Creationism's Trojan Horse II
I wondered a few weeks ago
whether Creationism's Trojan Horse by Forrest and Gross would represent the
Intelligent Design (ID) movement fairly. I've been looking at it, and I conclude
they do
not.
...Meanwhile, I'm also reading But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. In one chapter Karl Popper says this of evolution:
"Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."
This is a great expression of a huge problem between religion and science: and it's not the religious who have the problem!
...Meanwhile, I'm also reading But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. In one chapter Karl Popper says this of evolution:
"Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."
This is a great expression of a huge problem between religion and science: and it's not the religious who have the problem!
I wondered
a few weeks ago whether Creationism's
Trojan Horse by Forrest and Gross would represent the Intelligent
Design (ID) movement fairly. I was waiting for my copy, working off an excerpt
posted on the web.
I'm well into it now. It's not primarily an answer to ID arguments; it's a book about the social/political methods of the movement. But it does present some responses to the chief arguments of ID, those of Michael Behe and William Dembski . The book presents a position that Behe and Dembski's work is discredited in the mainstream scientific community. Whether or not that means their work is fatally flawed, it is at least safe to say that they have not so far convinced the scientific world.
But Forrest and Gross do not respond to the deeper challenge of ID, which is the question of methodological naturalism. They repeatedly quote ID proponents saying that this is a key issue, but they offer no response. The scientific questions cannot be properly addressed until their foundations are resolved.
Meanwhile, I'm also reading But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, edited by the prominent evolution-friendly philosopher, Michael Ruse. It includes a chapter by Sir Karl Popper, eminent philosopher of science. Popper talks of some of the weaknesses in the neo-Darwinian system, but says this of its in explaining many natural phenomena...
Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.
This is a great expression of a huge problem between religion and science: and it's not the religious who have the problem! Scientists seek (albeit with little optimism) to find ultimate explanations within the natural order, but not in a personal God. To give a theistic (creationist, in some form) explanation of origins is to say, "We have reached an end of natural explanations. Science has hit a roadblock and there's no getting around it." As Popper says, this would be even worse than admitting failure. It would be to admit not only that "we haven't found the answer," but "we must admit there exists a point beyond which science cannot add to the answer."
If theism is correct, there is a limit to science. It can explain many things, but in principle, there is a wall at which it would have to say, "God did this, and we have no further explanation than that." The matter must be passed over then to theology instead of science. This is distasteful to many scientists; they cannot stand the thought that there would be such a boundary. They can handle the thought that science has limits, but not that something supernatural might be standing beyond the border.
Of course this has little to do with whether or not the theistic answer is actually the right one. It only speaks to a matter of personality and preference among researchers. The result of it, though, is that theistic possibilities are avoided at all costs.
The two books I've referenced here try to show that evolution is a good answer. In some ways it is: it explains a great deal. Any theist would have to grant that point. But much of what it explains is within the framework of its own question: "How could life have come about without a God?" I ask then, does evolution prove God wasn't involved in the origin and diversity of life, or does it just assume he wasn't? And what if their assumption is wrong?
I'm well into it now. It's not primarily an answer to ID arguments; it's a book about the social/political methods of the movement. But it does present some responses to the chief arguments of ID, those of Michael Behe and William Dembski . The book presents a position that Behe and Dembski's work is discredited in the mainstream scientific community. Whether or not that means their work is fatally flawed, it is at least safe to say that they have not so far convinced the scientific world.
But Forrest and Gross do not respond to the deeper challenge of ID, which is the question of methodological naturalism. They repeatedly quote ID proponents saying that this is a key issue, but they offer no response. The scientific questions cannot be properly addressed until their foundations are resolved.
Meanwhile, I'm also reading But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, edited by the prominent evolution-friendly philosopher, Michael Ruse. It includes a chapter by Sir Karl Popper, eminent philosopher of science. Popper talks of some of the weaknesses in the neo-Darwinian system, but says this of its in explaining many natural phenomena...
Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.
This is a great expression of a huge problem between religion and science: and it's not the religious who have the problem! Scientists seek (albeit with little optimism) to find ultimate explanations within the natural order, but not in a personal God. To give a theistic (creationist, in some form) explanation of origins is to say, "We have reached an end of natural explanations. Science has hit a roadblock and there's no getting around it." As Popper says, this would be even worse than admitting failure. It would be to admit not only that "we haven't found the answer," but "we must admit there exists a point beyond which science cannot add to the answer."
If theism is correct, there is a limit to science. It can explain many things, but in principle, there is a wall at which it would have to say, "God did this, and we have no further explanation than that." The matter must be passed over then to theology instead of science. This is distasteful to many scientists; they cannot stand the thought that there would be such a boundary. They can handle the thought that science has limits, but not that something supernatural might be standing beyond the border.
Of course this has little to do with whether or not the theistic answer is actually the right one. It only speaks to a matter of personality and preference among researchers. The result of it, though, is that theistic possibilities are avoided at all costs.
The two books I've referenced here try to show that evolution is a good answer. In some ways it is: it explains a great deal. Any theist would have to grant that point. But much of what it explains is within the framework of its own question: "How could life have come about without a God?" I ask then, does evolution prove God wasn't involved in the origin and diversity of life, or does it just assume he wasn't? And what if their assumption is wrong?
Posted: Sun - January 9, 2005 at 05:16 PM |
Quick Links
Categories
"Do Christians believe we hold the truth? No, it holds us; we submit to it and to the One who gives it. We seek the truth to know it and follow it, that it may grip us tighter yet."
Personal Profile
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Archives
Knowing God
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:03 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:03 PM
