| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
>I simply cannot believe that I must be a Biblical scholar before I (gently) poke and prod at the antievolutionists' beliefs. Do I have to have an in-depth understanding of alchemy or astrology before I question whether they should be taught as equivalent to chemistry or astronomy in our schools? < Being a Biblical scholar is not necessary to question antievolutionism, but it is advisable if you are going to poke and prod at their beliefs about the Bible. Likewise, knowledge of alchemy or astrology would be necessary in order to raise issues about the internal consistency of these claims. However, knowledge of paleontology is adequate to refute many antievolutionary beliefs about evolution, just as knowledge of astronomy or chemistry is enough to question the appropriateness of alchemy or astrology. >Medawar again: Suppose we put to ourselves the general question of what distinguishes statements which belong to the world of science and commonsense (we need make no distinction between the two) from metaphysical or fanciful statements?< Distinguishing science from common sense seems advisable for two reasons. First, science may actually be counterintuitive (e.g., many popular paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics or relativity). It certainly is not determined by popular opinion. For example, it is apparently common in the general population to sense that antievolutionism has scientific validity. Secondly, the phrase “common sense” has been misappropriated as a justification of some fundamentalist or crank “sciences”. Those familiar with the history of creation science may recognize the title Common Sense Geology, by George McCready Price, a forerunner of modern creation scientists. http://www.triplehood.com/peex1.htm http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/ are additional examples. Although reading the whole message makes it clear that a distinction is made between metaphysical and fanciful statements, the linking of the two tends to denigrate metaphysics. Yet in discussing the nature of science, Medawar is actually engaged in metaphysics, because the definition of science is not something that can be determined through a process of experimentation nor objectively verified. It’s impossible to avoid making metaphysical assumptions. >The modern Intelligent Design movement was created by Creationists. It wasn't hijacked by them. It's only purpose is to remove "Materialism" from science and replace it with "Spiritualism", specifically Christianity.< Most of the originators of ID are old earth, with wildly varying amounts of evolution accepted by different individuals (or the same individual at different times). Many ID claims have been taken up indiscriminately by young-earth advocates. Not all ID advocates are Christians; several other religions and cults are represented. 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: