>
>JWB>Our witness to the truth involves, as I see it, making sure
>>that people understand the limitations of science, and are able
>>to perceive when some of the practioners of the craft overstep the
>>bounds.
>
>I hadn't noticed much of that coming from the TE camp. It seems most
>(if not all) of the prophetic witness pointing out the limitations of
>science comes from the YEC and PC side, and especially from the
>Theistic Science school of Phil Johnson! :-)
>
Stephen, I think you should expand your reading a little. Many secular
scientists and philosophers of science are continuously pointing out
the limitations of science. Here are a couple of examples:
==========================
The Darwinian Revolution is still proceeding. But now we are
in the midst of a counter-revolution, a strong reaction against
science and against rationality. I feel that it is necessary to
take sides on this issue, if only briefly; and also in a
Darwinian lecture, to indicate where Darwin himself stood.
My position, very briefly, is this. I am on the side of science
and of rationality, but I am against those exagerated claims for
science that have sometimes been, rightly, denounced as
"scientism". I am on the side of the _search for truth_, and
of intellectual daring in the search for truth; but I am against
intellectual arrogance, and especially against the misconceived
claim that we have truth in our pockets, or that we can approach
certainty.
It is important to realize that science does not make assertions
about ultimate questions--about the riddles of existence, or
about man's task in this world.
This has often been well understood. But some great scientists,
and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The
fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical
principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there
are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth
presupposes ethics. And the succes of Darwinian natural
selection in showing that the _purpose or end_ which an organ
like the eye seems to serve may only be apparent has been
misinterpreted as the nihilist doctrine that all purpose is
only apparent purpose, and that there cannot be any end or
purpose or meaning or task in our life.
[...]
The counter-revolution against science is intellectually
unjustifiable; morally it is indefensible. On the other
hand, scientists should resist the temptations of scientism.
They should always remember, as I think Darwin always did,
that science is tentative and fallible. Science does not
solve all the riddles of the universe, nor does it promise
ever to solve them. Nevertheless it can sometimes throw
some unexpected light even on our deepest and probably
insoluble riddles.
-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355.
==================================
The world in which we live is partly material (made of matter)
and partly non-material. We wish to know about both kinds of
entities. The ways of knowing include instruction, inspiration
and revelation. Testing the truth of our knowledge can be
difficult. In matters of theology, morality or aesthetics we
can ask for consistency if, in fact, consistency is required
for truth (must one like, or dislike, oranges on Monday as
well as Saturdays?). For the material world, however, we have
a method, called scientific, which is our way of knowing that
world and testing the truth of that knowledge.
In science we may ask 'Do rocks fall to earth?' but not 'Does
God forgive?' In sciences we ask how? but not why? Science is
about 'is-ness', not 'ought-ness'. Do people kill? Ought they?
To seek a scientific answer means to seek a materialistic
answer. If there is no material answer, it is not a scientific
question. The great success of science as a way of knowing
about material things in no way makes science or materialism
superior to inspiration or morality. Knowing right from wrong
is more difficult than knowing plants from animals and more
important.
-- Walter M. Fitch and Kim Upper (1988). "The evolution of
life - an overview of general problems and a specific
study of the origin of the genetic code," in _Evolutionary
Processes and Metaphors_, Edited by M.-W. Ho and S.W. Fox,
John Wiley & Sons.
[these are the opening paragraphs of the paper]
===================================
Now, to TE's. Talking about the limitations of science is commonplace
and I'm sure I could find many examples of this from books written by
TE's. Instead, I'll mention two examples from John Polkinghorne published
in secular periodicals.
The first is a review of Lewis Wolpert's book [_The Unnatural Nature
of Science: Why Science Does not Make (Common) Sense_, Faber and Faber
1992] which appeared in _Nature_.
Wolpert's style is to write at a cracking pace, interlarding
the discourse with plenty of anecdotes. Reading his book is
like finding oneself sitting at dinner next to a guest who is
entertaining, slightly relentless and - lets face it - a mite
opinionated. The superiority of science is ruthlessly asserted.
"Scientific knowledge is special and privileged - in the that
it provides our best understanding of the world." One cannot
deny that science provides our best understanding of some
aspects of the world, but its success is purchased by the
limitation of its ambition. Essentially it is concerned only
with certain kinds of impersonal, largely repeatable experience.
But a painting is much more than a collection of specks of paint
of known chemical composition, and there is a great deal more
to human experience than science is able to tackle. Wolpert
makes the astonishIng mistake of equating the method of
investigation with the actual nature of reality. He says, "Any
philosophy that is at its core holistic must tend to be
anti-science, because it precludes studying parts of a system
separately".
