Re: Signs of Scientism

  “I see no reason why that research [OoL] will not continue to be fruitful and continue to resolve outstanding problems.” – Keith Miller
   
  Agreed that ‘science tends to progress,’ though wondering still how much OoL actually contributes to knowledge of our lives and how many OoL researchers there actually are (does anyone know, even if only in America?). The above statement, however, is quite different from saying OoL research will lead to a ‘plausible solution to the OoL.’ Thank you, Keith, for making this distinction.
   
  “NOTHING can fully be understood in purely physical terms. That is why there is more to reality than science can address or investigate. Science is a limited way of knowing. Much confusion has been created by people talking as though science is the arbiter of all truth, and that all reality must be subject to scientific test and confirmation…too much power to science.” – Keith
   
  “That statement does seem to absolve Keith of scientism.” – Randy
   
  Yes, also agreed. My label (if taken to the person) was obviously unjust. ‘There is more to reality than science can address’ (for example, music). The AHD definitions of ‘scientism’ were rather weak imo, and the first definition is entirely misleading. E.g. ‘naturalism’ would seem quite innocent/neutral if it were defined as simply being about attitudes and practices of those who study nature, without speaking of any underlying ideological connections.
   
  Scientism is an ideology; it is not simply a ‘pejorative label.’ The ideology is said to elevate science or scientific knowledge above other types of knowledge or perspectives about the world and what may or may not lie beyond it. Scientism is present when someone uses science (or suggests using science) beyond its limitations. Scientists themselves often don’t like the term ‘scientism’ because they are the ones most often guilty of it. That is why I expressed concern about Keith’s hint that a solution to OoL will (eventually) be ‘found’ by (natural) scientists. And the Bears will one day win the Stanley Cup!
   
  It is satisfying that Keith was willing to draw a circle around what science, even his science, can say or do or prove – ‘science is a limited way of knowing.’ This is something that Michael Behe was not willing to do, and that the IDM apparently hasn’t (yet) done in regard to its ID theories. Behe asserts that “intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all humane studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more.” (1999) When I asked him (2005) how he could justify such a claim, especially given that he is not a ‘humane scientist’ or social thinker, he was not willing to acknowledge his exaggeration or to step back from it with integrity. That shows a lack of credibility, as well as what Keith suggests about some ID supporters, it reveals someone giving too much power to science, to a theory or idea.
   
  As for the supposed underlying assumption in my message that “scientific descriptions of a given process or event somehow diminish or eliminate the creative activity of God,” (Keith) this is often clearly the case in regard to various forms of evolutionary theory. Various forms of evolution, that is, but not others do diminish or eliminate people's belief in God. Debate about origins, meaning, human purpose and direction (i.e. not restricted to natural sciences) used to be framed as ‘creation’ vs. ‘evolution.’ Now it is sometimes framed as ‘evolution’ vs. ‘ID.’
  
   
  Many people (not only in America) feel that evolution(ary theory) has
  diminished the creative activity of God; whether or not they accept the ‘limited’ field of biological science, chemical science or geological science and the specific theories of evolution used in those fields is another issue. Evolution comes in many forms today, more than any single scientist can speak for or about with authority. The IDM is starting to reveal this (as the recent distancing of ID from YEC indicates).
   
  “If all aspects of nature are describable through cause and effect relationships that are repeatable and demonstrable, God seems a little less personal and less directly involved.” … "If science can ‘fully’ (at the biochemical level that is) explain the origin of life, it wouldn't eliminate God's involvement but many people would feel that God is somehow one step further removed.” – Randy
   
  “I see God's creative activity in the very processes that we DO understand from a scientific perspective.” – Keith
   
  The latter seems entirely in-line with the IDM’s approach (seeing, though not hearing God's creative/designing activity), though surely ‘scientism’ is not the correct label for a confident theistic-scientific view.
   
  Regarding Randy’s comment about ‘explaining the OoL’ and about God thereby being ‘one step further removed,’ this returns us back to the initial topic. In such a case (natural) science and scientists should seemingly share the stage with philosophy, philosophers, theology and theologians. Evolutionists, if they are not closed-in upon merely physical or material (causes) explanations, should accept the relevance of providence and immanence in areas outside of their particular scientific domains. The science shouldn’t be a threat to a person’s faith because of philosophical materialism of naturalistic biases.
   
  Perhaps an appropriate topic for this sub-topic thread is: what are the signs of scientism and where are they evident in theories of evolution and ID?

Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote: NOTHING can fully be understood in purely physical terms. That is why there is more to reality than science can address or investigate.
Science is a limited way of knowing. Much confusion has been created by people talking as though science is the arbiter of all truth, and that all reality must be subject to scientific test and confirmation.
It seems to me that this is not only what people like Dawkins and
Provine would have us believe, but also many ID supporters. They both give much too much power to science.

Science can potentially address our questions regarding the history and natural mechanisms of the physical universe (including the sequence of events leading to the origin of the first self-replicating biological organisms), but that is all.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Tue Jan 17 17:13:25 2006