorical tricks if they are blatantly wrong. I probably would have taken you more seriously if unverified assertions were not paraded as facts: “false” heat is just that—false… And, indeed, they are often used to parry and cover some doubts lying just below the surface. This is NOT meant to take away your “last” word, by the way.
Tom,
How can my outrage be “out of proportion to [my] expressed sense of confidence that evolution can face up to the challenges presented to it,” when there’s no challenge presented? I just don’t get what you are celebrating as the challenge that evolutions faces.
I was mostly outraged by the one-sided skew of the article you linked to. I suppose it would be like this: imagine after the Dover trial I forwarded you a link to an article, written by someone employed by Richard Dawkins, that gave a one-sided characterization of ID’s court defeat. If you professed outrage over the article’s one-sided coverage, and stated that the judge overstepped his bounds, and I then chortled “look like someone can’t stand having the internal weaknesses and external contradictions of his worldview exposed,” wouldn’t my taunt just seem odd to you?
That’s where I’m coming from on that one, anyway.
Holopupenko,
You wrote:
I used the word “biological” clumsily here, and stand corrected. With biological I meant pertaining to the study of organisms throughout time, but I agree that calling the study of organisms prior to the modern age is misleading. That was not purposely misleading. It was more stupidly misleading.
Yes, I do know this.
Here’s my first real point of contention with what you wrote. I don’t think conflation of ID and creationism can be written off as unserious. I agree that creationism is not science, and I believe you attest that ID is not science. Yes, they’re different. But yes, they’re similar. Critical thinkers do conflate the two, not least of all because they both portray themselves as science but are not, have proponents who principally rely on Christian presumptions, and both seek to explain our world by looking to affirm a conviction that our world must have been created by a creator.
There is this from The Dover Trial, for instance, in which the judge stated in his decision that ID “… cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” for instance. Say what you want about the judge’s conclusions, calling a federal judge an uncritical thinker doesn’t seem correct. There are, of course, lots and lots of references on the web from people who do view them as similar versions of the same argument. I’m not saying they’re all right (they could all be wrong), but calling them all uncritical seems like too broad a brush; critical thinkers can reach different conclusions.
Not sure where you got the Ancient Greece reference here; I don’t think I said that, but maybe I implied it. I wasn’t trying to make any statements about the philosophical arguments for design; I was trying to say that you’re characterization of ID as not having had time to prove itself would only be true if the idea was radically new. It seems to me that you later go on to say that ID is wrong “because it’s trying to impose scientific categories upon philosophical arguments,” so it doesn’t appear to me that you’re serious about ID really only needing more time gain traction.
Except for the part where I get all sneaky I think this is a good point, and goes most to the heart of where I was trying to go with my original comment.
I agree that science has necessary philosophical underpinnings, and that it didn’t pop out of thin air, but how do you explain away the process of peer review? The process may be philosophical, but it is also scientific. My question here is, do you think it’s fundamentally wrong to say: “Scientists (flawed people that they are) apply scientific criteria (that lies on philosophical underpinnings) to validate the findings of science in their field.” And part of that question is that, knowing what you know about scientific peer review, do you think that the Louisiana state legislature is a better body for validating science?
Now, I imagine that it can immediately be said that the La. legislature is not placing itself in the position of scientific review. But it is inserting itself in the process – saying basically that science is so fundamentally flawed in its processes that it demands the interference of the La. legislature to correct it. In other words, is the analysis, criticism, and review that occurs at the scientific peer review level so inadequate that the teaching of science is improved by ignoring the recommendations of a scientific field’s consensus about what its theories mean?
I’m not sure what you mean here. And I’m sincere in asking if you could provide me with an example of a philosophical category that the theory of evolution (is EvolutionISM different than the Theory) imposes upon scientific arguments? I just think with the example I’ll understand what you mean, that’s all. And I suppose I should ask now if this is a unique feature of the Theory of Evolution, of the theories listed in the La. state law, or of all scientific theories in general.