Even within science, it is absurd to adopt such a reductionist
stance. What if there are holistic laws of nature, such as
organizing principles working in thc direction of increasing
complexity? They will have to be sought through new methodologies,
but our concern as scientists must be to respond adequately to
the way the physical world actually is. In fact, twentieth-
century physical science has seen the death of mere mechanism
and the discovery of an interconnectedness (nonlocality) in the
fabric of the world.
Wolpert is at his worst when he speaks of religion. There is
an assertive dismissiveness ("religious belief is incompatible
with science"), derived from a caricature picture ("religion
is based on unquestioning certainties"). His treatment of
theological thought is as crude an abuse as is the creationists'
misuse of scientific thought. Wolpert acknowledges with Tolstoy
that "science does not tell us how to live". His answer to moral
issues seems to be ultimately the social endorsement of the
_vox populi_. Yet his sensitive discussion of the mistakes of
the eugenics movement shows that he would not have accepted such
policies even if they were endorsed by society (as they were in
Nazi Germany). He should think a bit more about what is the source
of our intuition of the value of human individuals.
Beneath the civilized discourse of this entertaining book there
is a note of unconscious arrogance. The science is tinged with
scientism ('science is all') in a way that fuels the fires stoked
by the likes of Brian Appleyard or Mary Midgley.
-- John Polkinghorne, "Scientism Disguised", Nature 360:378, 1992.
Here are some reactions to Polkinghorne:
... The more important question, which Polkinghorne neither
raises nor answers, is how specific ethical or religious
beliefs can be defended. In the last analysis they cannot,
except by announcing, "I feel it: I have faith." _Pace_
Polkinghorne, Wolpert is surely right in claiming that science
is incompatible with religion. Perhaps Polkinghorne should
ponder the dilemma that would arise if science were ever able
to explain the origins of religious and ethical beliefs: the
distinction between explainjng and explaining away is a fine
one.
-- Stuart Sutherland, "Popper, Wolpert and Critics", Nature 361:292,
1993.
Most normal people cease such debate by the age of 14, and even
renowned British scientists, one cannot help hoping, should
leave off at around 50. Renowned British scientists who insist on
believing that the Universe was created and is being maintained
and guided by supernatural forces and or beings whose nature
lies forever beyond our comprehension are not going to be swayed
by rational discourse, logical analysis, empirical evidence and
sanity. If they were subject to these influences they would not
believe the things they do in the first place and when they are
also ordained priests they have embraced a style of now-you-see-
it-now-you-don't in regard to Reason that is invincible to mere
factual consideration, having long since soared beyond the
gravitational pull of reality.
-- Ralph Estling, "Beyond Belief," Nature 362:388, 1993.
============================
Now, let's go from that rag _Nature_ to a really prestigious journal,
Omni Magazine ;-)
I am a theoretical physicist and a clergyman. People sometimes
think that is a pretty odd combination, as if I had said I was
a vegetarian and a butcher. Aren't science and religion at
war with each other, and isn't science winning the battle?
Which side am I really on?
I do not think I have to choose sides. In fact, if I am really
going to understand the very rich and varied world in which
we live, I need the insights of both science and religion.
Each is concerned with the search for truth, but they survey
different aspects of our experience. It is not the case-
as many suppose it is- that science deals with real knowledge
of a world of reliable facts, whilst religion trades in
individual opinion, which might be "true for me" but which
cannot be just plain "true." In fact, such ideas are literally
mistaken.
They are wrong about science because scientific facts are
never plain, unvarnished observations; to be interesting they
must already be interpreted. That the interpretation requires
an inter-weaving of fact (experiment) and opinion (theory).
That the Geiger counter clicks is pretty uninteresting; it
only comes to life when we understand it to be the sign
of a radioactive decay.
Religion, conversely, is concerned with the search for motivated
belief. Faith does not involve shutting one's eyes and believing
impossible things because some unquestionable authority tells
one to do so. It is the quest for an understanding of human
experience rooted in worship, hope, and the history of holiness
represented by the great religious figures of world history.
[...]
Science limits itself to treating the world as an object, an "it"
which can be manipulated and put to the experimental test.
Religion is concerned with personal encounter with that reality
which can only be treated as a "thou." In the realm of the
personal, testing has to give way to trusting.
[...]
The history of the universe, which has turned an expanding ball
of energy into the home of saints and scientists over the last
15 billion years, suggests a purpose at work. An evolutionary
universe can be understood theologically as a universe allowed
by its Creator to make itsetf, as it actualizes the astonishing
potentiality with which it has been endowed.
The goal for every scientist should be a thirst for understanding-
a thirst which will never be quenched by science alone.
-- John Polkinghorne, "Alone is Never Enough: Seeing the World
Through Both Eyes," _Omni_, October, 1994, page 4.
==================================================
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================