Posted on 12/03/2004 3:48:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Here is the Oxford University Press description of the book:
Forrest and Gross expose the scientific failure, the religious essence, and the political ambitions of "intelligent design" creationism. They examine the movement's "Wedge Strategy," which has advanced and is succeeding through public relations rather than through scientific research. Analyzing the content and character of "intelligent design theory," they highlight its threat to public education and to the separation of church and state.
Ping.
This Book Sucks,
It's condescending to creationists. It's not written to convince the creationist that darwinism is wrong, it's written to provide ammunition for darwinists to defend their lofty and humanist positions.
It's not written to convince the creationist that darwinism is wrong...
Creationists don't need to be convinced that Darwinism is wrong—they already believe that. Perhaps you meant that the book's not written to convince the creationist that Darwinism is right. If so, you're correct; the authors are doubtless aware that creationists are largely impervious to evidence and argument.
"Under cover of advanced degrees, including a few in science, obtained in some of the major universities, the Wedge’s workers have been carving out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education..."
Yes, I'd call that condescending.
"Moreover, there is every reason to think that religiously conservative, anti-science agitation will increase, especially as the life sciences and medical research continue to probe the fundamentals of human behavior."
When discussion enters the realm of Origins, (the code word used by the author is "fundamentals"), then the science teacher must admit that he may not have all the facts at his disposal using the reductionist's definition/ version of the scientific method.
For example, I can give two scientific explanations for my existence.
I was created by the coming together of a sperm and an egg.
It is also true that my parents are Al and Mary Lou.
Both are scientific facts. One view is how a reductionist describes my arrival.
The other is more personal.
Science should not be used to rule out the personal explanation for my existence. Is this a wedge? a wedgie perhaps? Only for those who want a reductionist world view...which is a drift beyond science into a pseudo-scientific world... a philosophical perspective.
John Polkinhorne, a physicist and a priest has written (extremely paraphrased): "The water in the teapot is boiling because the gas fire is heating it up. The water is also boiling because I want a cup of tea."
Tell me which of these two true facts is not scientific.
But I don't defend polemical use of scientific results on either side.
Now look at this statement from the top of the article, placed there with no aparent sense of irony:
I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
Steven Weinberg,
1979 Nobel Laureate in Physics
"Impersonal laws" are a Trojan Horse for atheism.
Weinberg has reached a completely ascientific conclusion. He has stepped boldly into metaphysics with that staterment, and about the mind of man, no less. Science can not inform us about purpose in the Universe, nor whether the laws of it are personal or not.
Hilarity ensues when the author of this otherwise reasonable critique of the nonscientific underpinnings of I.D. unwittingly chooses to highlight Weinberg's equally egregious revelation.
Design an experiment utilizing the scientific method to test whether the natural laws of the Universe are impersonal or not.
If it can't be done, then the assertion of "impersonal laws" by Weinberg is non-falsifiable.
Some good points. The article does elucidate the essential identity of Creationism, PostModernDeconstructionism, and New-Ageism, (along with Scientology and a few others.) All are soul-mates in their desire to destroy the idea that the scientific method is a legitimate means of inquiry.
I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
The scientific enterprise is the attempt to understand the laws which govern the appearances of the natural world. This attempt proceeds by trying to make the smallest number of hypotheses necessary to account for the phenomena. The leap to 'explanation by deity' is such a huge one, and is so far-reaching in its explanatory presumption, that it explains nothing. Any phenomenon at all can be deemed understood with the utterance of the phrase, "That's the way God made it". That's just not science.
Would you suggest that studies of brain function and consciousness (and also perhaps studies of the weather) should be abandoned? I hope not.
Yes!!! Excellent insight sir!
"I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years." "I see nothing..." says Steven Weinberg, but actually, I think it was Sgt Schultz who said it first....and with a lot more feeling.
It's true, Weinberg is proudly standing on his own limited apprehension. But for him to extrapolate that observation, to make a "proof" statment that nothing outside his apprehension exists...well, he should have stuck with "I see nothing".
Thanks for your observation!
It brings to mind the famous perversion of Newton's quote posted upon some graduate student's door:
The reason I cannot see as far as others is that giants are standing on my shoulders.
No kidding, I stipulated that.
"God didn't make it" is also not science, and to assert "impersonal laws" of science is to say "God didn't make the laws."
Would you suggest that studies of brain function and consciousness (and also perhaps studies of the weather) should be abandoned? I hope not.
False dilemma. Brain function can be studied with absolute scientific and academic freedom while remaining agnostic about the the question of purpose in the laws governing those functions.
Have you noticed how many "new" members to FR are jumping into these threads? From a particular viewpoint? Hard to keep track of 'em all.
This sounds like rather a strong statement...
Is this universally true of the adherents to the respective philosophies, or only the more rabid leaders?
By analogy, consider the 'alternative health' or 'preventative nutrition' acolytes who crusade against the medical / pharmaceutical establishment...
Recall there are Nobelists in the sciences who subscribe to nutrition (vitamin C, Pauling) and who challenge paradigms (AIDS, Kary Mullis) who are part of the establishment, all the way down to "channeling and crystal energy healing" people who ARE trying to overthrow science altogether.
Somewhere in your remarks there is an interesting article / book on the various contrasts of various forms of mysticism to disciplined scientific inquiry. Some seek to supplant science; others seek to supplement it; others seek to remove it completely.
OTOH, recall many of the earlier scientists (Brahe, Newton, Faraday) were devout Christians who sought to study Nature so as to better understand the Designer: not that many of the fanatical creationists remember or ever knew this. And Eyring (transition-state theory in chemistry) was a devout Mormon...
And let us not forget Lysenkoism in the athiestic Soviet Union.
Somewhere there was been a parting of the ways between physics and metaphysics. Hence much of the anti-scientific nonsense sprouting since, oh, the 60's and 70's; hence many of the flame wars.
Why? What does the subjective nature of man (personality) have to do with the laws of science, or G-d?
Non-sequitur. What Weinberg said is "I don't see why the mind can't be understood, in principle." That's the attitude any scientist must take. It has nothing to do with metaphysics. Either the mind is understandable or it is not. Until the mind is proven not to be understandable--a very tall order--we must proceed as if it will someday yield to our probing. To do otherwise is to abandon science.
And whether the mind is understandable or not, I don't see how any of this has to do with atheism. If the mind turns out to be made of only springs and gears, that has nothing to do with whether God exists.
As for your other point:
Brain function can be studied with absolute scientific and academic freedom while remaining agnostic about the the question of purpose in the laws governing those functions.
I agree, but would add that the question of "purpose in the laws" is not a question that is easy to investigate scientifically. But it's too big a topic to address here and now (it's morning where I am and I'm just not up to writing a mini-opus!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.