Your point seven goes over your scientific and philosophical bona fides, all of which are clearly impressive to me. I’m not sure where you are appalled by me, Dave, or both of us, but I don’t think I (or even Dave, but I can’t really speak for him) said most of the things you list (scientists leaping at the opportunity to overturn their theories, Galileo stating scientifically, etc.), so I’m not sure if the scolding applies to me as well. At the very least I’ll try to be more careful about sounding like I am making pronouncements about science and philosophy in your presence.
I probably shouldn’t have written all this without first asking: does the Esko comment mean that you’re leaving the discussion? I guess I’ll find out…
Hi Tony:
First, let me say I appreciate very much your tone in the latest response, and I’ll meet you halfway by apologizing for jumping down your throat. Could we make a pact not (using your words) to employ “heat” in these exchanges?
Second, it’s late here in Kyiv (almost 21:00) on a Friday night, and I need a break. But, I promise to get back to you.
Third, not sure to which specific Esko comment you’re referring…
Fourth, I don’t want to employ my bona fides: that was “heat” at being lectured to. I’d rather depend on the merits of the arguments made.
Okay?
Holopupenko,
We’re cool. We’re cool.
Tony:
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
Your first two points are fine and don’t need to be pursued.
Regarding your third point, you really only appear to focus on the incorrectness of not applying “non-critical” thinker to the Dover judge. I stand by what I said, but it would take way to long to revive the previous discussions on this blog to (at the very least) present my case. Tom can provide you links.
As an all too unfair summary: I believe the judge made the right decision but based on the wrong reasons. (Which, broadly-speaking, is not really a “right” decision because the errors sowed confusion rather than setting the record straight.) The “right” part has to do with the nature of ID in its current manifestation. The “wrong” has to do with conflating ID with creationism. You are quite incorrect to believe creationists (by this I mean strict literal interpreters of the Genesis account) share the same presuppositions that IDers do. Creationists presuppose theological categories and impose them on science. IDers presuppose science, but apply them to things that science can’t “see” (such as natures and quiddity, formal and final causes, and “meaning” in DNA, etc.), and even their philosophical criticisms (when admitted) are sloppy. This leads me to provide you a short-list of reasons (there are others) why ID, in its current manifestation, is wrong. Bear with me on this, because it presupposes some knowledge of philosophy… and, again, this summary is also criminally-brief—risking misunderstanding.
A crucial error of Intelligent Design is in its seeking to infer design (the exemplar cause in terms of “whatness,” the final cause in terms of “for-whatness”) and natures (“whatness” as specified or irreducible complexity) in essentially the same way the natural sciences infer the existence of real, extra-mental objects (e.g., like physicists inferred the existence of the neutrino from an apparent violation of the conservation of momentum in beta-decays). In other words, Intelligent Design proponents assert it is sufficient to infer design and natures metrically—say, for example from the information “contained” in DNA or by mathematicizing formal cause as “specified complexity.” And, since certain things that are observable (i.e., in some way measurable) by the five primary senses, the “plain meaning” of sensory-accessible data is sufficient to infer design—this despite the fact that inference is a non-empirical, immaterial process only possible for beings with a capacity to reason to the existence of those things that are not captured by the senses—things that are, in fact, invisible… including design as such. (Note, by the way, that this harkens back to a “plain meaning” hermeneutic applied Scripture (which is itself a questionable interpretive approach) but is then illicitly applied as an interpretive approach to the “book of Nature”—which eviscerates any sense of the created natures of things). This, Tony, is the conflation you correctly sense in “bringing God into the picture.” Moreover, it is strange that Intelligent Design proponents insist design be quantifiable if it is to be “scientifically” respectable, i.e., accepted as valid “scientific” knowledge. After all, scientism, which stresses empirical data obtained through quantifiable and repeatable measurements as well as prediction through mathematical formalisms, is certainly no friend of the Intelligent Design movement.
