Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.
But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.
In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.
This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.
To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
Existentially, our species is and has to be agnostic in that human reason and its tools cannot provide proof of God or explain the world as having any meaning beyond our immediate existence. In Christian theology, reason, revelation, and faith are all necessary in order to properly understand human existence, with free will giving each of us the power to make our own choices as to what to believe.
No understanding and thoughtful Christian would regard a supposed "God gene" or "God area" of the brain as commanding anything beyond the capacity to recognize that choice. There is an "unseen greatness" that always seem to elude our full understanding, no matter how powerful that understanding becomes. I do not think you dispute that, which to me means that any supposed "God area" in your brain is working just fine.
Yes they do. I didn't know what "methodical naturalism" was so I looked it up. I attempted to get a def. from a philosopher's paper. Looks like it was camouflaged and maybe I just grabbed a rabbit. Thanks for the info in the new post. I don't know what it means. Maybe I'll get it soon, or maybe a cat.
Science has always been easy to grab. It's well defined. You have physical reality/observables and the constructions and results of logic. The constructs and results of logic are simply representations of reality. If you can't compare your representations and the dynamics of those representations to reality, it is not science. Take Tegmark's multiverses. Anything that relates to this universe is valid science. Anything that relates outside this universe is not.
Re: All those nonphysical objects you talking about are supported by real objects, or the mechanics of science-methodological naturalism. The nonphysical, does not support the physical. It's always the other way around.
To the contrary, there are many credible non-physical theories. For instance, that all existents in space/time are mathematical structures existing beyond space/time (Max Tegmark, Parallel Universes), that strings arise from the underlying geometry, that matter of all kinds arise in 4 dimensional space/time from higher dimensional dynamics and may indeed be multiply imaged (Wesson et al).
I don't see contrary. You've cited Tegmark. He is the physical object, the non physical object "theory" depends on. The theory doesn't exist outside his mind. Only the reality of the physical objects. Science restricts itself to looking at objective reality.
"As a metaphor: in the wave/particle duality, you are To the contrary, I affirm that both wave and particle exist and we see one or the other based on the observer's aspect.
As a metaphor, it's not such a good choice. Neither are reality. The reality is something else. Points and waves are just representations for the something else. As a scientist, there can be no arguement that both have their respective value as representations.
The 'groups' of believers in Creationism, ID and evolution all have their unsavory characters.
Hi spunkets! Do I correctly understand you to say that logic is but a summarized representation of human observations of phenomena? Might the reverse be the actual case -- that maybe reality is a representation of the logic?
Science seems to be biased in favor of the notion that the universe is understandable; and it is understandable because it is logical. Therefore, logic is something that precedes scientific investigation, not something a scientist "discovers" as he goes along. Without the expectation that the Universe has a logical structure, science would have nothing to do....
In any case, we must not lose sight of the simple fact that a representation is not the same thing as that of which it is the representation. Science can model the world down to a nonce -- and given enough time and imagination, it may well do so if the human race doesn't destroy itself first -- and still the world would be beyond its grasp, objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking, we experience it most directly, even now and all the time, consciously or unconsciously.
Science is supposed to be about "objectivity." And yet it's seemingly virtually impossible to be perfectly "objective" about something that also includes our subjectivity as its constituent. Plus I have noticed that, for all of, say, neo-Darwinism's claim to objectivity, there's a good deal of subjectivity loaded into its presuppositions.
Just some musings on a difficult theme. Thank you so much for your thoughtful essay/post, spunkets!
I may never get "DMN". What I do know is that, if it's there, not only will I see it, but science also.
All these patterns in nature that folks qualify as design, are just patterns. There's no proof of design, but you can show these patterns arise out of the underlying physics.
Re:"The nonphysical, does not support the physical. It's always the other way around."
Is it? On what evidence does spunkett's confident claim rest?
It's self evident. If you have a non physical object, and nothing else, what do you have? If you have more of the same, how do they relate? You need a physical reality to support your the non physical objects. All of science has never contradicted that. How can it?
I'm not sure whether that's a bias, or a conclusion. In any event, based on experience, it's certainly the way to bet.
It's amusing (if not dangerous) to follow the money.
No. That is science. Logic is a process of rational thinking.
"Might the reverse be the actual case -- that maybe reality is a representation of the logic?"
The word logic has been replaced by science. The answer is no. It's impossible for the observer's nonphysical thoughts to support the observer.
I think what you wanted to pose is: Could the physical world be the result of the act of a rational thinker. The answer is yes. If the rational thinker exists in this world physically, then science can know him. If not, all that can be observed is his nonphysical spirit.
Now there's only one rational Person that ever claimed to be that rational thinker. What He said relavent to this discussion is, Matthew 12:39
He answered, ""A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The physics of this world is the cherubim:
Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
That's what the rational Thinker says. Science is open for everyone to see. So is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit though, does not wish to be seen by science. He came here to tell us that. He came here to teach.
His original gift was the physical life that supports the same sentience and rational capacities He has. We are free to develope our non physical spirit, supported by that physical life. He came to teach. Did He teach physics? No. He taught about Himself, His Spirit. His Spirit is what needs to be recognized and known. That's not something most folks focus on. Instead they play pseudoscientists and come up with things like the set of Canon from the Council of Orange. Their very first, Canon 1, refutes the Spirit Himself. See all of John 9.
The observables are given in the 4 Gospels. They're not going to be found in science.
That's the objective physical universe of science. The other non physical objects are not necessarily this way.
