Archives
Site Feed

Site Meter

Contact

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Materialist philosophy misconstrued as science 

Something has been bothering me about the Intelligent Design and evolution debate recently, and David Warren put his finger on it: Intelligent Design is not science - the critics are right about that - it is philosophy, an attempt to challenge the materialist philosophic presumptions that underly thinking about science, particularly the theory of evolution.

It's unfortunate therefore that the mass media is taking up the false dichotomy with full gusto and presenting materialist philosophy as "Science". We ought not confuse the theory of evolution itself with materialist philosophy, something the atheists and creationists both are wont to do in their attempts to make this debate an either-or one. That is a false dichotomy: Who's to say that evolution of the universe and of life itself is not part of the "Intelligence Design" of the Creator's Universe? Certainly the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as compatible with Christian thinking.

It's also unfortunate that a judge decided such philosophic questions and points don't belong in a school, because it points to the most important questions we ask. (That being said, it may also be said that Intelligent Design was a Trojan Horse for creationist input, and if it is philosophy, ID belongs somewhere else besides a biology classroom.) At root, the basic questions we ask are about origins, existence, and destiny - our past, present and future. Science itself is not "truth", it a tool and method for finding truth. Undergirding that search for truth are some axioms; those axioms can be Christian or materialist at root, but do not confuse the roots with the branches. Further, don't assume materialist roots are required for scientific branches; the compatibility of science and Christianity is proven by among other things, the fact that many of our great scientists were also good Christians, among them Isaac Newton, Copernicus, etc.

There is more than one answer to such questions of origins, existence and destiny. If we bar not only God but his philosophical kin, we are in danger of closing minds. A better answer to shutting the door to either evolution or responses to it is Choice and Freedom: Freedom to teach more sides to the story; educational choice so such debates are left to the marketplace of ideas and not in the hands of Federal judges. In an era of a science scams and science frauds like the scandal in Korea over stem-cell research, what we are told today may be wrong tomorrow. All the more reason for open-ness in how we teach. Just as the truth will make you free, freedom to explore multiple theories will lead you to truth.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

Comments:
It's unfortunate therefore that the mass media is taking up the false dichotomy with full gusto and presenting materialist philosophy as "Science".

You should start to tell people how "Science" should be done under a supernaturalist philosophy then. Just explain to people how science would be done, as in what method it would follow, if performed under the presumption that there is a supernatural explanation that could be verified or supported through experimentation.

But then we'd get into what constitutes the supernatural and the natural. If a scientist can regularly detect and measure some "signal" from the supernatural realm, then why is it called supernatural? By its very behavior of regularity to be detected and measured it would be considered to be a "natural" phenomenon and called as such.

Who's to say that evolution of the universe and of life itself is not part of the "Intelligent Design" of the Creator's Universe?

Precisely. Who's to say? But it shouldn't be a teacher in a public school science class saying it for sure. That would be Establishment of Religion by the State in the eyes of the Court. You might argue that if a teacher says that a Creator certainly did not create the universe, that would also be Establishment, and I might be able to agree with you.

(That being said, it may also be said that Intelligent Design was a Trojan Horse for creationist input, and if it is philosophy, ID belongs somewhere else besides a biology classroom.)

Exactly. If you believe this, then why are you hostile toward the judge in this case? He is agreeing with you. He said that ID is a philosohpy and while it should definitely be explored as such, at the present time it is not science and also because of the religious underpinnings and the dishonesty of ID proponents in this regard it shoud not be taught in public schools in Dover as science. I think you agree with the judge and perhaps you agree more with the "evolutionists" than you may have been led to believe.

Further, don't assume materialist roots are required for scientific branches; the compatibility of science and Christianity is proven by among other things, the fact that many of our great scientists were also good Christians, among them Isaac Newton, Copernicus, etc.

Or even Albert Einstein, who was a fairly secular man of Jewish origins. Here are a couple of quotes:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

He finally came to accept the big bang theory to explain the observations that had been made to that point, and probably thought to himself that this was how the Creator created the universe, but a public school teacher would never say that God created the universe the way the theory of the big bang describes it.

Just as the truth will make you free, freedom to explore multiple theories will lead you to truth.

And that's what I was saying above, people can explore all their philosophies and scientific theories all day long forever. But, if we start teaching religion in public schools it just wouldn't be pretty.
 
"the Darwinians then demonstrate that all biological effects can be explained from strictly material causes"

science doesn't claim that all things can be explained (naturally or otherwise), so unfortunately this is completely crap. what science says is that the only explanations worth having are natural. quite different logically, but looks similar in print, so it looks like a refutation to "darwinism" as long as you have the lack of attention to detail or the lack of integrity common in the ID movement.
 
Read one of William Dembski's books. Really. Most discussions of ID are simply uninformed.
 
Hi

[url=http://ephedra-moza.blogspot.com/]ephedra[/url] http://ephedra-moza.blogspot.com/
Bye
 
[color=#74445c]
Gutten TAG!
Keep up this great resource.
I like it a lot! Good work, keep it up. We enjoyed visiting your website very much.

Sponsored links:
[url=http://oxycodone-on.blogspot.com/]OXYCODONE[/url] oxycodone-on.blogspot.com oxycodone

Buy![/color]
 
hello there!
Keep up this great resource.
We enjoyed visiting your website very much. We enjoyed visiting your website very much.

Check this:

http://percocet.butkel1.org/ percocet


Aufiderzein!
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?