The Will to Believe
Merrilee Salmon’s review of Richard Williams and Daniel Robinson 2015 volume, Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, starts out well enough, explaining that scientism is “a philosophical view about the power and scope of the techniques of the natural sciences. It is generally understood to hold that all genuine knowledge about the world around us, including about human behavior, is obtainable only through the particular scientific methods that have proved so successful in physics, chemistry, and the other natural sciences. In other words, knowledge gained through use of the scientific method has a unique claim to truth, and, some would say, constitutes the only path to real knowledge.” But the professor emerita from one of the leading HPS programs in the country (University of Pittsburgh) unfortunately ends up devolving into the same old Warfare Thesis myth which contributed and underwrote today’s scientism in the first place. To wit, Salmon erroneously identifies, yes Galileo and Darwin, (oh no, not this again), as examples where science triumphed over religion:Simply recognizing that both science and theology are cultural institutions, however, does not solve the problem of what to believe when the two collide. The historic cases of Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin remind us that science has the superior record when it comes to producing evidence for claims that have been challenged by theologians.
Arg. Has history taught us nothing?
Do we need to recount yet again how theology underwrote evolution, and that rebuttals were about the science? Do we need to, one more time, retell the facts of the Galileo Affair? That questions about Joshua 10 and Ecclesiastes 1 paled in comparison to the political, social, Aristotelian, and most importantly, scientific problems with heliocentrism?
Unfortunately, over and over, we see that the mythological Warfare Thesis is not the product of the ignorant but the elite. From the playwrights to the professors, the Warfare Thesis is a powerful and enduring myth for the same reasons any myth is powerful and enduring—we want to believe it.
Religion drives science, and it matter.
"Religion drives science, and it matters."
ReplyDeleteRepeating this at the end of every OP does not make it true.
Religion does not drive science. The scientific process was formally formulated largely in Europe when it was largely Christian. Nobody argues this. And many of the earlier discoveries were funded by the church. Again, nobody denies this. And even many of the discoveries that weren't funded by the church were made by men who were religious and who's religion influenced their work. Again, nobody is disputing this.
But to claim that science and religion were never at odds, even back then, is simply wrong. And when push came to shove, it was the church that would win unless the evidence was so overwhelming that it was not possible.
Does religion drive science today? Nowhere to the same level it did in past centuries. There are still religious scientists. And in many fields of science, there are no conflicts. Or the conflicts can easily be rationalized. Chemistry and physics, for the most part, do not conflict with religion. The biological sciences, less so.
Does it matter? Only when there is a conflict between overwhelming scientific evidence and religious dogma. If your religious sect believes that the earth is 6000 years old, or that there was a global flood that killed all animal life and that all current life is derived by the survivors, then it conflicts with overwhelming scientific evidence and your religion is of very little use in discerning the truth. At least in these subjects.
Religion does not drive science.
DeleteSo says the guy who believes it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously.
Does wee willie actually think that its position has scientific support?
DeleteNo wee willie, your position is based solely on faith and worthless promissory notes
CH: "So says the guy who believes it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously."
DeleteIt is a simple thing to win a debate by attributing statements and beliefs to the opposition that were either never said or for which you have no knowledge of them being true. Actually using facts and evidence is more difficult.
For the record, I think the best explanation for the formation of the world is that described by physicists and cosmologists. Yes, they may be wrong but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
DeleteBut that is nothing but sheer dumb luck and as such unscientific.
There is no scientific evidence for evolution; it is a religious dogma. You are convicted of your own charge.
ReplyDelete"There is no scientific evidence for evolution;..."
DeleteExcept for geology, the fossil record, radio-isotope analysis, comparative morphology, DNA comparisons, protein comparisons, direct observations of evolution in living systems,....
How are you defining "evolution", William? Why won't you say?
DeleteWilliam,
Delete"Except for geology, the fossil record, radio-isotope analysis, comparative morphology, DNA comparisons, protein comparisons, direct observations of evolution in living systems,...."
First, how does geology support evolution. Evolution claims to explain the advancement of life via RM/NS from a single common ancestor to the vast array of life forms we see today.Geology does not deal with living matter, so how is it evidence for evolution in relation to the general description of evolution?
Second, how does the fossil record support evolution. If evolution occurred in the manner promoted by the vast majority of evolutionists we should see billions upon billions of gradually morphing fossils all through the eons of time. Rather we find stasis and nothing to support the claim of one creature becoming another billions of times over.
As for radio-isotope evidence, it is all built upon a massive foundation of assumption. Assumption as to the consistency of decay rates, assumption as to the level of daughter elements which may have been present at the samples formation, assumption that outside forces did not accelerate or delay the rate of decay, etc.
Comparative morphology is simply an assumption that because creatures resemble each other in appearance, they must therefore share a common ancestor.
DNA and protein comparisons often do not line up with morphological comparisons. Also, why is it simply hand waved away that these similarities cannot be the result of design?
