Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
Put a "perhaps most" in there, and granted. Most scientists stay out of the limelight. I have no visibility into those.
It's just odd how, when they all come together and sing the collective song called "Science" that the collective seems to carry on as if it DID stand in the position of Central Truth Monitor. To the point that it kneejerks against any kind of meta-physical philosophical door, however soft, being brought alongside Science. That's as odious to us fundies and semi-fundies, as an "Inquisitor" (in the medieval sense) would be to you. Why should Pope Benedict XVI care about whether or not you're an OEC in the vein of Hugh Ross? Well, that's what I say about why should you care if a school wants to teach a joint science-philosophy class.
Yes, see, whether it's a church or some other institution, at some point, the believers must toe the party line, or else. This must be human nature. Some sort of belonging need. There's us, and not us.
God has provided grace to the wheat that is larger than the problems that tares can cause. Also if a former tare believes, it becomes wheat. They won't believe except by hearing, and won't hear except by the word of God.
In some sense, the holy church is the set of all believers. If you are at a place where you're pretty sure there aren't any or they are so outnumbered and/or so weak that the problems overwhelm, then maybe you should look elsewhere to go. If you can. I'm not a big believer in "churches of 1."
Yet, I would think, that a church of one, is the purest form of the church. A tabernacle, even.
A church of one is a contradiction of the meaning of the word church. It is greek for "ecclesia" and means "the called out ones..."
The only way there can be a one is if he rejects the fellowship with others or does not admit to the fellowship with others.
Every shepherd in the bible, and there were many who became prophets and kings, were essentially tabernacles.
The central Roman Church does believe it encompasses the western Roman Catholic world. Some western Roman Catholics disagree... well they aren't Roman Catholics at core if they do. Someone has to win this tug of war over the definition of what a Roman Catholic is, and if push came to shove the smart money would be on Rome. They're an authoritarian, highly hierarchical church, and have been so ever since mixing up with the Roman emperor for the first time. Surprise. not
If you can formulate a "joint science-philosophy" class, and tweak it enough so that it isn't too obviously just shilling for the church down the street, more power to you. If, however, you want to hold a science class, I'd expect it to cover pretty much just the territory that most scientists think of as science.
Yet, one cannot just go to any church, for he must practice discernment. It may be that the time has come, to avoid churches. They may be dangerous to your spiritual health.
Jesus said that the church would not be defeated, therefore, there are churches that are not defeated. This is also evident from the church types presented in Ch's 2 & 3 of the Book of Revelation.
Philadelphia & Sardis are there....just keep looking.
There are situations where a single Christian has to make do with that because gathering would be impossible. Comes to mind St. John exiled by himself on the island of Patmos. (Although he did seem to get his mail delivered and picked up every so often :-)
But it isn't the norm. Do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together. Even if nonbelievers are there too.
One can spend a lifetime looking for what is essentially, oneself.
Actually, I think John was in a commune there on Patmos. Perhaps the "church age" of the dispensationalists has come to an end.
Jesus said that the church would not be defeated, therefore, there are churches that are not defeated. This is also evident from the church types presented in Ch's 2 & 3 of the Book of Revelation.
Philadelphia & SMYRNA (correction) are there....just keep looking.
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.I propose the following additional revisions:
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis:Cleaned up, it looks like this:A hypothesis that cCertain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicablearemay be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.The reason for substituting "may be" rather than "are" is that as finally stated, the hypothesis suggests the possibility of testing, rather than just declaring a conclusion. It's much more scientific now.
Yes, but by "church", he never meant institutions. He meant the body of believers.
Honestly not trying to be flip......Christ is not oneself; a faithful church is not oneself. Nor is oneself violated in any way by union with Christ and His Church.
What is the tabernacle not made with human hands?
Some will always see an assembly as an institution. Also, the longer something remains, the more institutional qualities it takes on. Some churches handle that reality better than others.
"Science in the light of philosophy" where the philosophy is such that it refuses to shut the door to a creation, is where Science seems to get edgy. They're their own light. Shut those windows with a view of heaven! We can't bear the glare!
I would be comfortable with identifying certain claims about Science that are made to students who are old enough to have the TOE explained to them, as explicitly philosophical ones. Shoot, if what you say about "most scientists" is correct, then "most individual scientists believe" would do. Enough to say hey, we aren't shutting the door on heaven, that has to be your choice.
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.