If a Tree Falls in the Forest: Science and Postmodernism

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | 9 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Yesterday I talked about Dr. Henry Schaefer's book SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY: CONFLICT OR COHERENCE? and what it says about the intelligent design debate. Today I want to talk about another part of the book that caught my attention: Schaefer's discussion of quantum mechanics.

I realize that a discussion like this will sound a little bit intimidating. Fortunately, Schaefer does a good job of clarifying the subject for those of us who haven't spent years studying science.

Quantum mechanics is defined by the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA as the "science dealing with the behavior of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale." This field is a specialty of Schaefer's, and so he's very familiar with the popular argument that quantum mechanics supports postmodernism. He also has enough experience in the field to show that quantum mechanics does no such thing.

The postmodernists' argument goes something like this: Scientists are unable to measure precisely both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. This phenomenon is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Some scientists believe that this inability is due to human fallibility. This is what Einstein was talking about when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He meant that it is not the laws of nature that are to blame when we can't make exact measurements; it is our own limitations.

But postmodernists take a different approach, interpreting the uncertainty principle as a sign of human strength rather than weakness. As Schaefer puts it, postmodernists "claim that when we choose which property will be measured during an experiment, this is essentially equivalent to saying that we 'create' a particular property." In the words of science writer Michael Talbot, "It is the consciousness of the observer that intervenes and triggers which of the possible outcomes is observed." In other words, the postmodernist argument: There isn't any objective reality, only the reality created by the observer. You could say that this argument is a variation on the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To that, the postmodernists would answer no.

Schaefer begs to differ. He writes, "Experiments are obviously designed and directed by human beings. But this does not mean that the observer gives reality to the quantum event. One can always imagine a set of natural circumstances (involving no human being) that could give rise to the same quantum event."

The postmodernist sees no objective pattern in the movement of molecules. But when you use a high-speed spectrascope, Schaefer says, you see a pattern and order that immediately impress the human mind as examples of design and "seem to be pointing to some sort of intelligible truth." That's another direct blow to the postmodern interpretation of physics.

As Schaefer points out, to study science at all requires one to believe that "the universe is real, not illusory" and that "mankind . . . can discover order in the universe by rational interpretation." It's not the postmodern worldview that teaches this truth; it's the Christian worldview. It's just more evidence that, in science as in other fields, faith is a help, not a hindrance.

[Mr. Silverback]

Schaefer's "office" at Leadership U.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[RonHolzwarth]

reply to this small clip: "intelligent design".

I want to throw this into the fray.

Whether G-d "created" the universe, the world, or the animals and plants is quite irrelevant, to those who truly have faith.

Instead, He created physics itself, including light (let there be light, remember that one?), matter, etc, which made all the rest possible.

And, by our actions, we are acting out His thoughts.

That's my belief, anyway.

[cripplecreek]

Ive allways been struck by the fact that as we move deeper into quantum physics the more it resembles metaphysics.

[In_25_words_or_less]

If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To that, the postmodernists would answer no.

If a postmodernism article is posted and no one replies to it, does it make a point? ;o)

[atlaw]

Postmodernist scientists? What on earth is Colson going on about?

I did notice that Colson has no actual quotes from Schaefer that use the words postmodern, postmodernism, or postmodernist. Makes me wonder whether Colson isn't misrepresenting poor old Schaefer.

[ffusco]

"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To that, the postmodernists would answer no."

It wouldn't make a sound. Sound is a sensation, not an object. Just like an object has no color without light reflecting of of it. In the dark, an object has no color, because color is a sensation.

[RightWingAtheist]

Paging voices of reason

[Junior]

An "oh my" ping...

[Junior]

An "oh my" ping...

[rickylc]

I would disagree with you. Hearing is a sensation, sound is the transfer of energy in waves through a medium. It exists whether or not you hear it.

[Seruzawa]

Oh great. Another science thread where everyone yells and no one listens.

Somebody keep track to see who starts the name calling.

[Forrestfire]

Wrong, sound is a form of energy, and a decibel is a measurement of that energy. If a tree falling created noise,that energy would still be there even if no one was around.

[trebb]

If a terrorist attacks us and all the Democrats hide their heads in the sand, will you come help me kick their exposed butts?

[MaryFromMichigan]

If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?

[Agnes Heep]

Instead, He created physics itself, including light (let there be light, remember that one?), matter, etc, which made all the rest possible.

Physical reality itself is a miracle. Only we don't see it as such, because we live within it, and take it completely for granted.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What's the difference between a high-speed spectrascope and a low-speed spectrascope? Which one allows one to see molecules dance? What patterns does Shaffer see?

[shelterguy]

When a tree falls it creates sound waves. If our ears are not there to translate those into sound then there is no noise. The riddle doesn't say anything about "energy" just sound.
I have heard a tree fall in the woods, it is really not that big of a deal.

[RightWhale]

"mankind . . . can discover order in the universe by rational interpretation."

Of course that's what we do. We see patterns. Create patterns, actually. Nature doesn't have patterns; that somebody sees a pattern doesn't mean the pattern has anything to do with the reality. We see, create the patterns--in our own minds.

[BlazingArizona]

When a tree falls it creates sound waves. If our ears are not there to translate those into sound then there is no noise. The riddle doesn't say anything about "energy" just sound.

The postmodern academic interpretation, however, is that it would still be Bush's fault.