Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Donald F Calbreath
<dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> wrote:
> Pim makes the statement
> "Not at all. Science does not reject the magical, the supernatural, nor
> does it accept it, because it adds nothing to our scientific
> understanding. Science in other words is consistent with Naturalism,
> Physicalism and Religion as it remains neutral on these matters."
>
> On the other hand, well-known scientists offer the following:
> Richard Lewontin (well-known evolutionary biologist) –
> New York Review of Books (Jan 9, 1997, p. 31):
> "... we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
> materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
> of science somehow compel us to accept a material
> explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
> contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
> to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
> and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
> no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying
> to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
> for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

A somewhat confusing but mostly correct statement. I would have
replaced materialism with "methodological materialism" as Lewontin
confuses the issue unnecessarily.

> "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer,
> such an hypothesis is excluded from science because
> it is not naturalistic."
> (Scott C. Todd, "A view from Kansas on that
> evolution debate," Nature: Vol 401:423 (Sept. 30, 1999).)
>
> "At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York,
> a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an
> unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe
> in God?" Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel
> laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A.
> Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his
> work on the structure of crystals. Belief in the supernatural,
> especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good
> science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is
> damaging to the well-being of the human race."
> New York Times, August 23, 2005

Again, the fact that people on both sides confuse the issue, hardly
makes this a standard for science.

> The definitions of science offered by NAS and AAAS emphasize that only natural explanations are accepted - the supernatural is excluded.
> Doesn't sound very neutral to me.

Since the supernatural explains anything and thus nothing, it has no
place in science.

> And then there are the recent statements by Coyne who says that religious and science cannot exist together. He goes on to advocate that religion
> be abolished since it is incompatible with science.

> Now, who are we to believe?

The facts.

Funny how we are so easily scared by what some are saying about
science rather than to take a more methodological approach. Ted Davis
just posted an excellent response as well.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 2 13:04:51 2008