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

Heya Gregory,

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.
>

When I say that I 'want all metaphysics out', I'm primarily talking about
formal education (even given my qualms about public schooling, full stop)
with a lesser eye towards popular science. Since we're talking about popular
science here (books, articles, community regard, etc), I'll explain more on
that point.

Right now, I see tremendous hypocrisy in play when it comes to the subject
of evolution. If Behe, as someone who accepts common descent, an old earth,
and a tremendous amount of mainstream/orthodox 'Darwinism' writes a book
where he questions one particular aspect of the theory, all hell breaks
loose. He's not merely treated as wrong, but as a loose cannon threat to
science because of his letting his metaphysics drive him, and people may get
the wrong idea. Science should never be mixed up in such a way!, we're told.

Meanwhile, Victor Stenger writes a book with a subtitle expressly claiming
that science disproves God, and... not a peep. No cries of indignation, no
anger at his mix of science with metaphysics, or worse, his passing off
philosophy as science. It flies right under the radar. His is just one
example of this sort of thing, from popular articles to books to otherwise.

When I say I want an end to this, I'm not saying that Behe and Stenger
should be derided for mixing science with metaphysics. That should be fair
game - I think metaphysics are important in their own right. But when
science is mixed with metaphysics and is passed off as nothing but science..
then we have a problem. I see this as a tremendous harm to metaphysics,
precisely because it ends up with people being unaware or confused about
their very existence even when they're right in front of their face. There
are, I believe, no small amount of people who will say 'If Darwinism is
true, there is no God and no design' or something close to that, and think
they are making a purely scientific statement. In that case, you have the
situation where metaphysics is featuring prominently in their life - and
they're blissfully unaware of it. Better they know where the lines are
drawn.

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."
>

I'll hold commentary until I see the thread. I should mention, I really am a
TE - and I'm quite at home with quite a lot of Darwinian mechanism.
Darwinian metaphysic is another issue entirely, of course, and it gets
dodgier when stepping towards the fringes (evolutionary psychology, etc.)

>
>
> 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)!
>

That much I can agree with off the bat, if only to the extent that something
'odd' seems to be going on with how the man himself is viewed and talked
about.

> 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!
>
> ------------------------------
> *
> * <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>

Interesting. I should mention I'm very sympathetic to Mike Gene's point of
view, but I'm also sympathetic to your complaint that the word and idea of
'evolution' is many times awkwardly shoe-horned where it doesn't need to be.
I don't evolve myself a cup of coffee, no matter how gradually I pour it.

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 20:48:32 2008