And finally, direct observation of evolution in living systems has never, at any time, been observed. Reptiles remaining reptiles and mammals remaining mammals, which is all that has been actually observed, is not observed evolution. Adaptation and variation cannot logically be extrapolated to argue descent from a common ancestor.
"Except for geology, the fossil record, radio-isotope analysis, comparative morphology, DNA comparisons, protein comparisons..." Sorry, this is not evidence. Cool story though bro. However, please give me" ...direct observations of evolution in living systems,...."
ReplyDeleteMD: "Sorry, this is not evidence."
DeleteThen you have no idea what evidence is. Fingerprints on a gun are evidence. But evidence is not proof. Everything I listed is evidence that supports evolution. Some of it could also be evidence that supports ID.
So, next time you say that something is not evidence, you should understand what the term means.
What about " ...direct observations of evolution in living systems,...." then?
DeleteMD: "What about " ...direct observations of evolution in living systems,...." then?"
DeleteI thought that one would be obvious. We have seen evolution in real time.
Give me your best example of this please.
DeleteHIV, antibiotic resistance, Lenski experiments, the flu and cold viruses.
DeleteAll are examples of adaptation; The changes in these populations revert back to their previous states when the environment changes. I thought you might also mention finch beaks and the peppered moth which are the same thing. This is not evidence for evolution. They are the same examples that have been trotted out for many years and I was hoping you may have had some new information.
DeleteHIV, antibiotic resistance, Lenski experiments, the flu and cold viruses.
DeleteRight- everything that fits in nicely with baraminology.
"All are examples of adaptation; The changes in these populations revert back to their previous states when the environment changes."
DeleteFirst, adaptatiins are just the "positive" results of evolution. If a mutation in a gene results in increased relative fitness, it is an adaptation. If the mutation already exists at a low frequency but an environmental change results in increased relative fitness, it is an adaption. The only difference is when the mutation(s) originally occurred. They are both part of our understanding of evolution.
Secondly, my examples are not the results of epigenetic changes in expression. They are due to mutations.
Joke: "Right- everything that fits in nicely with baraminology."
DeleteWell, if you want to argue for bariminology, be my guest. But I prefer rational explanations.
William,
Delete"Well, if you want to argue for bariminology, be my guest. But I prefer rational explanations."
Baraminology is simply a system of investigation based on the concept that animals fit into logical groups designated as kinds or baramin. Such a system can hardly be called irrational when all evidence points to supporting one of its basic tenets which is that different kinds of animals, ie; canines and felines, for example, cannot interbreed. That this is the case is clearly demonstrable and observable on a repeatable basis. Thus the discipline, in this case at least, contains all the demands required of empirical science. As such, it cannot be dismissed as irrational.
Hi Nic.
Delete"Baraminology is simply a system of investigation based on the concept that animals fit into logical groups designated as kinds or baramin."
From the Hebrew word 'bārā', which means 'he created', and 'min', which means 'kind'
And is defined by Wiki as: "a creationist system, classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
If you believe that it is a rational system, how many "kinds" are there? How many were on the ark? Were dinosaurs a different "kind"? What about trilobites? Bacteria? Protozoans? Viruses? Archaea? Moulds? Placentals? Monotremes?
Are all mammals one kind? All reptiles? All birds?
If one of its basic tenets is that different kinds can't interbreed, does that mean that house cats and tigers are different kinds? What about tigers and leopards? Or tigers and lions?
William,
Delete"And is defined by Wiki as: "a creationist system, classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible."
Who cares one iota how Wikipedia defines anything? Their overwhelming evolutionary and liberal bias is palpable.
"If you believe that it is a rational system, how many "kinds" are there? How many were on the ark?...,"
These factors have got nothing to do with the question as to whether or not the system is rational. These would clearly be subjects of investigation within the paradigm. The question as to whether or not a subject is rational is determined by whether or not that subject can be approached and investigated in a rational manner; and baraminology definitely meets that standard; not one's personal opinion regards that discipline.
"If one of its basic tenets is that different kinds can't interbreed, does that mean that house cats and tigers are different kinds? What about tigers and leopards? Or tigers and lions?"
Again, questions such as these would be the basis of discussion within the discipline. It is known tigers and lions can breed, but the offspring are usually sterile and if they are able to produce fertile offspring they are, to the best of my knowledge, often not very viable . I do stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
But I prefer rational explanations.
DeleteAll evidence to the contrary of course. Anyone who supports blind watchmaker evolution, ie the alleged ToE does not prefer rationale explanations as the blind watchmaker doesn't offer any
Nic: "Who cares one iota how Wikipedia defines anything? Their overwhelming evolutionary and liberal bias is palpable. "
DeleteThen how do you reconcile the origin of the actual word?
William,
ReplyDelete"Then how do you reconcile the origin of the actual word?"
I wasn't aware it needed reconciling.