A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

Human Events ^ | September 15, 2000 | Nancy Pearcey

[betty boop]

But surely not "soul" mates, I would hardly think.

Unlikely!!!! LOL!

[YHAOS]

"Actually, I hate to be crass"

Ahh, go right ahead. I expect you are correct in most instances.

[Cicero]

Well, I only met him that once, at a reception arranged by a colleague. I was responsible for hiring him to come over and do a yearly seminar at NYU. My predecessor had set the thing up, and I didn't see that my own preferences should govern--it was an obvious coup for the department.

Anyway, I don't really know what was going on, but in my view of academia (not personal experience, however), sleeping with the professor and getting good recommendations are not necessarily irreconcilable. But what Derrida was actually up to I have no idea. All I could think to ask him was whether his apartment was comfortable and he had everything he needed.

[apologist]

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed. Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

You know, apologist, the evolutionist's statement itself seems to be inherently "metaphysical" -- though of a bastardized sort, it seems.

Or to view it in a slightly different way, the concept that the physical sciences alone can provide truth and answer questions is, itself, a philosophical, not a scientific, statement. How would one empirically test the truth of such a concept? Or as author J.P. Moreland put it:

"... the aims, methodologies and presuppositions of science cannot be validated by science. One cannot turn to science to justify science any more than one can pull up oneself by his own bootstraps. The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim."

[apologist]

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed.

This is a limitation of the scope of science, not a "bias" specifically of the theory of evolution.

It was unclear to me that the bias referred to how the theory came about, versus a bias inherent in the theory itself. I assumed the former.

Regardless, some scientists have no qualms about ignoring the alleged "limitations of the scope of science" when it doesn't disrupt their worldview; for example, the multiverse concept - hypothesizing about untestable and unobservable "other" universes outside of our own, as a way of proposing how a just-right-for-life universe could randomly come about. Sounds a tad metaphysical to me.

Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

Do you have evidence that it does not?

ALL behaviors are the product of, and allegedly explainable by, physical processes, there is no such thing as true free will. We are all, as Pearcey states in her book Total Truth, machines made out of meat.

Please justify this claim with evidence.

I'm not quite sure where you stand here. Do you think evolution explains all human behavior, or do you think we are NOT purely physical beings? If the former, please give me your definition of free will and I'll be more than happy to go from there and address the inadequacy of a materialist, evolutionary view to explain the origin and existence of free will.

[apologist]

"In such a view, it doesn't seem (as you point out) that science can be some sort of standalone endeavour, untainted or unaffected by human prejudices."

It would also vary in degree depending on the subject matter.When the subject matter is origins it seems (at least to me) to be in full tilt mode.

Good point, mitch5501. The more an area of study touches on the "big questions" - where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going? - the more vulnerable it would seem to be to human prejudice.

[apologist]

... and reproductive success relative to environmental conditions as a result of heriditable traits leading to increased expression of those traits in future populations have all been observed.

----

I don't know what light such truly shed on the problem of one species arising from an entirely different predecessor species. The studies may be perfectly valid for microevolution, yet not necessarily furnish evidence for macroevolution.

An important distinction, betty boop. Dimensio's careful statement about "heriditable traits leading to an increased expression of those traits" seems to be addressing existing genetic information being expressed in varying amounts based on enviromental conditions... as opposed to the blossoming of new functions and form (e.g., new, non-prexisting genetic information) from an existing genetic base.

[cornelis]

Thanks, Cicero. And thanks for your all your excellent contributions here at FR. Wish there were more of you.

[TXnMA]

"The more I know the more I discover how little we actually know. "

Profound truth, indeed!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recently ran across my senior-year [1955, if you must ask... <grin>] high school yearbook, and found this recorded for posterity as my "Philosophy of Life":

"As man increases the radius
of the circle of his knowledge,
he expands by a factor of 2Pi
the circumference upon which
he touches his ignorance..."

As a physical scientist, who never tires of the thrill of discovery, I have often reveled in that relationship as "the joy of scientific exploration".

As a Christian, with personal, experiential knowledge of God the Creator, I observe that far too many of my brethren -- at the very deepest core of their belief systems -- fear that selfsame relationship as "the sin of reaching for too much worldly knowledge".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, it is that profound diffence in viewpoints, I despair, that fuels many of these "CREVO" threads...

[hosepipe]

"The more I know the more I discover how little we actually know. " / Profound truth, indeed!

Indeed.. A life of discovery then produces a dumber individual the older it gets.. When I was twenty I was quite intelligent almost a genuis, I thought.. But I have also become much dumber over the years.. and am relishing the retardation..

