Re: [asa] Ken Miller and Philosophical Naturalism

Jon writes:

[quote]
He says, "All of these writers have gone well beyond any reasonable
scientific conclusions that might emerge from evolutionary biology. Without
saying so directly, they have embraced a brand of materials that excludes
from serious consideration any source of knowledge other than science." (p.
185) He then questions the conclusion that science can rigorously define
and predict everything in the material world, using quantum principles to
show that nature itself is inherently incapable of being constrained to
mechanistic explanations.
[unquote]

Ken came to my school district a few years ago. A very charming fellow.
Before his talk I asked him directly about his comment in the book about
quantum mechanics because that is significant to me. He said he didn't
remember writing anything about that subject. I thought at the time I must
somehow have been mistaken, and had read the idea elsewhere, and I was wrong
to credit Ken with the idea. Now that I see you bringing it out of his
book I suspect at the time it was a memory lapse on Ken's part - of the
type we all have as we experience "blonde moments" (or whatever one wishes
to call them).
Ken's talk was really good. In it he mentioned that evolutionary theory (or
some parts anyway) (and this will be controversial) is about as well
established the theory of gravity, but he qualified what he meant by theory
of gravity - the theoretical foundations of what causes gravity - as in
(what I will roughly call) string theory. Which is not well established
at all. String theory is not science (as far as I know it wasn't considered
science prior to 2001 ) because it cannot be tested in the absence of higher
energy colliders (than we have). Ken was not talking about gravity in the
sense of throwing a ball in the air and observing it fall to earth. He did
not claim that in his talk - and specifically pointed that out. Yet he was
later misquoted by school officials, (as reported by parents). I know it
was a misquote because I had heard the original remarks by Ken Miller.

At that time I wrote on the web about these misquotes and how school
officials don't understand Miller. And was threatened by a school official
with a lawsuit for doing so "if I did not retract the article". So,
thinking the parents may have reported the school official's remarks
incorrectly, I retracted the article. Sometime later a parent gave an
eyewitness report that the same official was continuing to claim that Ken
Miller had made claims about gravity in the common sense of the word. But
I had been there, sitting right in front of Ken during his talk - right
next to the school official who sat beside me - and I know the official
did not understand Miller. And still does not understand. Why do I have
to be the one threatened to be sued for merely telling the truth about the
way this official continues to misquote Miller?
It was incredibly intimidating to have a principal (in a school your
children attend) threaten to sue you for telling the truth about his
actions. It is a malfeasance of the worse sort.
So, the ASA wants to know why the American people are upset with what their
schools are doing? Dare to question one tiny tiny thing and look what
happens!!!

I think Miller's views on what Jon wrote about above are important. Too bad
no school child will ever learn of them.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Gregory,
>
>
>
> You have spoken often about how ASA (at least this list, which isn't
> necessarily representative of the ASA in general) doesn't deal substantially
> with the influence of evolutionary philosophy in areas of the social
> sciences. You seem (if I'm not mistaken) to be willing to accept the
> evidence for biological evolution, but you are concerned about the pervasive
> use of evolutionary (and by inference, atheistic) philosophy to explain
> human social development in non-theistic terms. I have expressed before
> that I think you have some valid concerns in this area, but that these ideas
> need to be fleshed out in positive ways that contribute to the discussion
> and dissemination of Christian response to atheism.
>
>
>
> I'm curious if you have read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".
> After spending several chapters defending and explaining the biological
> aspect of evolution, he spends a long chapter (ch 6) dealing with the
> over-extension of evolution to support atheism and philosophical naturalism
> in areas beyond the scope of biological science. He talks about the
> anti-religious use that some scientists (Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson) make of
> evolution, to extend it into social and philosophical ideas, including
> socialism, economics, psychology, sociology, criminology, even religion, and
> other areas.
>
>
>
> He says, "All of these writers have gone well beyond any reasonable
> scientific conclusions that might emerge from evolutionary biology. Without
> saying so directly, they have embraced a brand of materials that excludes
> from serious consideration any source of knowledge other than science." (p.
> 185) He then questions the conclusion that science can rigorously define
> and predict everything in the material world, using quantum principles to
> show that nature itself is inherently incapable of being constrained to
> mechanistic explanations.
>
>
>
> Miller gives the example of Clarrence Darrow, prior to the Scopes trial,
> arguing against the death penalty based on deterministic forces acting on
> the criminal defendant, making him a victim of genetics and blind nature (p.
> 188-189). I'm wondering, as I've wondered in this list before, whether you
> might be able to contribute some positive dialog to this kind of discussion
> from within the disciplines you have studied. For instance, rather than
> challenging us whether we have read Barth or Popper or others that may not
> be on my personal top 100 reading list, could you (or someone) do something
> like the following:
>
>
>
> - Pick a topic, such as the influence of evolutionary philosophy on
> criminal justice, economics, or sociology in the 19th and 20th centuries.
>
> - Show in some detail how evolutionary paradigms were misappropriated for
> use in the social sciences, as I tried to do in just one small aspect
> yesterday related to memes.
>
> - Illustrate the damaging social outcomes of such incorrect assumptions,
> and how a more Christian or theistic paradigm, or even non-theistic but
> non-evolutionary paradigm makes more sense.
>
> - Provide some suggestions for how Christians in the social sciences could
> help make a rational effort to influence a paradigm-shift in the current
> disciplines away from flawed evolutionary paradigms and toward a more
> reasonable paradigm.
>
>
>
> I'm sure such articles have been attempted in the PSCF, although since I
> haven't been reading for any great length of time (and wouldn't myself be
> the best judge of how successful such articles were). But I believe this is
> the sort of thing that ASA, and you personally, if so inclined, could
> contribute toward a positive influence for Christian thought. It would also
> help educate and enlighten other (particularly natural scientist) Christians
> to the problems unique to the social sciences, quite outside of the
> biological realm.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
> (ASA member)
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 11 23:24:50 2008