RE: Kansas Closing arguments

Philosophy of science applies equally to biology and the physical sciences. In fact, it is the hope of some to reduce biology to physics. I have a qualm with the term "natural causes." Nature is made up of physical and nonphysical aspects. For instance, human consciousness and rationality are nonphysical. Can the nonphysical aspect of nature serve as cause to the physical laws of nature? I do not think so.

Moorad

________________________________

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 12:28 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: kbmill@ksu.edu; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments

On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:39:08 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> There is no doubt that evolutionary theory, whichever way is taught,
> will always give rise to issues on which many people will differ.
> Why is it that we never hear "that physics is and can be taught in a
> religiously neutral manner?" We do not hear such things even when
> discussing the Big Bang theory of the creation of the physical
> universe. What if a student asks the cosmologist, what was there
> before the Bang? Are we to avoid such types of questions?
> Therefore, those issue to which many students and parents are
> sensitive to ought to be addressed honestly in the classroom. What
> is the fear of biologists? A few words regarding the philosophy
> behind evolutionary theory at the beginning of the course ought not
> to be treated as discussing religion but rather clarifying the
> assumptions being made. Invariably, evolutionary theory will always
> give rise to the question of how life came about and how is the
> present related to the past. These are not only scientific questions
> but a!
> lso historical questions to which possible answers are based on all
> sorts of assumptions. If there is a controversy, teach it!
>
>
> Moorad
>
What is supposed to be the difference between the philosophy of physical
science and that of biological science? So far as I can tell, both hold
to notion that natural causes are the only ones that science can deal
with. Anyone who wants to import other causes (gods, aliens, whatever) is
outside the range of scientific studies. As George has tried to point
out, much of this nonscientific stuff comes from poor theology.

If you are talking about genuine philosophical views, I have to note that
all science is compatible with materialism, Berkeleyan idealism, Hegelian
idealism, Marxist dialectic, Platonism, Aristotelianism, even postmodern
subjectivism. There may be problems with the folk-philosophy of animism,
for example, but even those who theoretically expect arbitrary changes
behave as if they will deal with regularities. Some contemporary
"Christian" views are not all that different.

Why is there controversy in biology and not in physics? In part, at
least, it has to be because few know about multiverses vs. a universe,
changes in constants, all the rest of esoterica. But even ignoramuses are
certain that God did not use secondary causes in the development of life.
They are likely to be sure that believing in creation (dogmatic 144 hour
or noncommittal ID) is essential to their eternal bliss. This is usually
coupled with irremediable ignorance.
Dave
Received on Wed May 18 14:09:55 2005