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
By exhausting their oil. And not just dozed off, but didn't bring enough supplemental oil with, so were caught short when the wakeup call came. Temporary vs. permanent relationships with Jesus Christ -- a fascinating topic. Not to be flirted with.
Intelligently designed placemarker
But if you swear your next door neighbors, who may have seen such a visit, to silence, don't be surprised how it plays out.
Indeed, A-G -- it's almost a demonstration of some kind of weird cognitive "schizophrenia." We saw it also, IMO, in the public pronouncements of Carl Sagan: the appeal to "the mysterious" aspects of the world in his "commercials" on behalf of science.
Einstein himself, though captivated by the "mysterious," never held forth on the issue; I gather he did not regard this as a job for the scientist.
To me, it is just fine to acknowledge that there are things about the world that are mysterious. My point of disagreement with Dawkins consists in the fact that typically, historically, such things have not been regarded as falling within the purview of science. Science is supposed to be more practical than that, and therefore happy to leave "mysterious" questions up to philosophy and theology.
What I most object to about Dawkins is his habit of invoking "the mysterious," while at the same time his entire method is dedicated to utterly destroying it (as you perceptively note) -- by "reducing" all of reality to (the entirely directly observable and thus readily explicable) category of "matter in its motions." Which is hardly "mysterious," since the physical laws explicate such "matters" very, very well.
It's like a cheap "bait-and-switch" tactic, and I utterly deplore it. I do not regard these people as honest men; therefore, I do not trust their "science." And that's the "long and the short" of it. FWIW.
What truly amazes me is that people are so clueless and gullible these days that they get "sucked in" to such strategems. The only way that can happen is by giving very short shrift to reason and critical, analytical thinking, not to mention human history and culture....
If we were more alert, we would see that Dawkins' main project is to erase any distinction between the roles of science and theology. But each of these knowledge domains has its own set of "proper objects" of inquiry; and we cannot lose the distinctions that obtain between them without losing our ability to discriminate the truth of reality.
At the end of the day, IMO, Dawkins is using "science" (with its supposedly more trusthworthy methods) to kill "theology" -- thus to illegitimately integrate its subject matter into its own irredentist "empire." But the scientific method cannot cope at all with the spiritual domain. The general public used to understand that fact; but seemingly, no longer....
Dawkins just wants for us the thing he most values for himself: to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is the long and short of the matter.
Personally, I do not think it is even remotely possible that one could be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." To me, the very term is an oxymoron.
In short, Dawkins et al. are engaged, not primarily in science, but in a "social movement" devoted to transforming human culture into a more "progressive" reification -- one more aesthetically pleasing to himself. But in what way is this desire/goal any different from what Karl Marx sought? Or, for the matter, the modern Democratic party?
People, pay attention to what is going on all around you!!! And then try to figure out how to "call a spade a spade."
It is only because human societies have lost their "knack" for perceiving truth that people like Dawkins and his friends could have gotten as far as they have in the esteem of the contemporary scientific establishment -- and tellingly, in the public esteem also.
Just "letting my hair down" here.... FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear sister!
Wow you're nailing it, betty.
What's it that science ought to do? If we leave this up to JUST the scientists, we get a social movement of JUST the scientists. Duh. But true! They can talk about peer review but they might as well be talking about their own private democracy.
Dawkins just wants for us the thing he most values for himself: to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is the long and short of the matter.
Personally, I do not think it is even remotely possible that one could be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." To me, the very term is an oxymoron.
Since we're sharing here, let me just counter that I don't see how a rational person can be a theist. But since some rational people are theists, I accept they manage to reconcile theism and reason, at least to their own satisfaction.
In any case I'm an atheist, and most of the time I feel intellectually fulfilled. So one of us is deluded.
IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.
It's a touchy subject. The frank position of Christianity is that such people are in denial of ultimate Reality (God). Some atheists return the complement to Christianity in mirror image, though positing a reality smaller than God.
Christianity replies once more by pointing to a moral problem. Who to obey and how? Yet God answers that question TOO well... a moral code we observe that our best efforts fall woefully short of, coupled with a hair trigger of blame and the displeasure of an Infinite being. So, many shy away. I did. Until I saw salvation enter the picture. One can't truly be forgiven until one pleads guilty.
I read the Dawkins article, and while he may be speaking on target to some, he makes the mistake many do in lumping everyone he doesn't like into a single pile.
I don't know why it would offend a scientist that I believe in a Creator God. How did a weasel frog develop an elbow joint? He thinks that when I say "God did it" that it steals something away from science, or maybe from Dawkins himself. It does nothing of the sort. I still want to know "how", and I expect guys like Dawkins to get cracking figuring it out. In my Creationist ignorance, I believe that we were created for the purpose of joining in the creation, which means it is a critical part of our mission on this earth to reverse-engineer everything we see, so we can use it. For the glory of God, of course.
