Science is simply a branch of philosophy which has its roots in what began
as "natural philosophy". "Natural philosophy" poses questions about the
physical world and then attempts to answer them through empirical means.
The empiricism of science is the primary feature that distinguishes it from
other branches of philosophy.
The definition of science you quoted by Arthur Holmes (whoever he is), and
written in 1934, is, in my opinion, naive. He describes a somewhat Baconian
inductivist view of science, which, as I wrote earlier in this forum, is an
outmoded and discredited view of science.
I came across the
>following in the latest issue of the Scientific & Medical Network Review
>(No.64, August 1997), taken from a foundation address given by Gordon
>Holmes to the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1934:
>"Can we then express in a few words what is required of the clinician who
>seeks knowledge and truth by the method of science? In the first place he
>must be trained to observe accurately, to see not merely what he is
>looking for but to examine all the phenomena connected with the question
>and to neglect or discard no fact no matter how apparently trivial.
This is unworkable. In practice, much "trivial" data are excluded from
scientific observations. Science is simply not this objective--no one
(scientist or nonscientist) can live up to this standard.
In
>the second place he must learn to describe observed facts accurately and
>completely, but simply and concisely...
Ok. No problem here.
In the third place the student
>must equip himself with that intellectual honesty and independence which
>refuse to submit to authority or to be controlled by preconceptions
This, however, goes back to the Baconian view of science. Basically, all
science is done by making an hypothesis, which is simply a favored
interpretation of current knowledge and a prediction of how an experiment
will turn out. This cannot be done by eliminating preconceptions as
described above. Hypotheses are preconceptions.
and
>which are ready, when ascertained facts require it, to reject a theory or
>hypothesis which has perhaps been hallowed by tradition and become an
>article of faith.
This is grossly insufficient. In order to reject a scientific paradigm, one
needs much more than a simple lack of confirmation. In order for a paradigm
shift to occur, one needs a compelling new model that does a better job than
the old model of explaning the natural world. In the case of evolution
science, it is not sufficient to cite holes in the data (i.e., an
insufficient fossil record) as reason for rejecting the model. Holes may be
filled--one has no way of knowing whether or not they will be filled. In
order for the evolution paradigm, one needs a better model to explaining the
data. So far, the alternatives are grossly lacking.
>Finally he must learn to doubt conclusions too hastily
>or too easily reached:"
Who, how and when is it decided that conclusions are "too hastily or too
easily reached"? Time and continued experimentation is the only way to do this.
Finally, my point to Paul was that the world-view philosophies that some
people append to evolution science are simply world-view philosophies that
say nothing about the validity of the science. Be careful not to confuse
metaphysics for physics like Phil Johnson does.
> There is *no* scientific evidence that
>Darwin's mechanism could ever explain evolution.
This is just not true.
When challenged (as by
>Paul Patterson - quoted again by Phillip Johnson), natural historians
>admit that they do not know anything for certain about evolution, except
>that it happened.
On one hand, anti-evolutionists like to point out that evolutionists require
dogmatic adherence to the tenants of evolution science, but then
anti-evolutionists (often in the same article) point out the honest response
of scientists to Patterson's question. This response is precisely what one
would hope to get from people who realize that they are working with a
theory that requires much more substantiation. After all, if evolution
scientists all believe that evolution is proven beyond a doubt, why do you
suppose that they continue research in the field?
SC
><It seems to me that an important way to argue this point with
><materialists is not to argue that evolution science is invalid..
>
>It seems to me important - for everyone's sake - to point out that no
>science based on false presumptions can possibly be valid. Individual
>facts, if accurately observed and recorded, can certainly be valid,
>whatever the beliefs of the observer (though the observer's beliefs are
>known to affect the results). Everyone would be happy with this and there
>could be a constructive debate about the interpretation of the observed
>data. But this is not possible when unvalidated assumptions (e.g. about
>the age of the earth, the kinds of processes operating in the distant
>past etc) are presented by one side as established facts about which
>there can be no discussion.
The fact is, there is ample discussion about the tenants of evolution
science. In fact, one of the "criticisms" sometimes raised by naive
creationists goes like this: evolution scientists debate the meaning of
their own observations, therefore, since they don't know what the data mean,
the model is false.
Paul statement is naive since the age of earth and the universe is measured
in a variety of ways that validate each other. Furthermore, his complaint
that science makes certain assumptions about "the kinds of processes
operating in the distant past", itself represents a certain assumption about
past events for which there is no empirical support.
>I do not believe that it is helpful or accurate to pretend that the
>evolution scientists had basically got it pretty well sorted out
I agree. There remains much work to do, holes to fill, etc. It is very
possible that the model will be overturned, but time and additional
experimentation will determine this.
and that
>ID can still be slotted in a sort of God-of-the-gaps fashion.
ID and evolution science explain different things. The latter attempts to
understand the mechanistic workings of the natural world. ID only makes
claims regarding the purposefullness of the natural world and provides NO
mechanistic insight. It is a big mistake to present this debate as between
evolution science and ID. Rather, it is between ND (no design) vs ID. BOTH
ND AND ID ARE COMPATIBLE WITH AN EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM.
The
>picture presented by evolution science - of life emerging inexplicably
>from dead matter and evolving from the most primitive organisms up to man
>- is fundamentally false,
This is not what evolution science presents. Paul's statement again mixes
metaphysics and physics. The evolution model simply posits that life may
have emerged from non-living matter and from that into more complex forms.
The key difference between Paul's definition and mine, is the elimination of
the word "inexplicably".
The picture is false because it is upside-down:
>life is not a property of matter and cannot emerge from it. Matter, on
>the other hand, can and did emerge or condense from life/spirit. This is
>not a theory; it is an observation. It is the starting-point for a new
>science of life and a new evolution science.
What in the world does this mean????
_________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
________________________________________________________