| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> When studying the topic of evolution, for instance, there is no role
> for a deity (in spite of the ID 'arguments') that does not complicate
> the picture.
Defining a complication becomes problematic here. Science seeks for more encompassing laws, even though these can be considered "complications". E.g., we don't reject the theory of evolution as an extranous layer of talk about data, even though the theory is not itself data and is dependent on the data. Likewise, physicists are in a quest for a theory of everything, even though they have good laws describing the fundamental forces individually. Even though this means additional equations, the end result may be considered simpler because we have a single equation that describes what are currently mutliple independent equations.
From this perspective, viewing God as the ultimate explanation of everything is a simplification. Not that this is a particularly good reason, in itself, to believe in God, but that Occam's razor is not a good reason not to believe in God, either.
Simplification does work in arguing against ID-type intervention in evolution.
> The enormous 'revolutions' in science...have been achieved by entirely overturning earlier scientific models.<
Not exactly. At least, they must be perceived as better explanations of the available data. In most cases, the earlier scientific models survive as special cases of the new model (e.g., the implications of quantum mechanics look very much like previous models when dealing with most macroscopic entities). ID advocates are fond of invoking scientific "revolutions" as evidence that ID is the next scientific revolution. In addition to the presumptuousness of boasting in advance, this ignores the fact that any credible account of origins must explain the existing overwhelming data that support evolution. A new scientific paradigm must better explain the data; it cannot be rooted in ignoring the data.
> Comparable revolutions in matters of religious faith lead to
> mayhem (e.g., the Reformation/Counter-reformation or the division
> between the Shi'a and Sunni).
Not sure that these are directly comparable. The Shi'a-Sunni split was based on a disagreement about who was the correct successor to Mohammed; the Reformation was based on claims that the church had deviated form the Bible. Probably more analogous would be the founding of new religions.
> 2. This self knows itself and the world through reason, or
> rationality, posited as the highest form of mental functioning, and
> the only objective form.
> 3. The mode of knowing produced by the objective rational self is
> "science," which can provide universal truths about the world,
> regardless of the individual status of the knower.
These (and the other listed tenets of enlightenment thought) are not scientific statements. Thus, by these standards, these standards are suspect. More importantly for Paleonet, these views are compatible with but not necessary for the practice of science.
> 5. The knowledge/truth produced by science (by the rational objective
> knowing self) will always lead toward progress and perfection.
With such beneficial products as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; addictive and health-destroying chemicals; novel methods to rapidly plunder the environment...
Science can be used for good, bad, or indifferent ends. Familiarity with current evolutionary theory should make us doubtful about claims to find teleology in science. We can apply scientific information towards teleological ends that we have identified based on our philosophies or religions, but science can't tell us what is progress versus just change versus going bad.
Again, the main relevance for Paleonet is not the merits or lack of enlightenment ideas, but rather the fact that they are outside of science and need to be distinguished from science.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Partial index: