Re: [asa] Comments on Nature's Destiny by Denton

“Yet no point or argument Denton or others can make challenges ‘Darwinism,’ because - somehow - the only way to challenge a synthesis of science and philosophy/metaphysics is by challenging the science.” – Schwarzwald
 
Yes, this would seem to be a condition of imbalance in the contemporary academy and in society as a whole (here I speak of N. America in general). There is much to lament in the disappearance of philosophy from its former position of importance. Sure, there may be more practical, technical and scientifically trained people as a result of less philosophy, but it also waters down the character of those who either refuse to confront or who are not confronted with philosophical ideas, topics, ways of thinking, etc. That one must first ‘challenge the science’ is evidence of the lopsided value accorded to science in the contemporary academy. Unfortunately this is also the route the IDM has taken with its ‘biology-first’ approach at the cost of humanitarian self-understanding.
 
What I don’t understand, Schwarzwald, is why you seem to want to further such a disconcerting situation?
 
You write: “I differ from T and other ID proponents in some serious respects which I'll get to in a reply to Timaeus later - but put simply, whereas they want to get their metaphysics into the game of science (since materialists and atheists have so generously packed their own into said game, unjustified and unwarranted), I simply want all metaphysics out.”
 
In other words: just the natural science, please? What happens though if you consider the world to be a unity and believe it is impossible to leave any part of it out when dealing with another without loss of coherence? Isn’t this sort of like denying that you are a whole person, and not just pieces of a person assembled together?  Of course on a practical level, one can speak just of the technique or the method or the theory or the idea, or ‘the science.’ But to lose the person in this process is ultimately a dehumanising result. Leaving the metaphysics out can thus be seen as a damaging move to science and religion, if viewed in this light.
 
Let me just add that I am in much agreement with Schwarzwald’s sentiments about the perceived negative flexibility of ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian ideas’ in discussions about evolution, creation and intelligent design. I appreciate the tone he takes with Steve Matheson, who quite frankly seems to defend ‘evolution’ past any and all appropriate borders (i.e. elevating evolution into something bigger than it is, and along with it, Darwinian ideas). A paper I recently read, “Darwinism IS Social” by Robert Young is an eye-opener in this regard.  It shows how the social, cultural, political and economic surroundings were inevitably intertwined with Darwin’s formulation of ‘evolution by natural selection.’
 
There is certainly something to be found in contemplating the idea of ‘heroic science,’ where one particular person is elevated out of all sense of proportion to what they actually achieved in comparison to the many contributions that were made before them and since their life of doing science finished. I’ll be waiting Steve’s voice on a new thread: “Darwin’ errors.”
 
The following I just wanted to quote by it-self because it carries, imo, some interesting truths/messages:
“Challenge the metaphysical and philosophical end [of Darwinism] and you're either accused of in-effect challenging the science (because clearly you're encouraging the science to be denied if you challenge the metaphysical/philosophical and entirely extraneous baggage) or, if you put up too much of a fight, you're told that the metaphysics don't matter anyway - only the science does, so please talk about that. But if you so much as express skepticism of the scientific aspect, then you're either a fool or a liar, and clearly motivated by your metaphysics.” – Schwarzwald
 
What a joy it is indeed to be a human-social thinker and not a natural scientist on this most interdisciplinary and emotion-provoking topic of evolution, creation and intelligent design, with C.R. Darwin being just one of the historical players (and not, in my opinion, anywhere near to the most important)!
 
Warm regards,
Gregory
 
p.s. I mentioned the words ‘intelligent design’ to about 20 scholars in the Russian Academy of Sciences today (under the eyes of Lomonosov) and only two had heard of the Russian translation of this concept duo – which is ‘razumnui zasmuisl’ or ‘reasonably thought-out’ – one is an evolutionary biologist, the other a zoologist. This was the third paper in a month I’ve delivered suggesting that the Russian language actually helps people to understand the difference between ‘evolution’ (a natural scientific term) and ‘development’ (a human-social scientific term) better than the English language does. Both are dynamic views of creation, but one is more anthropic than the other. Along with this feature, of course, comes the Russian tradition of rejecting outright the Malthusianism present in Darwinian ideas (e.g. struggle for life). Thankfully, I’ve managed to answer the questions and doubts people have had about why the verb ‘to
 evolve’ is a misnomer when it comes to human agency, or, sorry to say it Mike Gene, minds working to build, make, or create things like technology or any other artefacts. In this sense also it makes no sense to say that religion ‘evolved’ into being or having become what it is today, though this is a typical notion in some circles.
 
p.p.s. to make it easier to swallow, can we just say that teleology is only involved in a non-Darwinian understanding of biological evolution? Darwin, after all, saw no ‘purpose.’ This way there is no need to speak of ‘falsifying Darwinism’ as in some Popperian justification that Darwin’s science is still the best available at the pump of natural science on planet Earth! __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 16:36:54 2008