Underlying this error is a second, more fundamental, ontological error: the equivocation over the kinds of beings than can be inferred by the modern empirical sciences, which in turn results from an ignorance (or, more likely, rejection) of the principles of a realist natural philosophy. That Intelligent Design proponents repeat the same kind of reductionist errors of atheism-burdened scientists but from a different perspective is astounding, especially given that they are the ones constantly harping about certain things being inaccessible to the natural sciences (e.g., morality). Intelligent Design proponents, like William Dembski, attempt to make their case within the confines of the field of the philosophy of science—seemingly oblivious to the fact that various schools of philosophy of science study systems of reasoning about natural things rather than philosophically reflecting upon the existence and natures of natural things.
A third fundamental error made by Intelligent Design proponents is the belief that undirected natural processes (all of inanimate nature) somehow stand in opposition to “intelligent causes” that are allegedly “detectable” or “inferable” by means of the modern empirical sciences in biological (living) entities. In this sense, Intelligent Design is very close to the error of occassionalism in the sense that it holds the “Designer” operates directly in and through the undirected natural processes—literally reducing the Creator of universe and sustainer-in-existence of the universe to a mere efficient cause in the universe. (I’m not suggesting God does not and cannot operate directly in His creation—miracles are an obvious example to counter such a Deist error.) In other words, the third fundamental error rests upon the lack of a crucial distinction, namely Intelligent Design’s failure to recognize—or at the very least blur—the distinction between science and philosophy, both in ontology and methodology.
This is a very important point—one that highlights the fact that this error is shared by both warring factions (Intelligent Design-ism vs. neo-Darwin-ism) as they seek to step beyond their own means as well as the bounds of science to score points against each other and to promote their own worldviews. On the one hand the new atheists, exploiting the science to supposedly support the philosophical perspective of neo-Darwin-ism, believe (unscientifically) that since science cannot demonstrate the existence of God, He does not exist. Intelligent Design proponents, on the other hand, believe that science can demonstrate the direct action of the finger of God in Nature. Both hold muddled views of what the natural sciences are and of what they are capable, i.e., their limitations. The natural sciences do not investigate all of reality in an unqualified way because each of the particular natural sciences is ontologically “local.”
Regarding your next paragraph “Not sure where you got…,” you are quite perceptive to note that “… it doesn’t appear to me that you’re serious about ID really only needing more time gain traction.” Frankly, at this point I’m on the ragged edge of tipping fully away from ID… perhaps still clinging to the hope that the “test of time” will inject some philosophical sense into Dembski and Behe. (I’ve long-ago given up on the “new atheists” as being open to stepping outside their own little scientistic worlds.)
Regarding your “peer review” point: no, “peer review” is not—very formally and strictly speaking—“scientific.” What we today understand as the scientific method(s) (including peer review under the rubric of testing) is part of the broader epistemic cycle (that all intelligent agents have used since the dawn of time). Philosophers also have (or should have) their work peer-reviewed, but that doesn’t reduce philosophy to a modern empirical science… nor should it. So, to answer your question in that same paragraph: no, there’s nothing wrong with that approach as long as scientists are vigilant to ever keep in mind the broader epistemological context. If they were more earnest in doing so, perhaps then we’d be spared ridiculous pseudo-philosophical assertions made by the likes of Dawkins, Stenger, and Harris that are based on an a priori philosophically-naturalist interpretation (as well as personal baggage) of scientific findings. Regarding your complaint against the Louisiana state legislature, I think it’s a bit misdirected: no, the legislature did not nor should it “validate” scientific findings—that’s true. But, I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes they “validated” anything apart from the legalese. Just because something is law doesn’t make it ontologically true or morally acceptable—ask any pro-Lifer about the permissive nature of the laws covering abortion if you want an earful. And, just to make sure we don’t stray off on another discussion, legislatures can “legislate morality”—we do it all the time: Making it law to stop at a stop sign is a good law and a moral obligation. The trick is to make sure laws—whether positive or permissive—legislate morality based on the truth, which includes a proper anthropological understanding of what it means to be a human being.