I gather you mean the laws of physics, spunkets. Patterns are one thing -- information-wise, patterns are not information intensive, and contain a whole lot of redundancy. The real test of the question of whether design is involved in nature would be the seemingly irreducible, functional complexity that we observe in high-order biological systems, such as man. It seems quite unlikely to me that "matter in its motions" via random mutation and natural selection can account for what we observe; for high-order biological systems appear to astronomically information intensive; and as Astrophysicist Attila Grandpierre (not a self-declared IDer, but working on the same problems as many other IDers, i.e., on the basis of physics and information theory) has pointed out, not only the physical laws are "information poor," but the same can be said for DNA, relatively speaking.
Grandpierre comments on this problem, and relates an interesting story about a conversation he had with G. Chaitin, a major figure in information science, on this subject of "information adequacy":
"The algorithmic information is measured by the length of a sequence of symbols that cannot be given by a shorter length of sequence. Therefore, the complexity that one can obtain with coupled algorithms may be estimated as the product of the complexity of the coupled algorithms. Any algorithm contains only static information. If the coupling is also prescribed, and static, the arising complexity will be also finite and numerically determinable. Now we have dynamic information flux at the deepest level of biological organization. ... the laws of physics have a very low information content, since their algorithmic complexity can be characterized by a computer program less than a few thousand characters [as Chaitin pointed out to me, in a 2004 personal communication]: 'My paper on physics was never published, only as an IBM report. In it I took: Newton's laws, Maxwell's laws, the Schrodinger equation, and Einstein's field eqns for curved spacetime near a black hole, and solved them numerically, giving 'motion-picture' solutions. The programs, which were written in an obsolete computer programming language APL2 at roughly the level of Mathematica, were all about half a page long, which is amazingly simple.' Therefore one cannot expect that a static coupling may lead to the generation of the 1022 bits s-1 biological information flux. Chaitin (2003) suggested that perhaps the most fundamental questions, such as the knowledge of whether the Universe is simple or complex, remain forever unsolved. He added: 'We do not know if there exist laws of biology in the same sense as the laws of physics.'"
Now information is a "non-corporeal," spunkets. But it seems to be "in" nature -- so how can it be "unnatural?"
But then again, we have to ask, what is the source of the information if it's not completely provided by the laws of physics and DNA? No natural source has yet been detected in 4D spacetime.
Anyhoot, just some thoughts that interest me. Thank you so much for writing!
It's addressed here.
Creationists are like Ray Charles. If it wasn't for bad information, they wouldn't have no information at all.
Stanley L. Jaki spoke to this issue in his article, "Science and Religion in Identity Crisis":
Neither philosophy nor theology is or can be a science in the way physics is one, but both should be eminently rational, that is, well-reasoned, instead of being submerged into endless chains of vague metaphors and new-fangled buzzwords."I doubt that philosophy holds a monopoly on the latter. I offer Dawkins' metaphor of "the selfish gene" in support of this view.
Thank you for the beautiful, perceptive post, spunkets!
p.s.: I love and revere St. John's Gospel more than words could ever tell....
Chris gonna fiiiiiiind Ray Charles!
Well, er, maybe the case of these other "non physical objects" has something to do with the idea that such objects are contingent... that is, what makes it possible for them to exist at all in the first place is their relation to a deeper (generative) principle. One conjectures this principle is not a sui-generis production of any conceivable combination of phenomena in 4D space/time, but is primarily the expression of a "non-phenomenal reality," as mediated by one or more additional dimensions. At any rate, this is the hypothesis. In need of (1) proper formulation; and (2) test(s).
But before we go a-testing, may I point out that -- in the views and terms of that general area of exploration known as ID -- "contingent" is the word proposed to stand in for the word "random," going forward?
If that were to prove the case, what would you think about it, spunkets?
Thank you so much for writing!
Thank you, betty boop, for all the encouragements and the excellent essay-post on information with the excerpt concerning Grandpierre and Chaitin!
For me, “objective truth” can only be received from beyond space/time - a revelation from God. No aspect within space/time could be aware of all factors, consequences and exigencies.
In science we do the best we can always being aware of the observer problem, our visual and mental limitation to a selection of four space/time coordinates. I suspect we agree on that, because you said:
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:6-7
On the final point – concerning Canon I of the Council of Orange and John 9 – I’m not seeing the issue you raised. Would you care to explain it a bit further?
Finally, with regard to the born again believer and science, Paul says this:
Seems to me that the unreasonable effectiveness of math is often overlooked. The fact that A is identity at all is inherently mathematical.
It is unreasonable that mathematics is so effective in describing the physical realm - and conversely, it is unreasonable that the physical realm is so effective in manifesting the math.
Continuing a bit on the contingent - generative principle - it is mathematically reasonable that rather than 1080 particles in 4 dimensions, what we "observe" may actually as little as a single particle in a 5th spatial dimension with 2 temporal dimensions, multiply imaged 1080 times. (Wesson)
Without the math (which is non-physical) what can we really understand about the physical 4 dimensions we sense?
I have to ask why? The word reasonable fits, because that's in the math.
"The fact that A is identity at all is inherently mathematical."
I think the inherent is in the physical reality. As I said before, w/o the identity, "A=A", there can be no physical existance at all. The math doesn't exist either, because there's nothing to support it's existance. Consider the following open and infinite set {A, A=A, AnotA, B, A=B, zip, zip=wip, ...} what does it mean and there's nobody around to care. I must admit that I don't care whether these things exist w/o a physical reality to support them. All by themselves they are nothing and have no meaning. It's the physical reality of sentient beings that give these things reality and meaning.
I'll return later...
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.