Title: Re: paleonet GA-Evolution
The question is a serious one and deserves an answer.
The problem comes with the fact (or so I take it) that
there is only one real world. People have various ways by which
they try to discover things about this world. It isn't
necessary, for the argument, to evaluate these ways.
What is necessary is to note that, if different methods of
inference give mutually contradictory conclusions about the world, at
least one of the conclusions must be wrong. Each may be wrong,
each may be right under some circumstances, the world may actually be
intermediate in one or more ways, and so on, but not more than one of
a set of mutually contradictory statements about the world can
actually be true (accurately represent the real world.)
End of the argument per se.
Values, including value-loaded concepts like progress,
aren't statements about how the world is, and so they don't fall under
the above argument. 'Is', indeed, never leads to 'ought' except
by modifying a prior 'ought'. (However, note that 'value' is
also used in a quite different sense, of how well a method gives
correct results.) A religion, or any other ideology, can be used
to justify values, including aesthetic values, but only if one takes
the ideology itself to be adequately justified in some other
way.
From another perspective, all ideologies themselves are
examples of wishful thinking to the extent that they privilege their
tenets above evidence and rationality. (Science is sometimes
called an ideology by people, even good scientists, who value some
actual ideology more. Of course there are ideologies within
science, such as those of some competing 'schools', but the search for
flaws is stronger for more important theories or results and thereby
the strength of self-correction is greater for the things that are
regarded as more important. This is the antithesis of an
ideology.)
Enough.
Leigh
Hello All,
I am new to paleonet and so I will just
give myself a brief introduction. My name is Amanda Bahls and I
am a graduate student at Indiana State University. I am
currently working towards my Master's in geology, with an emphasis in
paleoceanography. I saw this article, as well as Dr. Campbell's
response to it, and had to respond, because I have just finished
reading an excellent book on just this type of problem.
"Rocks of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould could not put this
so-called "controversy" between science and religion into
better perspective. They do not have to be integrated into a
single, unified belief. They can co-exist without incorporating
one into the other. In fact, they should not be taught as a
single entity. Which religion would you choose to integrate with
science in order to teach a "creationist" point of view?
I'm sure that most would automatically reply that Christianity would
be the only answer. But how is that fair to those who aren't
Christian? We can take prayer out of schools, because we might
offend those with other religious beliefs, but we can teach what one
particular dogma of faith says happened in order for the earth (and
ourselves) to come into existence, and "water down" the
findings of science because they make students think that the Bible
may not be a literal document? I guess that I just don't
understand the logic.
Amanda S. Bahls
Indiana State University
Department of Geography, Geology, and
Anthropology
Science Building Room 159
Terre Haute, IN 47809
amandabahls@yahoo.com