That's a very interesting suggestion, metmom!
It seems to me any creation account really belongs to cosmology. Evolutionary theory isn't the least bit cosmological, it does not and cannot say what the origin of life or consciousness is; it only speaks to what happens to species once they're here (so to speak).
Darwin said that "life can only come from life." He never said where life came from. Neils Bohr agreed, saying the origin of life is simply unknowable -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle -- and thus could never be a proper subject for scientific investigation. And Hubert Yockey agrees with both men that the origin of life is "unknowable." And yet: There Life is!
All this really boils down to for me is that the origin of life is "unknowable" on the basis of reason alone, thus scientific methodology cannot give an account for it. To get the "full picture," Spirit, faith is required: Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but equally necessary complementarities for a proper understanding of man and the universe.
Yockey is really interesting -- I'd love to see him taken up in the public schools. He suggests that living systems do not "bottom out" in physics and chemistry, but have a deeper cause, which is essentially mathematical or geometrical in form.
But to me the main point is that for neither the case of an origin in geometry nor an origin in physics/chemistry, no one knows what the origin of the geometry or the physics/chemistry is. THIS is the PRIME "unknowable." Science must remain silent with respect to it, for its method cannot reach to it.
And so we are left in a situation where there is no evident "objective standard" by which either theory (chemistry vs. geometry) can be falsified.... (Might this be a tip-off that they may actually be "complementary," in Bohr's meaning of that word?)
Still from a cosmological or even explicitly theological point of view, Yockey's "geometry" seems to comport very well with what is meant by the word, "Logos." (Though I don't have reason to believe that Yockey is at all a "religiously-minded" person. I am, however; and so am mindful that the word comes up in the very first line of Saint John's gospel.)
Anyhoot, just because the ULTIMATE source of the universe cannot be a problem for the scientific method does not mean there is no ULTIMATE source. Speculations about what was going on before the big bang, or in universes parallel with our own, or in multiverses, etc., belong not to science class, but to cosmology. FWIW.
Perhaps with caveats the creation account could be offered in connection with a course on ToE. My preference, however, would be to offer cosmology itself as a course for high school students, where origin accounts from both science and the humanities (i.e., the Western cultural past) can be freely discussed on an equitable basis.
I hope something can be worked out. For our high school science students definitely are not getting the "full picture" of what Life is. Again, FWIW.
Thank you so much, metmom, for your engaging, thought-provoking post!
More wise and wonderful points.
Please keep up the great and impressive work!
LUB
I've searched through this
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
without finding the phrase "life can only come from life."
Perhaps you can provide a reference.
Darwin said that "life can only come from life." He never said where life came from. Neils Bohr agreed, saying the origin of life is simply unknowable -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle -- and thus could never be a proper subject for scientific investigation. And Hubert Yockey agrees with both men that the origin of life is "unknowable." And yet: There Life is!
Such a claim is a strawman. It is like saying you can't have astronomy without "knowing" the origin of the Universe. And yet, Planets and Stars exist!
All this really boils down to for me is that the origin of life is "unknowable" on the basis of reason alone, thus scientific methodology cannot give an account for it. To get the "full picture," Spirit, faith is required: Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but equally necessary complementarities for a proper understanding of man and the universe.
Faith is not a component of any scientific study. It make for a better or at least a more rational person but it is an optional component.
Yockey is really interesting -- I'd love to see him taken up in the public schools. He suggests that living systems do not "bottom out" in physics and chemistry, but have a deeper cause, which is essentially mathematical or geometrical in form.
Philosophy is a very interesting area of study. But it has no place in science (except as a meta-study). Musings are great but they have to be recrafted meet scientific validity.
But to me the main point is that for neither the case of an origin in geometry nor an origin in physics/chemistry, no one knows what the origin of the geometry or the physics/chemistry is. THIS is the PRIME "unknowable." Science must remain silent with respect to it, for its method cannot reach to it.
As must theology and philosophy be silent on an real science for the same reason.
And so we are left in a situation where there is no evident "objective standard" by which either theory (chemistry vs. geometry) can be falsified.... (Might this be a tip-off that they may actually be "complementary," in Bohr's meaning of that word?)
Of course they can be falsified. And neither chemistry nor geometry are "theories" in the way that TToE and TToG are.
Still from a cosmological or even explicitly theological point of view, Yockey's "geometry" seems to comport very well with what is meant by the word, "Logos." (Though I don't have reason to believe that Yockey is at all a "religiously-minded" person. I am, however; and so am mindful that the word comes up in the very first line of Saint John's gospel.)
Because St. John wanted people to use their God-given intellect to solve problems and explore God's Universe.
Anyhoot, just because the ULTIMATE source of the universe cannot be a problem for the scientific method does not mean there is no ULTIMATE source. Speculations about what was going on before the big bang, or in universes parallel with our own, or in multiverses, etc., belong not to science class, but to cosmology. FWIW.
Perhaps with caveats the creation account could be offered in connection with a course on ToE.
No, because that would create the false concept that they are somehow "equivalent." Faith is not science, philosophical musings notwithstanding. And of course, which creation account to present (assuming I bought your argumentation which I clearly don't), becomes a greater problem.
My preference, however, would be to offer cosmology itself as a course for high school students, where origin accounts from both science and the humanities (i.e., the Western cultural past) can be freely discussed on an equitable basis.
"Cosmology" is a cobbled-together subset of philosophy and very reminiscent of drunken sophomoric late night free association (IMHO). It was also the breeding ground for the very disingenuous ID Trojan Horse that has opened up a front to support willful ignorance and complete dumbing down.
I hope something can be worked out. For our high school science students definitely are not getting the "full picture" of what Life is. Again, FWIW.
"What Life Is??" That is not what HS is all about. Life is about putting your nose behind the grindstone and getting your butt in gear. It is about learning facts, figures and some ability to think (but not much since HS brains aren't really ready for much beyond Plato or Shakespeare).