Finally, regarding your request to provide examples of evolution-ISM in action (actually, I’ll expand to scientism as a whole), see: this (http://reasoningrepaired.blogspot.com/2006/06/scientism-and-postmodernism-undermine.html) and this (http://reasoningrepaired.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-atheists-deny-meaning-and-purpose.html). Please make sure you ask yourself honestly: are the assertions these guys make scientific ones? I have loads of these kinds of quotes—it’s a kind of hobby for me to collect and comment upon them.
Holopupenko:
No problem about length of response time. Sorry about my own delays.
I have no real problem with your objections to IDism. I had to read it through several times, and I’m not philosophically trained nor inclined, but it seemed consistent to me.
You wrote:
That may be true of some of the new atheists, but it’s not true of all. You brought up Dawkins — I’m about a quarter of the way through his God Delusion, and I’m pretty sure he’s already said that he expects science to eventually be able to eventually demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God. So there’s at least one who would not concur. But I also think the statement above, the way you have phrased it, would at best include a minority (the truly thoughtless) of new atheists; it just seems way too obviously fallacious a contention to be held broadly.
More importantly, aren’t you, with the statement quoted above, misplacing the burden of proof onto the new atheists? I don’t think it’s necessary for atheistic scientists to disprove God in order to be atheistic. Shouldn’t it be necessary for theists to prove scientifically the existence of God in order to make the atheistic position unscientific?
Regarding your collection of quotes of scientists making statements based on unscientifically proven premises, I agree that many of these statements make conclusions that are obviously fallacious (and some are just silly). But a fallacy is a fallacy, no matter who says it. How, for instance, would you distinguish this quote from Newon, “”The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being,” from the other ones you have collected? In other words, what bearing does a scientist’s speculations and pronouncements have on the acceptance of a scientific theory? Should we judge science under a kind of “intent of the framers” interpretation, vetting the philosophical assumptions of theoreticians as a way of understanding what their theories explain and predict? Really, does it matter to the Theory of evolution that Dawkins is an atheist?
Regarding my question about EvolutionISM, I was looking to see if there is something like the quotes that you’ve collected within the theory itself. I am still just having trouble seeing an example for this statement: “EvolutionISM is wrong, for among other reasons, because it’s trying to impose philosophical categories upon scientific arguments.” I don’t doubt that you have the example, but I am still too daft to see it through the references to the pages you gave me in the last post.
Concerning the La. law, and back to the original posting that started this dialogue, you wrote:
It seems to me that you’re saying that you support the La. science law because it truthfully reflects a proper anthropological understanding of what it means to be a human being. That, however, is not what the law states its purpose to be. And that, in a nut shell, is my objection to the bill; it says it’s doing one thing, but everyone understands it will do another. It’s basic subterfuge, and I think it’s wrong to herald the law as anything other than a partisan victory. The bill appears to be intended to undermine the teaching of the direct and implicit conclusions of the Theory of Evolution, lumping it in with some other unrelated theories to help diffuse that criticism. It sounds like you agree with my assessment of the bill’s real purpose, at least that’s my understanding of what you mean by your statement above. And so I remain troubled, at the very least, by a science law that will misdirect spending on a scientific controversy that doesn’t exist, that will require additional spending that could be better used elsewhere, and that uses language that obscures its intent.
Hi Tony:
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response.
I’m going to beg time constraints: on Friday I will repatriate back to the States after over 14 years in Ukraine (two tours) and two years in England (one tour): things are really hectic for me now, and emotionally draining. So, just a few quick thoughts.
You write: “Shouldn’t it be necessary for theists to prove scientifically the existence of God in order to make the atheistic position unscientific?” No, it should not for it begs the question as to whether everything must be demonstrated scientifically. Consider, for example, the validity of the very notion you propose (the necessity of “proving” scientifically God): is that a scientific criterion? No. What about proving the validity of the scientific method? Can that be scientific validated without being self-referential (circular, i.e., fallacious)? No. How about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: science can certainly help us find them, but can science tell us what course of action to take if we do find them? Of course not. You want a “scientific proof” for the existence of God? Why not demand a proof for antimatter from the Pythagorean theorem? What about personhood? What defines personhood… a vote? Science? Throw of the dice? If something is not scientifically validated (like the scientific method—whose foundational principles are established by philosophy), is that thing necessarily or by definition subjective. No.
