Posted on 07/16/2007 1:53:40 PM PDT by MatthewTan
Is The Design of Modern Science Defective?: A review of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
[Editor's Note: This post was written by a Discovery Institute legal intern, Guillermo Dekat. Mr. Dekat is a law student at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. He holds a bachelor's degree in biology from the Air Force Academy.]
A review of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism By: Cornelius G. Hunter (Brazos Press, 2007)
In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to the injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put another way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something wrong with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.
Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning of a product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our cars. If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an expert witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has created a blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.
Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
But Hunter goes further and refutes a common argument that naturalism is a result of atheism or empirically based findings. Instead, he lays the responsibility for naturalism at the doorstep of theists, who were largely thinkers inside the church hundreds of years ago. Hunter explains that theological naturalism is not opposed to religious ideas, because the philosophy is itself religious. It makes theological assumptions for a number of different reasons and then mandates a non-intervening "god." This mandate allows the stream of thought to necessarily flow from theological naturalism to methodological naturalism—the idea that science ought to pursue naturalistic explanations. According to Dr. Hunter, this philosophy of theological naturalism predated the theories that we argue about today.
Dr. Hunter then makes the connection between the philosophies and the blind spot that was created in science:
The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered, theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution has not been found. Non-natural phenomena will be interpreted as natural, regardless of how implausible the story becomes…. Theological naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems — and many have their share — the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems.
(Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, Brazos Press, 2007, pg. 44-45)
Dr. Hunter follows theological naturalism through many of the significant ideas of science in the modern era and analyzes how the blind spot affected the results. However, he doesn't just analyze the problem, for Hunter also suggests another design that will not produce such a blind spot. His suggestion is moderate empiricism in lieu of the heavy reliance on the assumptions of theological naturalism. Hunter explains that moderate empiricism is not a new idea; it was used by Boyle and Newton and pursues the experimental sciences largely unhindered by axioms or historical science frameworks. He sees this method being used by the intelligent design theorists and applauds them for it.
As an expert witness, Dr. Hunter excels. Not only does he examine the current design of modern science, he also offers a design that will address the defect and allow science to function properly. Perhaps it may function even better. With his testimony complete, the jury is out. Will the scientists of today and the next generation choose to drive an automobile with this defect, or will they choose a different design, one without this blaring blind spot? Regardless, they would all do well to read Cornelius G. Hunters' Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism. Posted by Guillermo Dekat on July 15, 2007 12:23 AM | Permalink
Source:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_the_design_of_modern_scienc.html
The book:
Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism (Paperback)
by Cornelius G. Hunter (Author)
Book Description Had evolutionists been in charge, they wouldn't have made the mosquito, planetary orbits would align perfectly, and the human eye would be better designed. But they tend to gloss over their own failed predictions and faulty premises. Naturalists see Darwin's theories as "logical" and that's enough. To think otherwise brands you a heretic to all things wise and rational. Science's Blind Spot takes the reader on an enlightening journey through the ever-evolving theory of evolution. Cornelius G. Hunter goes head-to-head with those who twist textbooks, confuse our children, and reject all challengers before they can even speak. This fascinating, fact-filled resource opens minds to nature in a way that both seeks and sees the intelligent design behind creation's masterpieces.
From the Back Cover In this thought-provoking book, Cornelius Hunter shows that modern science has in fact been greatly influenced by theological and metaphysical considerations, resulting in the significant influence of what he calls "theological naturalism." Naturalism is therefore not a result of empirical scientific inquiry but rather a presupposition of science. This bias is science's "blind spot," and it has profound implications for how scientific theories are evaluated and thus advanced or suppressed. In the end, Hunter proposes a better way—moderate empiricism—and shows how Intelligent Design fits into such a method. "Continuing the theme from his previous two books, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter surveys the history of science to reveal the real source of modern scientists' opposition to intelligent design. Turning popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists who oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically based arguments. Science's Blind Spot is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand why those who oppose intelligent design are becoming more entrenched as the evidence for it continues to build." —Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University "This book is a scholarly, yet easily understood, description of how difficult it is to work outside the dominant paradigm. Hunter provides a perceptive analysis of how we got to be where we are, and why `theological naturalism' is an overlooked but critical issue in understanding the current face-off between religion and science. There is a depth of perception here, an insight into our most unexamined assumptions, that will boggle the mind of anyone conversant with the issues. This book will richly reward all those who read it, whether they are new to the debate or hardened veterans of the science wars. The author has a great gift for clarifying arguments that have long been misunderstood or overlooked." —Gene Bammel, professor emeritus, West Virginia University; author of Everyday Philosophy
About the Author Cornelius G. Hunter (PhD, University of Illinois) is formerly senior vice president of Seagull Technology, Inc., and is currently engaged in molecular biophysics post-doctoral and engineering research in Cameron Park, California. He is adjunct professor of science and religion at Biola University and author of the award-winning book Darwin's God and its follow-up, Darwin's Proof.
A lot of scientific soul-searching today on FR.
Am I A Metaphysical Bigot?
International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ^ | February 15, 2005 | Clifford Sosis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866796/posts
Posted on 07/16/2007 12:59:52 PM PDT by dan1123
Did you join soley to debate evolution vs creation ?
Melodramatic bull---. There is no theological premise in any scientific paper being published today. You have to be a romantic old scientist suffering severe dementia to believe otherwise.
What a joke!
What a cop-out.
Instead of engaging his arguments and ideas, you attack the writer.
The entire evolutionist apparatus is propped up by this sort of mindless vitriole, and it is wearing thin for most folks.
Science is highly efficient at explaining how things work, it is a trmendous edifice of the use of Reason to look at the Universe as it is.
It can not in principle explain why The Universe is there in the first place, or what, if any, is it’s purpose. Science gives prose to our understanding of the Universe, but no Poetry, no meaning.
The fundamental question that must be asked by any person who studies the Sciences is simple, Is the Universe all their is, or is there a superset to the Universe, something greater from which the Universe proceeds?
This is a difficult question, in that, by definition, the Universe is defined as that set of points that one can interact with, in principle, by bouncing a particle against it, whether a photon or other particle. From this viewpoint, the Universe is a hugh physics engine.
That which we can not, IN PRINCIPLE, interact with in such a way is by definition not in our Universe, and Science cannot make any statements about it.
Such is the pervue of Metaphysics, the attempt to understand why the Universe is here, or even if the question itself is meaningless. Each metaphysic establishes with it a set of symbols by which the person then “Sees” the Universe.
The Seculat Huminists who are commented on make the Metaphysical statement that the Universe is all there is and has no intrinsic “Meaning”. This is the underlying assumption. What I would clearly state is that one must Always questions their assumptions and never forget that their assumptions underpin all subsequent statements.
Instead of engaging his arguments and ideas, you attack the writer.
The entire evolutionist apparatus is propped up by this sort of mindless vitriole, and it is wearing thin for most folks.
I find it ironic that the Discovery Institute has a lawyer, and an intern at that, busy flogging science. Don't you?
(Let me know when they make some discoveries.)
read later
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The assumption of naturalism as the ultimate arbiter of truth *is* a 'theological premise'.
Think about it...
He isn't the only one.
Agree, and generally accepted without any serious thought as to alternative explanations.
My Christianity affords great support to the belief in an understandable Universe, by accepting an"mind" that gives the Universe structure and meaning.
Naturalism gives no such support because it assumes that that Reason is also a natural process, in which case the very thing used by naturalists to explain the Universe, Reason, is itself a part of the Universe, invoking irrevocable, circular logic, as a thing can not be used to explain itself
Only by accepting that Reason is "Meaningful" can one then accept the construct of Reason which is Science. This begs the question of what gives Reason "Meaning".
It's actually a pretty tight little circular reasoning exercise, but the naturalists will go round-and-round defending it (pun intended). ;-)
ping.
Mr. Dekat is not flogging anyone, he is reviewing a book by Cornelius G. Hunter. Maybe being a fanatic causes one's reading comprehension to drop?
Is reviewing a book you disagree with the same as flogging your favorite thing? Is Darwinism so weak it cannot stand up to criticism or ridicule? If so, then Darwinists have much in common with Mac users and other cultists. Maybe they come from the same evolutionary line?
I think a famous cult founder once said "Attack the attackers." Do Darwinists subscribe to this philosophy?
Aw, heck. Go ahead and read it now. You'll get a good laugh out of it!
I'm a Mac user too. Hmmmm.
Seriously, the Discovery Institute seems more like a PR firm devoted to pushing the anti-science religious philosophy known as ID, in hopes of replacing real science with a theistic science (see the quote from the Institute's Wedge Strategy, below).
That they are spending their money on fighting "materialism" (upon which science is based), rather than on making discoveries, is amusing to me--particularly given their name.
Also amusing to me is that when one has an overriding religious belief, it would seem the last thing one would want is new discoveries.
In fact, I think the Discovery Institute is actually against new discoveries. This is shown by the many articles they pump out denigrating science and its recent findings. We can often see these articles posted to these very threads.
Sorry, I don't have a very high opinion of the scientific acumen of the Discovery Institute.
From the Wedge Strategy: We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Desperate times...
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.