Quite a freeing experience I would say..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your reply and for giving us further insight into "you!"

But I was fortunate enough to have had a course at Harvard that let Plato and Aristotle speak for themselves, and another course that let the medieval philosophers speak for themselves.

Those sound just like the kind of courses that would interest me too, Cicero! Looking at the root of a philosophy, gives us a much clearer picture.

I'm very grateful to betty boop who has faithfully done just that for years on the forum, and of course very much so in the book.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

"In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage"


I'd like to second this comment BB. It's right on.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Over the past several days, pointed claims have been raised by certain present and recently departed Freepers that FreeRepublic has adopted an “anti-science” animus and attitude in recent times.

As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.

I learned a lot from both sides.

[betty boop]

As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.... I learned a lot from both sides.

Me, too, <1/1,000,000th%. If anything, the "crevo" debates have increased my appreciation of, and interest, in science issues, and I've learned so much from the correspondents on such threads, on both sides. So I was disturbed to learn that some eminent FRevos have decided to more or less boycott the crevo threads. This came as very sad news. We all lose when stuff like that happens. FWIW.

Thanks for writing!

[betty boop]

Thank you, dear Alamo-Girl!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you all so very much for your outstanding posts! What a wonderful conversation!

Thank you so much cornelis for the insights to scientism! And thank you Cicero for the mention of Whitehead who, IIRC, coined the term "scientific materialism" which is akin to methodological naturalism on steriods. LOL!

bb: But it seems to me that you can pile up all the fossils you want to; but that wouldn't SHOW a transition of one species into an entirely different species. Such a transition would have to be observed before we can say that it really occurred -- at least if we are going to be as "epistemologically rigorous" as Niels Bohr says a scientist must be. Because something seems intuitive enough -- and granted, macroevolution seems "intuitive" -- is not enough to establish scientific rigor.

So very true. The theory of evolution itself is a continuum derived from the quantization (fossils) of another continuum (geologic record.) Until or unless the discrete case and the continuous case are collapsed by empirical evidence - it remains a "just so" story and cannot rise to the scientific rigor of physics or the confidence of math.

Then again, "just so" stories are normal for all historical sciences such as archeology, anthropology and Egyptology. Then again, such historical sciences are not epistemologically pure.

bb: What if all living species share a single, I almost want to say (but won't) universal common genome as the basic stuff of life? And that there is another, as yet undetected principle at work here (e.g., successful communication of information) that "customizes" the expression of the genome for each individual species? -- undetected because not looked for?

Indeed, on both points. The second appeals to information theory the elements of which [Shannon] are not necessarily altogether spatial, temporal or corporeal per se - although the workings and effects of successful communication can be, and are, measured in molecular biology.

IOW, IMHO the answers are well beyond the scope of "matter in all its motions" aka "microscope to telescope."

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I don't post much, but I do often lurk and there is an observation I've made. It seems that the crevo debates often fall into two categories. There is that of evolution verses Young Earth Creation. In terms of evidence this one is debatable with science. However, there is the broader topic of "Is there a God who Created us?" This can encompass those who believe in YEC, as well as evolution theist and anyone in between. Science isn't equipped to answer this question. Therefore it cannot be used to exclude the possibility. I really enjoyed reading the replies on this thread especially as they pertain to the metaphysical. It has always seemed to me that science is a tool, but philosophy dictates the questions it is used to answer and how it is applied.

[YHAOS]

In the midst of all this philosophical heavy lifting (make no mistake, a necessary activity), it seems fitting to make some inquiries of a more mundane variety.

I suggest we make inquiries of Materialists such as Dawkins or Pinker to the effect: Are all men (ie Mankind) created equal? Are they, then, endowed with inalienable rights? Do governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed? If the response to these questions is ‘yes,’ then let us further inquire if that ‘yes’ is categorical or conditional. We must suspect that the response would be heavily conditional. So conditional, in fact, that it would be in effect not a ‘yes’ at all, but a resounding ‘NO!’

That being the case, then it was Calvin Coolidge who phrased best what the response ought to be:

“No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions [the inquiries I listed above]. If anyone wishes to deny their truth and soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress.” (Philadelphia, speech commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926)

[YHAOS]

”The direction in intellectual history since the Enlightenment has been to grant science the authority to pronounce what is real, true, objective, and rational, while relegating ethics and religion to the realm of subjective opinion and nonrational experience.”

The author would have us believe that Science eschews ethics. Is that true? I don’t believe it but, then, what are the ethics of Science, what is its ethical rationale, and whence comes the values upon which the ethics of Science is based?

[YHAOS]

"I learned a lot from both sides."

I'll second that motion.