He seems to lump Intelligent Design with anyone who criticizes Darwin. But ID, as I understand it, basically presumes evolution, sees it as a process that can be harnessed like any other. That assumption gives heartburn to some of our creationist friends, but Dawkins argues right past ID, taking wild ad hominem swings at it that make little sense.
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!
Maybe, but I see it as fascinating, how the design has developed and "evolved". I don't have any fight to pick with the scientist who is trying to fill in the gap. I want to understand how the design changed from A to B to C. Dawkins thinks that if he shows how it happened, he has disproven God, he thinks faith in God is dependent on "mystery". He thinks that my faith requires the dark space between A and B to exist, and the moment he flips on the flashlight to show the machinery that links A to B, that God has been vanquished. It drives him nuts that we would look at the machinery, in awe at the ingeniousness of the design, in awe at how the design has advanced and changed, and praise God all the more.
Then we look at the next dark spot, wanting to know how that works, how God worked out that problem. He looks at the next dark spot, believing that once he reveals the belts and pulleys that God will be gone once and for all, and it never works. Because despite what he believes, faith in God is not at all dependent upon "mystery". It is a way of seeing what is known, and a way of dealing with what is not known.
I look at a car, and I know that there are some smart people at work in Detroit. Open up the hood, and show me how the pistons drive the crank, and I only marvel all the more, and yearn all the more to learn how to design engines, so that one day I can take my place at that drafting table in Detroit. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Exacatively. I can use all the ... ahem ... exposure I can get.
It means you don't stop, not sad.
So you say.
It'll be in the next version. I don't repeat these things all that often, so be patient.
You:
The quality of "best" ought to be determined on ideologically and theologically neutral ground. IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.
Okay, but how in the world is ID going to be judged "best" in the absence of any theological bias? Frankly, based on the lack of research and some unguarded admissions (you've seen the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project") most of the evos here strongly suspect that ID is nothing but closeted theology. Despite that, I've been seriously trying to frame it as a scientific hypothesis. However, if the wording of the hypothesis flat-out declares that even if there's a natural and unguided explanation, ID (although unsupported by evidence) is nevertheless a serious contender, and perhaps the "best," -- a clear ideological preference -- then I'll just drop back into lurking mode.
Conspiracy? No, that wouldn't be the word that I'd use. Rivals in competition? Yes.
Each community had their rites and oral traditions that they'd claim from a Apostle or someone who knew the Apostle (the patriarch). Many of those communities were originally of the "Eastern mysteries" style pagans. These claimed special knowledge of god(s) and secret rites that were forbidden to outsiders. As the apostles spread the story of Jesus, these sects would replace their deities with Jesus in worship but retained the idea that they had special, and therefore superior, knowledge of God.
The bulk of Christendom at the time, churches of Peter, Andrew, and Paul shared the same creed and teachings and cooperated as one church. Particularly in being firmly opposed to these Gnostic sects as being in error concerning the faith. But since there was no hierarchy of authority among the churches, they could only warn or try to persuade the others (1 Tim 6:21, St. Justin's "Syntagma", and St. Irenaeus).
Each community would combine or reject doctrine and traditions from the other sects as they wished. Sometimes by adopting a "foreign" tradition they might have to correct or embellish their established doctrine.
About 100 years after the Crucifixion we see individual sects following distinct "schools" of thought: the communities of Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Polycarp, Thomas, and John were some of the major groupings.
As the church grew, the factions competed with each other as to who had the "correct" doctrinal faith. By the time Constantine recognized the church in 313 and the Council of Nicaea, the game was pretty much over. The Peter-Paul-Andrew juggernaut, joined by a splinter sect of the Johannines (and their Gospel of John) became the dominant creed.
If you don't have it book marked, let me recommend Early Christian Writings
Sections (in no particular order):
'Signs Gospel',
'Book of Hebrews',
'Gospel of Thomas',
'Gospel of Peter',
'Gospel of the Ebionites',
'Acts of Pilate', and
'Pistis Sophia'
Same whackjob. A Sufi named Sa'im al-dahr.
Sorry. I have 4 houses on that. Pay me.
Fuggedabowdit, HiTech RedNeck: From where I sit, based on what I have directly observed in recent times and circumstances, so-called "peer review" is a total JOKE these days. And I have objective evidence that directly supports this thesis....
Science provides a HUGE part of the description of the total picture of universal and human existential reality. AND it has EVER been so. We must give science its due, for we owe it the "pay-down" of an incalculable debt in terms of human progress.
That is not, however, the same thing as saying that science "knows all," or could even "know all," given an infinity to prove that it does.
Science tells us about the physical. To the extent that human persons understand themselves as somehow being more than physical, then science alone will not satisfy the craving, the quest for human understanding of the Truth of reality, by which we humans may truly guide and direct the course of our own self-determined existence.
We touch on enormous questions here, my friend. Thank you oh so very much for your reply.
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.