RE: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents

Bill, you raise some important, valid points about the nature of
science. Believe me, within science itself, there is plenty of room for
interpretation and speculation. One need not get into religion or
metaphysics to be involved with alternative interpretations and
speculations.

Here's a simple example.

Simon Conway-Morris interprets scientific data to suggest that, if the
evolution of life on this planet were to start over again repeatedly,
most important features of living things would consistently reappear
through convergent evolution. Some other biologists agree (and, by the
way, these biologists vary widely in their theological viewpoints).

Stephen Jay Gould interpreted much the same data to suggest that, if the
evolution of life on this planet were to start over again repeatedly,
most important features of living things would NOT consistently reappear
through convergent evolution. Some other biologists agree (and, by the
way, these biologists also vary widely in their theological viewpoints).

Now, Simon Conway-Morris happens to be a Christian, and he happens to
consider convergent evolution to be a significant instrument used by the
Creator. (He also sharply distinguishes himself from ID theorists.)
But there are plenty of atheistic scientists who consider what they too
see as the predictability of evolution as reason to view it as an
impersonal, deterministic (though complex) process.

Stephen Jay Gould was an agnostic, and he happened to consider what he
saw as the unpredictability of evolution's trajectories as reason to
doubt the existence of a creator. But there are plenty of Christians
who consider what they too see as the many unpredictable possible
outcomes of evolution as an important instrument used by God to create
the diversity of life on this planet.

It's great to discuss the merits of the scientific arguments of both
Conway-Morris and Gould in science classes. It might be a good exercise
to highlight exactly the points you raised about the nature of science!
But, my point is, do so without bringing in the philosophical and
religious views of either Conway-Morris or the atheistic scientists who
emphasize convergence. Do so without bringing in the philosophical and
religious views of either Gould or the theistic scientists who emphasize
diversification.

Cheers!

Chuck

Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
 
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: wjp [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:42 PM
To: ""Austerberry@ame7.swcp.com; Austerberry, Charles
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
Importance: Low

Chuck:

You say:

> It's OK to teach Dawkins' gene-level selection argument or Einstein's
> physics or Michael Behe's biochemistry (histone protein experiments he

> did years ago, for example) in public school science classes. I do
> not think it's OK, however, to teach Dawkins' atheism or Einstein's
> pantheism or Behe's ID in public school science classes, nor is it OK
> to teach Collins' BioLogos in public school science classes. It would

> be helpful to mention that a wide spectrum of philosophical and
> religious views have been and are now held among successful scientists

> but, unless there's time to thoughtfully expand the scope of the class

> beyond science, anything more than briefly mentioning the wide
> spectrum could be problematic.
>

I don't think the issue is quite this simple.
Let's suppose that science could be presented "uninterpreted."
It seems you would argue that Behe's histone protein experiment is of
this ilk, but that to interpret this experiment as evidence of ID is
"interpreted." Or that Dawkins' gene-level selection argument is
"uninterpreted," while the atheism he draws from it is "interpreted."

What distinguishes the "uninterpreted" from the "interpreted"?
Is it that the "uninterpreted" is more generally acceptable?
I suppose you would suggest that the "uninterpreted" is more
representative of MN, and the "interpreted" as PN.

It is not clear to me that the distinction can be so easily drawn.
While I am unfamiliar with either of these works of Behe and Dawkins, is
it really true that none of it is "interpreted"?
I am certain that it contains such an element.
Sense datum tell us nothing of themselves alone. In fact, I'm pretty
sure that sense datum don't even exist except within an already existing
interpretative context.

The PN part of work of these men is likewise interpretative.
The possibly appropriate question to ask is whether this "interpretive"
aspect is of a scientific nature.
On seeing a cathode ray deflected by a magnetic field, one may interpret
this as the result of a stream of particles. That not everyone so
interpreted it, is not to say that the interpretation might not be a
fruitful interpretation.
Today we say that it was, for it led to attempts to measure the e/m
ratio of the presumed "particle," a "particle," albeit much changed from
its original conception, that we accept today.

Interpretations and speculations are essential to science.
Without them science would not progress, even if it should end up
falling on its face in doing so (e.g., phlogistin or ether).

Science as presently taught teaches science for the most part
mechanically: science for machines.
The Whig version of science presented never falls on its face and is
always faultless.
There is no element of speculation and risk.
It is taught as fact, hard solid fact.
This is a myth, but the one implicitly presented.
You cannot avoid interpretation in science.
Should one teach a real history of science, what then would be
implicitly taught?
One might not exactly know. I only know that something of
interpretation will be taught and received.

I think we have to simply live with the ambiguity of interpretation and
speculation. What is science cannot exactly be known.
It is not a fact. Long live interpretation and speculation!
It is the beating heart of meaning.

The distinction between MN and PN is, I suggest, more one of temporal
convention and the desire for a clean and pure science. When it ever
becomes such, science will be dead.
But no one will care. So need to worry.

At least that's my present interpretation.

bill

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 14 17:17:08 2009