What’s my point? I can point to lots of examples about which the modern empirical sciences can say nothing. The existence of God can be proven philosophically. Whether a hard-core scientismist refuses to accept logically-argued, sound arguments for the existence of God just because scientific categories aren’t used is certainly not an intellectually-rigorous response. I’ve read Dawkins’ book: from the philosophical perspective, trust me, it’s trash not worthy of a freshman year drop-out. (I’m trying to be charitable.) The fact that I can give you lots of examples points to another fact: that different subject matters (“formal objects” technically speaking) require different approaches. I’m really sorry for the brevity that masks a lot of nuance and fundamental issues, but it’s the best I can do right now.
Regarding quotes for evolution-ISM, I don’t have them under my finger tips (Charlie, SteveK, Tom: help), but you might be able to Google Lewontin’s unabashed, a priori commitment to materialism “despite” its problems, and Dawkins’ claim that there is no “good, evil, etc.” in the universe (even as he rails against the “evil” of religious faith), Dawkins’ assertion that evolutionary theory has made it possible for atheists to be fulfilled (something like that). There are others, but I’d have to look for them…
I’m not going to respond to the LA law thing because I’m not in command of all the facts, and because I suspect we share some of the same concerns. My initial problem was, as Tom alluded to, your rage at an alleged conspiracy, etc. I think we’ve cleared the air on that. Oh, and by the way, no: I neither said nor implied I supported the LA law “because it truthfully reflects a proper anthropological understanding of what it means to be a human being.” I was speaking generally and about guiding principles.
To close, a lot of electrons have been spilled in many, many discussions on this blog about some of the issues you just raised. You’ll have to forgive me for not wanting to repeat them and of being tired of them. Charlie’s an unbelievable information mole that can provide you examples and links… if you say “pretty please.” I would urge you to stick around… and not worry about not being philosophically trained (sorry for the double negative), but to nonetheless come up to speed on some of the philosophical issues. As for me, I’m going to just smile thinking about all this as I sit back on the plane and enjoy at least one (probably more) Bloody Mary’s at 11,000 meters and 950 km/hr over the Atlantic.
Enjoy your flight, Holopupenko, and welcome back to the U.S.A.!
In response to your recent comment, Tony,
Would that it were true…. And Holopupenko is right in his assessment of Dawkins’s book, by the way. It is indeed “thoughtless” in a specific sense of the word, that being that he has not exhibited any attention to good thinking on most of his topics. If he represents a minority, as you say, he represents a minority that has sold an awful lot of books.
He already addressed this one, but I have a note to add:
Is it the theists’ burden to make the atheists’ position unscientific? Only if that is the only way to refute the atheists’ position. But that would be to say that the only mode of inquiry relevant to the question is science, which is most certainly not the case.
So the question is irrelevant on the one hand. On the other hand, its premise is false. The atheists’ position can be shown to be unscientific without scientifically proving the existence of God. It is as simple as this:
1. The atheist claims that science has disproved God.
2. Science has not disproved God.
3. (1) is scientifically false.
4. (1) is unscientific.
(I’m willing to invest a minute or two in rebutting irrelevant arguments.)
If Newton was speaking strictly from science, then he was speaking fallaciously. We would need to know the context of the statement to discern whether he was doing that. The statement is not necessarily fallacious if it is supported by other reasons.
We should certainly vet the philosophical contributions to theory. Why not? Now, if Dawkins’ atheism made no contribution to his theory, then his atheism would be irrelevant to the theory. I happen to think that’s not the case. That leads us to take a step or two of prudence: assess what influence his atheism had on the theory, whether that atheism’s contribution to the theory is sound, and whether the atheism itself is soundly grounded. After we do that, we could (theoretically) remove Dawkins himself from the picture and just deal with the theory and its contributing ideas. That’s a practical and social impossibility, but it’s theoretically possible at least.
