Well, the fat hit the fan, as they say. I was accused by one member of
everything from abject ignorance and inability to read, to misstating issues
and kidnapping the Lindbergh baby (well, maybe this last is a slight
exaggeration, though the moral opprobrium felt almost as heavy). I was told to
"keep looking."
I did. In my library I found an old friend, the venerable classic "The Story
of Philosophy" by Will Durant. I trust many of you first fell in love with
philosophy from this great work, as I did. Anyway, I wondered what the
renowned Prof. D. might have to say on the subject of Bacon and whether or not
he indicated a place for hypothesis. Here is what I found (at pp. 146-147 of
my prized 1927 ed., ellipses in the original):
*****
Bacon proceeds to give an admirable description of the scientific method of
inquiry. "There remains simple experience; which, if taken as it comes, is
called accident" ("empirical"), "if sought for, experiment....The true method
of experience first lights the candle" (hypothesis), "and then by means of the
candle shows the way" (arranges and delimits the experiment); "commencing as
it does with experience duly ordered and digested, not bungling nor erratic,
and from it educing axioms, and from established axioms again new
experiments." (We have here--as again in a later passage which speaks of the
results of initial experiments as a "first vintage" to guide further
research--an explicit, though perhaps inadequate, recognition of that need for
hypothesis, experiment and deduction which some of Bacon's critics suppose him
to have entirely overlooked.) We must go to nature instead of to books,
traditions and authorities; we must "put nature on the rack and compel her to
bear witness" even against herself, so that we may control her to our ends. We
must gather together from every quarter a "natural history" of the world,
built by the united research of Europe's scientists. We must have induction.
But induction does not mean "simple enumeration" of all the data; conceivably,
this might be endless, and useless; no mass of material can by itself make
science. This would be like "chasing a quarry over an open country"; we must
narrow and enclose our field in order to capture our prey. The method of
induction must include a technique for the classification of data and the
elimination of hypotheses; so that by progressive canceling of possible
explanations one only shall at last remain.
****
It is gratifying to be vindicated by such a luminary as Prof. Durant. As nice
as that is, however, I still feel this part of the argument is so much "fat"
surrounding the real meat of the issue, which was the charge that creationists
argue there is "no place for theory" in their view of science, and in doing so
illegitimately rule out evolution. I've never seen a creationist argue this
way. I've asked for some examples, and if anyone has any, please post them.
But I find things like this:
"Science is more than just a collection of observation about the universe. In
addition to collecting observational facts about the present universe, and
perhaps cataloging those facts, scientists also attempt to fit those facts
into some kind of pattern to make meaning out of them. When a scientist makes
enough of a certain type of observation so that a pattern is apparent, a
hypothesis is formulated. A hypothesis seeks to make meaning out of the
observational facts or data. It is used for interpreting facts when relatively
few observations are involved." [Donald Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of
the Creation-Evolution Conflict, p. 37]
Bacon would have nodded his approval at this, I think. So creationists are not
blinded by some sort of speculative scientific theory. Rather, they are
holding natural science accountable and calling it to task when it steps out
and becomes, in the words of Howard Van Till, "folk science." Scientists like
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe and Sir John Eccles, and popularizers like Phillip
Johnson, are doing the same thing, and doing it cogently.
This discussion was fruitful in sending me back to Novum Organum. I enjoyed my
study and was glad to find a supporter on this issue in Will Durant. But I
also rediscovered Bacon, whom I had under-appreciated. I especially think his
treatment of "idols of the mind" has much to say to us today, and especially
to metaphysical naturalists.
I think Bacon would have been quite comfortable with the term "theistic
realist." With Phil Johnson's permission, I'd like to name him as the first
great TR in history, as evidenced by this eloquent passage:
"I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud and the
Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind....A little
philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth
men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second
causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go no further; but when it
beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs
fly to Providence and Deity."
Jim