Tom,
I think my asking if a theistic proof for God’s existence be scientific came from a misunderstanding of what Holopupenko wrote:
I was using the term “scientific” there as an echo of his quote above – the insertion of the parenthetical “unscientific” made me think that there is a proof (that is not unscientific) for God’s existence. And I was wondering if a proof for God’s existence needed to be scientific (empirical) or logical (philosophical). These are not all thoughts I have considered well, nor terms that I have thoughtfully defined in my own mind, by the way, and that’s why I posed the questions. I should have put “scientifically” in my question in quotes, but at the same time I think that Holopupenko’s quote above is also hard to understand, and is more sweeping than Holopupenko can assert; I believe any serious atheist admits that it can never be logically proven that God does not exist, and that an atheist position is not strictly the same thing as saying “there is no God.” In other words, many people who define themselves as atheists do so by stating something like “there is no compelling evidence for God’s existence, hence I suspend my conviction that God exists until such evidence is presented.” This is a common atheist position, but is not the same thing as declaring “God does not exist.”
Tom, with regards to the Newton quote your concerns about how we should take it are the same as the point I was trying to make: Holopupenko has collected quotes from scientists to which your criticism applies equally. I was just trying to say that theists are probably as guilty (and many would say more so) of making assertions for which they do not have sufficient evidence or proof. And that collecting such extra-topical quotes shouldn’t be used to impugn arguments that should stand on their merits, not on the people who contributed to them. (Or maybe they should, and if they should, then the blade should cut both ways.)
Lastly, as to your conviction that we should test a philosopher’s or scientist’s philosophical convictions, I don’t think that’s possible. Dawkins says that it is his research into biology that led to his atheism, for instance. You say that we should “assess what influence his atheism had on the theory.” In other words, Dawkins says that his scientific findings let to his personal convictions; you say the opposite. Not only are we discussing something that is unknowable, but I think it would be fair to concede that Dawkins knows more about the origins of his convictions than you do, and his claims should be given greater weight. At the very least, what you propose as productive doesn’t seem practicable to me.
Holo, working my way back up to your last comment. But it does look like we’re winding this one up. Hey, and welcome back – now you can celebrate Thanksgiving without feeling wistful and homesick.
Holopupenko,
I think the question I was trying to ask in my last comment was, what is so wrong with science conducted without a presumption of God? It seems that Christians sometimes demand that God be considered as the alternative to evolutionary theory and scientific naturalism, but at the same time you seem to be saying that God’s existence is not in the realm of scientific inquiry. So why invite God into a subject matter where he is, from your philosophical perspective, indiscernible and (without being too coy here) immaterial?
Regarding the Lewontin quote, I have copied the quote to which I believe you are referring below in its entirety so that we have an easy reference:
Of course, you could read this as a kind of materialist manifiesto, a declaration of war against theism. I can also read it charitably, as a guiding philosophical principle for the productive pursuit of science. I think it is possible, for one, to don a scientific cap and adhere to Lewontin’s guiding principles as outlined above, and at the end of the day be a theist. In other words, I can read this above and paraphrase its meaning to be: “When conducting science our productive conclusions are materialistic, and materialistic alone; they are not based on, and make no conclusions, about the supernatural.”
So my question would be, what is so wrong with science, the personal foibles of its practitioners aside, being unabashedly materialistic?
Lastly, if you don’t have the energy for a response I will take your silence as an acknowledgment that this comment blog has become sidetracked and is re-treading over old territory. If that’s the case, no problems – I’m sure we’ll pick this up in subsequent posts, this time with a better understanding of each other’s perspectives.
Tony:
My family and I are at a motel in Martinsburg, WV… on our way up to upstate NY. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.
charitable organizations houston…
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools. Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback…