Los Angeles Times Tracy Wilkinson September 11, 2006
MUNICH, Germany — Under glorious skies in this Bavarian capital where he once lived, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday warned Roman Catholics against letting modern concerns drown out God’s word, adding that technology alone could not solve the world’s problems.
An overreliance on science has made too many Catholics deaf to the teachings of the church, the pope said in a homily that scolded Western European societies for an increasingly secular focus. Faith is needed to combat diseases such as AIDS, he said.
[ … ]
Although he has described the trip as a personal one, the former Joseph Ratzinger is also determined to boost a faith that by most measures is flagging in Europe, where Catholics have wandered from the church and Muslims immigrants have diluted Christian demographics.
Catholics must make God “the force shaping our lives and actions,” the pope said, adding that many people did not know how or did not like the image of God they had come to know.
He lamented cynics who considered “mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom.”
. . . more
The Pope is not attacking science, only asking that we understand the proper role of science and the questions that it is, and is not equiped to answer. Like Orthodoxy, Catholicism does not fear science, but welcomes it as part of the Unity of Truth.
Professor Paul Mueller. S.J, from Loyola University of Chicago, writes:
http://www.luc.edu/loyolamagazine/summer06/intelligent_suppleme1.html
Good quote Dean!
The problem with Mr. Mueller’s framing of methodological naturalism is that it does not take it seriously enough. He says that
“…doctrine of the unity of truth: the doctrine that, in the end, naturalistic human science and supernatural divine revelation cannot and will not disagree with each other.”
The problem is that methodological naturalism rules out truth a priori by it’s very assumptions (assumptions which then impose limits on its methods). It’s not that modern methodological naturalism is not materialistic, it’s that it’s not materialistic enough! It’s too ideological, in that it rules out certain material reality by it’s very assumptions and methods.
This is really the central insight in “intelligent design” and the related criticism of modern methodological naturalism. What Mr. Mueller is failing to grasp is that what he is calling a “method” has contents that by necessity lead to what he rightly criticizes (“ontological naturalism”, “Scientism”, and the like). In an effort to protect a useful method, he has overreached and claimed something that it does not have; a “method” free from the contents of men’s minds and ideas.
Finally, I wonder why all these allegedly “Catholic” scientists and philosophers are so busy defending the scientific method against valid criticism? I sense an old resentment (“fundamentalists”) and fears (no longer relevant, not in touch with reality, etc. etc.) coming in play here. They miss the big picture: that the scientific method is useful but has inherent flaws like everything else in this fallen world. The way Mr. Mueller has it, it is central to Catholic tradition (“two books”, etc). I sense the religious left protecting it’s position here…
Christopher, good comment! At first glance Mr. Mueller’s stance seems reasonable, but on further reflection there are two great flaws: one is the what you pointed out: that methodological naturalism (MN) has, at least since the 19th century, been underpinned by ontological naturalism to the point where in most people’s minds they are functionally inseparable. Ontological naturalism (ON) is, after all, absolutely central to Darwinism. The second flaw goes to the very nature of the Catholic Church with her insistence on a separation between the natural world and the spiritual world. It is the same idea that lead to the Galileo fiasco. It is an idea that denies the Incarnation. The interpenetration of the creation by its Creator and His assumption of our nature changed everything.
A third problem with MN is that even if it does not start out as ontological, once consideration of human beings comes in, one is almost forced to either abandon naturalism or take the step into ontology. Thus MN is fundamentally flawed by its anthropology. Flawed anthropology always means flawed results. In the case of MN it also means no moral constraints inherent in its approach, i.e. if we can think it, we should do it.
How much better would science be if it approached the created world, first as created and then as Theophany rather than dead matter? If scientists approached their work with a sense of the sacred, in humility, rather than from a point of hubris, much would change. Methodological naturalists are philosophically opposed to such an idea because many of them worship matter so the challenge to MN is really a challenge to their faith. IMO, MN as a ruling principal of science is not compatible with Christian belief and without a change in the philosophical underpinnings of science it cannot even be properly used as a tool.
Michael and Christopher: Thank you for your comments which help me understand that this debate is not about being “for” or “against” science, but is rather a debate about the role of science.
How do you respond to this observation from the same article?
http://www.luc.edu/loyolamagazine/summer06/intelligent_suppleme1.html
I don’t think he is advocating the “worship” of science, but merely trying to define its scope, it’s rules and it’s limitations. The scope of science cannot admit supernatural causes, but because of it’s limitations of science it cannot be used to deny them either. He makes that clear when he says:
.
There is no math equation that can explain how Christ multiplied a handfull of laves and fishes into enough food to fee the multitude, and we would be perverting and debasing the science mathematics if we tried. But that doesn’t mean the the miracle didn’t happen, only that math is a tool ill suited to task of explaining the phenomenon.
Dean, the objection:
is based on the same faulty assumptions of western spirit/matter dualism. I think if you go back and read my last post carefully, you will find the answer implied in what I said, but in case not, I’ll forge on.
Starting with the belief that the natural world is both created and a Theophany rather than self-organizing dead matter does not stop the investigation of how and why things occur in the created order. In fact, it could intensify the search. If we are to fulfill the Divine command to dress and keep the earth, fructify it and return it to its Creator, then we have to know how things work. It is only when one splits the Theophanic unity of Creation into spirit/matter and then relies on superstitious fatalism that the question even comes up. It is a straw man since from an Orthodox understanding, there really is no such thing as the “supernatural” as it is meant in the quote.
Orthodox Christian belief is neither superstitious nor irrational, just the opposite. It is grounded in the ultimate reality and therefore supremely rational especially when one begins to examine the consequences of God becoming man and couples those with the Orthodox understanding of synergy.
Since both Catholicism and Protestantism have largely accepted the spirit/matter dualism, they have a hard time dealing effectively with these issues. They have made a defacto surrender to the materialists without even wanting to. Unfortunately, many of our modern Orthodox thinkers appear to have made the same surrender. The English Orthodox academics have a real problem here and their thought must be critiqued carefully on these grounds.
“Suppose for a moment that we followed the recommendation of the proponents of intelligent design: suppose that we changed the ground rules of science and allowed for supernatural explanations. A good scientist will tell you that, at any moment in time, there are very many gaps in our scientific knowledge. If there weren’t gaps in our scientific knowledge, scientists wouldn’t have anything to do – science would be done and over with. The day-in, day-out work of science consists in filling in the gaps in our scientific knowledge.”
Well, at least he admits (though not consciously it appears) that the “method” he is referring to (here called the “ground rules of science”) is in fact what he openly criticizes (i.e. Ontological naturalism). It is surprising that he is so boldly inconsistent! To maintain such inconsistency is to be a real dualist (see Michaels’ post). His fear of filling in the gaps with false (supernatural causes when natural causes will do) seems self deceptive. It’s like saying a positive attitude will overcome all circumstances (we know it won’t). This “trick” is only that – and if you use it to deny truth, or fill in the gaps with false philosophy, then the critics are right.
“but merely trying to define its scope, it’s rules and it’s limitations. The scope of science cannot admit supernatural causes, but because of it’s limitations of science it cannot be used to deny them either.”
This might be true only to the point where naturalistic phenomenon were studied. But what IS a natural phenomenon? The tool itself (i.e. science) is part of a wider world, where the supernatural and the natural exist together. The ID critique is not that naturalism exists, it’s that MN leads to ON. Mr. Mueller has a strong fear of SN filling in the gaps and making scientists lazy, but for some reason has no fear of ON filling in for SN. It’s his false compartimilization, his dualism. Since he is personally comfortable with his schizophrenic like existence, he wants others to be so too and indeed fears when they are not. Now, should he be dismissing ID because of his fears?
Actually, this is not a correct representation of intelligent design. ID says the Darwinist premise, that order arose out of randomness, is scientifically untenable. Darwinism owes more to philosophical materialism than science and as philosophical materialism falls (as it has with Marxism and Freudianism), Darwin falls with it.
So ID is not really a matter of “supernaturalism” vs. science. Rather, it’s the recognition that science itself has philosophical dependencies, and that the philosophical materialism underlying Darwinism can no longer be sustained.
For a very interesting article on these ideas:
Evolution and Me: The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance by George Gilder.
The author of the quote above does not seem to understand the revolution occuring around him.
The problem with your ‘Orthodox’ position, is that you refuse to recognize their are different ways to talk about the Truth. It seems to me the ‘Catholics’ are able to use the language of duality and coopt the ‘Orthodox’ language where everything is grounded in God.
But beyond that it seems to me that the Catholic Church is the only one talking about these issues with any clairty. Especially topics dealing with morality. I have yet to see one of the ‘Orthodox American’ bishops reprimand one your congressman or senators about their abortion stance. At least the ‘Catholics’ have had a few brave bishops stand up to Kerry.
Note 8.
Yes, a very fair critique and one that the Orthodox have made as well about their hierachy. Read some articles here.
Starting with the belief that the natural world is both created and a Theophany rather than self-organizing dead matter does not stop the investigation of how and why things occur in the created order.
Michael, it sounds like you are saying that what matters is not scientists’ approach to the scientific method, but their attitude while they do it. We can debate what “science” really is, but as a process, rather than a philosophy, it is a systematic study of the world. (Or the Universe, depending on what language you’re speaking and what era you live in.)
You seem to define dualism as the cultural tendency, notable in Catholic writings, to view the natural world and the spiritual world as separate spheres. I’d contend that such dualism is pretty effective. Divine truth does not hold up well under the scientific method; it is not testable, nor is it provable in this world. If it were, we wouldn’t call it “faith.” Similarly, assuming that certain unprovable things are true, which you seem to suggest (“Start with X belief and then proceed from there”), is a contradiction of the scientific method.
What I think we agree on is that there’s nothing inherently anti-Christian about using solely naturalistic methods to explore and study the world. I also think that I’m interpreting you correctly if I say that we both think that the future will be a better place if scientists operate with a moral compass. However, I contend that scientists can, and should, treat naturalism as a tool they can use to do their work. Little research would benefit from assuming that a miracle occurred, even if it’s the great miracle of existence.
Phil, man is a creature created out of love to live in communion with our creator in belief. We cannot exist without belief. We choose in what to believe, but everyone believes something, even if it is only in his or her own self-existence. The absence of belief is despair and frequently leads to suicide. Our belief determines how we live, think and deal with our environment. Facts do not change, but one’s belief determines the way facts are arranged, interpreted, and used. Experimenter bias can be measured even in well-constructed double blind research studies in which inorganic matter is being studied. Tools do not produce work by themselves; they require someone to use them. Not only the skill, but also the intent of the user determines the work that is produced.
As long as there is no consideration given to man, our place in the cosmos and our origins, the naturalistic framework produces impressive technical results but often at the expense of man’s soul. Scientific philosophy is one of the battlegrounds between two incompatible belief systems. The one that currently has control of the scientific establishment is one that not only interprets the world from a naturalist framework, but also believes it to be only material. There is a conscious, willful effort to destroy the belief system that recognizes God and His interpenetration of His creation that Christians call the Incarnation.
Surely, you are not ignorant of all of the documented, proud statements by those in the biological sciences at least as far back as Darwin’s grandfather through to Stephen Gould and others of the present day that they wish to establish a system of thought that would replace Christianity, particularly the morals to which Christianity leads.
To love and recognize the presence of God does not suspend thought or rationality. The communion between God and man is not superstition as materialists think. God gave us the ability to explore and penetrate the workings of His creation because we are the links between Him and His creation to return it to Him. Miracles are not the suspension of the natural order, but a demonstration of the victory over sin and death that our Lord accomplished by His death, resurrection, and ascension. Acknowledging God and our function in creation will only lead to more and deeper exploration not less.
The materialist belief leads, after aguish, anger, pain, tears, suffering and meaningless death, to nothing. The Christian belief leads to eternal communion with a loving God in Whom we live and move and have our being.
We choose in what to believe, but everyone believes something, even if it is only in his or her own self-existence. The absence of belief is despair and frequently leads to suicide.
I’m confused by these two statements. If it is true that “everyone believes something,” then how can we know what the absence of belief is? By your first statement, the second scenario is a situation that doesn’t exist.
Surely, you are not ignorant of all of the documented, proud statements by those in the biological sciences at least as far back as Darwin’s grandfather through to Stephen Gould and others of the present day that they wish to establish a system of thought that would replace Christianity, particularly the morals to which Christianity leads.
Erasmus Darwin may have made anti-religious statements, and written some bad poetry. But neither of those is actually “science.” The scientific method is not a political system, it is simply used and abused by people on both sides of the political spectruem. You are correct that all scientists have beliefs. Can you give an example of how, in your thinking, a scientist’s beliefs should influence the way that she does research?
Phil, I’ll make a correction: despair is the belief that there is no hope, the belief in nothingness, not the absence of belief.
A scientist’s beliefs always influence the way he or she does research from what is chosen to investigate to the working hypothesis used to begin to structure experiments, to how one interprets the results of the experiments to how to use the results obtained. Facts are meaningless without context and interpretation. Belief always supplies both context and interpretation. Neutrality is not possible for human beings. Tools are always used for a purpose. The scientifc method, at least since the 19th century has been used as a tool, more often than not, to destroy Christian belief as a cultural norm.
By your comment I take it that you actually are ignorant of the specifically anti-Christian agenda of the Darwinist and neo-Darwinist power structure in science as well as astro-physics. I’ve known about it since the early 1960’s when read the book Apes, Angels and Victorians. At the time I was all in favor of replacing outmoded Christianity with progressive science. At the time, it appealed to the arrogance of the teenaged, snot-nosed, psuedo-intellectual that I was (some would say still am). That was before I met Jesus.
The history of science and its evil twin scientism mirrors the history of the rise of secularism, especially the nihilist quartet of the 19th century, Nietzche, Freud, Marx and Darwin.
For a little quirky insight into what I mean, pick up a copy of The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma by Henry Adams, pay special attention to the essay, “The Law of Phase as Applied to History”
Note 12. If data is to have any meaning (and the proper collection of that data is what we mean by “scientific method”), then it has to be incorporated into a larger framework of meaning. That framework rests on some kind of philosophical foundation. So it is not that beliefs should influence the scientific method, but that the discipline of science is never free of philosophical influence.
Read this: Book Review – Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
Note 13.
By your comment I take it that you actually are ignorant of the specifically anti-Christian agenda of the Darwinist and neo-Darwinist power structure in science as well as astro-physics.
When you refer to the “power structure in science,” I think what you intend to refer to is not science itself but the scientific community.
I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but it’s difficult to respond in a meaningful way when you use phrases like the “anti-Christian agenda of the Darwinist and neo-Darwinist power structure in science as well as astro-physics.” The phrase sounds like it came from a half-baked conspiracy theory web site.
Having spent time with many college science faculty, both at community colleges and universities, I can honestly say I’ve never heard someone talk about their “agenda,” or their master plan to eradicate Christianity. Many science teachers at the college level are atheist, but a large number are Catholic and Protestant as well.
The term “Darwinism” isn’t used much in scientific circles, for many of the same reasons that people who study gravity don’t call themselves Newtonists. Use of the term tends to be a rhetorical device to diminish the beliefs of evolutionary biologists to a single, flawed individual.
Despair is the belief that there is no hope, the belief in nothingness, not the absence of belief.
If belief in nothingness leads to despair, would it be accurate to say that you believe that human beings should believe in something whether or not it is true? (I’m not suggesting that there is no spiritual world; it’s a hypothetical question.) But it sounds like you are saying that even if there were no spiritual world, we would be better off believing in it anyway…is that a fair restatement of your views?
Note 14. If data is to have any meaning (and the proper collection of that data is what we mean by “scientific method”), then it has to be incorporated into a larger framework of meaning.
I think we can agree on that. It appears that I disagree with Michael B. when it comes to the people who must put the data into a large framework of meaning. That is, real scientists with real training should probably be the ones to determine the vector of a new contagious disease. (If bird flu is caused by airborne transmission, it doesn’t matter what religion you are.) But then the rest of us can, and will, put this data into our own frameworks.
I’m intrigued that the book you recommended, Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, was written not by a scientist, but by a rhetorician who specializes in scientific communication. In truth, there is much controversy about evolution in scientific circles, but very little of it has to do with Intelligent Design. Biologists may argue about whether catastrophism or punctuated equilibrium more accurately describes how modern speciation came to be, but the people who devote their lives to studying the evidence of speciation do not find intelligent design to be a persuasive theory. People who devote their lives to studying religion, however, seem to find scientific facts that the scientists don’t see.
This is not to criticize the devotion of one’s life to studying religion, but I do find it to be an argument in favor of the dualism mentioned above.
Note 16.
Yes, because the debate (more of an ideological war really) has two dimensions: 1) the scientific (the “raw data”); and 2) the cultural, ie: the threat to the Darwinist establishment in the scientific community and larger culture.
The most visible dimension is the cultural, thus the (appropriate) analysis by a rhetorician and other non-scientists.
It’s comments like this that make me think you read the debate more from the cultural, rather than scientific side. The reason is this: to define ID as a “theory” is drawn from the noise of the cultural debate side, not from the science side. ID is not a theory as such, but an assertion that the randomness that Darwinian logic requires cannot be scientifically sustained. Some of the examples are included in the article I cited (the Boeing 747, irreducible complexity, etc.). Darwinian randomness IOW, depends not on science, but on philosophy for it’s coherence. Subject Darwin to the scientific method however, and it doesn’t work.
Detractors then, paint ID as “creationism” because they (rightly) perceive that the challenge underminds their materialist foundations. But the reason the challenge is so powerful is that science reveals the materialist inadequacy, not appeals to religion (and appropriately so). In fact, that the Darwinist establishment fights here, instead in the realm of pure science, indicates a grave internal weakness that will, I think, prove fatal in the end.
Did you catch George Gilder’s latest piece on how and why Darwinism is actually a barrier to scientific knowlege? Evolution and Me: The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.
In cultural terms, Darwinism will fall because the philosophical materialism on which the theory is built is collapsing. We see the impending collapse in the fall of Marxism and Freudianism (also two theories exclusively dependent on the same philosophy). It portends a cultural shift of immense proportions although few see it yet. In due course, Darwinism will be revealed for what it is: dogma instead of science.
Phil says in note 12:
“Erasmus Darwin may have made anti-religious statements, and written some bad poetry. But neither of those is actually “science.” The scientific method is not a political system, it is simply used and abused by people on both sides of the political spectruem. You are correct that all scientists have beliefs. Can you give an example of how, in your thinking, a scientist’s beliefs should influence the way that she does research?”
The problem with the method is that it always makes assumptions. You have to start somewhere, if only raw sense data. The direction and underlying presuppositions of your research is always, by necessity, influenced by the scientists beliefs. By the way, you mention a “she” above. I missed it but I thought this thread was about two males or scientists in general; the pope and a professor Mueller. Who is “she”?
Professor Mueller admits (although he seems confused about it) that MN by necessity leads to ON. This is a “belief” – a philosophy.
Phil says:
“When you refer to the “power structure in science,” I think what you intend to refer to is not science itself but the scientific community.”
& Fr. Jacobse says:
“In cultural terms, Darwinism will fall because the philosophical materialism on which the theory is built is collapsing. We see the impending collapse in the fall of Marxism and Freudianism (also two theories exclusively dependent on the same philosophy). It portends a cultural shift of immense proportions although few see it yet. In due course, Darwinism will be revealed for what it is: dogma instead of science.”
Both of these statements assume a privileged space for something called “science”. Perhaps I am coming at this from another angle and getting to the same place as Fr. Jacobse, but I question this logic. I don’t see how a completely neutral method, free from all stain of philosophy, could exist in human hands. What one studies, and how one studies it is always built on a foundation of preconceived notions (i.e. philosophy and belief).
Note 19. Christopher, yes, the distinction is largely artificial but at the same time necessary because of the two dimensions of the discussion I outlined above. In reality there is no such thing as “pure science” but conceptually, the scientific method has to be distinguished from the framework surrounding (and to some extent informing) it in order for the distinction between philosophical materialism and ID to make sense. In real life of course these distinctions are much less apparent. It led to the conflation of the scientific method and Darwinism which for generations many believed were one and the same. Science in other words, has a method that has to be followed whether one is a Darwinist or whatever. Even if Darwinism falls, the scientific method still stands.
I wrote:
Can you give an example of how, in your thinking, a scientist’s beliefs should influence the way that she does research?”
Christopher asks:
By the way, you mention a “she” above. I missed it but I thought this thread was about two males or scientists in general; the pope and a professor Mueller. Who is “she”?
In my post, I was asking for a hypothetical example.
Note 17. In cultural terms, Darwinism will fall because the philosophical materialism on which the theory is built is collapsing. We see the impending collapse in the fall of Marxism and Freudianism (also two theories exclusively dependent on the same philosophy). It portends a cultural shift of immense proportions although few see it yet. In due course, Darwinism will be revealed for what it is: dogma instead of science.
I think, in truth, Darwinism has already fallen. Freud is a good analogy, because no one calls themselves a Freudianist, just as virtually no one calls themselves a Darwinist. While Freud is often called the “Father of Psychiatry,” his place, like Darwin’s is largely symbolic. Biologists and psychiatrists seldom pull out copies of “Origin of Species” or “Sexuality and The Psychology of Love” while they are working, even though those texts might have enough historic significance to merit study by undergraduates.
Evolutionary biology, however (call it a “theory” or even a “field”), is unlikely to “fall.” It may change and grow over time, but it has been the best method thus far of describing how speciation took place on the planet. It can hold up even if philosophical materialism falls; millions of Christians have no problem believing that God guided the events of evolution, even if millions of atheists believe that evolution happened on its own. Intelligent design, which I’ll acknowledge is _not_ a theory, is the product of the political climate of the day. Evolutionary biology, while influenced by the political climate, was not derived from it.
If you dispute the above paragraph, I have to ask: is there anyone on this board who _really_ believes that the phrase “intelligent design” and the resultant clamor for scientific, nonreligious justification that someone designed the world would have come about were it not for the Supreme Court’s stubborn insistence that teaching creationism in public schools is religious?
Note 19.
I don’t see how a completely neutral method, free from all stain of philosophy, could exist in human hands. What one studies, and how one studies it is always built on a foundation of preconceived notions (i.e. philosophy and belief).
I can agree that the notion of a truly neutral method of research is something like a platonic ideal. In the same sense, if you’re manufacturing pharmaceuticals, you can never have a truly “clean” environment, free of every speck of dust or bacteria.
…but I don’t think that means it’s not something to strive for. I wouldn’t say we need to throw out attempts to keep experiments unbiased. Unbiased research is still the ideal. It doesn’t matter whether the bias is “good” or “bad,” it doesn’t aid in the scientific method.
“Intelligent design, which I’ll acknowledge is _not_ a theory, is the product of the political climate of the day.”
This is incorrect. Painting ID as a political (or philosophical/religious) movement is exactly what Fr. Jacobse is talking about when he says “In fact, that the Darwinist establishment fights here, instead in the realm of pure science, indicates a grave internal weakness that will, I think, prove fatal in the end.”. ID is scientific “…assertion that the randomness that Darwinian logic requires cannot be scientifically sustained.”
“Evolutionary biology, while influenced by the political climate, was not derived from it.”
Again, incorrect. Evolutionary biology sucks up neoepicureanism assumptions wholesale. It is philosophical in essence. The fact that Christians cobble together Christianity with neoepicurean philosophy comes as not surprise (the history of heresy is a very long one).
“If you dispute the above paragraph, I have to ask: is there anyone on this board who _really_ believes that the phrase “intelligent design” and the resultant clamor for scientific, nonreligious justification that someone designed the world would have come about were it not for the Supreme Court’s stubborn insistence that teaching creationism in public schools is religious?”
Well, that’s a strange way to think of it IMO. You have two competing and irreconcilable philosophies going back hundred of years – let’s call them neoepicureanism and Christian Realism. The state of the judiciary in the US is a relatively minor symptom of that fact, not the “cause” of the conflict.
Phil asks me:
No, it is simply my observation both directly and through the study of history that all people believe something. I must say I am greatly indebted to my father, a great observer of people, for jump starting my observations. He used to say frequently:
Since I didn’t exactly trust my father’s observations when I was young, I decided to see if he were correct. I have found him to be. To me it is an easily observable fact of human nature that everyone believes something. There is a great variation of sophistication, consciousness, effectiveness and truth from person to person. I have further observed that many people have two or more beliefs about life that are contradictory. My own personal goal has always been to find the truth–that’s why I’m in the Orthodox Church. Man is better off believing the truth than a lie. More often than not, we settle for less than the truth or an outright lie. Any belief that does not lead to the truth, leads eventually to despair. Of course, you may not believe that there is such a thing as truth. It is abudantly clear to me , however, that when Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, he knew what he was saying.
If there were no spiritual world, we wouldn’t exist. To even postulate “no spiritual world” assumes that matter is self-organizing in a way that violates entropy and goes against the findings of the more modern discipline of information theory. It also invalidates the direct experience of millions of human beings throughout history.
Phil, have you really never read the explict statments by Stephen Gould and other evolutionary biologists and astrophysicists about their desire and intent to replace the Christian worldview? They are not hard to find. Almost every significant public figure in the history of the evolutionary movement has been explicity, unapolegetically anti-Christian. Pick up almost any Scientific American and read the Skeptic column you will usually find some broadside about faith, espcially the Christian faith. Such skrees appear in some of the articles also. Certainly some of the articles by less public evolutionary folks, like a rebuttal of the argument of irredicible complexity I read on-line a couple of years ago, also contain open contempt for anyone who has faith in God.
It is not a conspiracy in the way that conspiracy theorists think, but rather a point of view, anti-God, that condenses around a particular idea. Since ideas are more powerful and any organization that man can create, the point of view and actions eminating from it carry on from generation to generation until the idea itself is defeated and marginalized. Of course, no idea ever goes completely away.
Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, suggests that we look for the intervention of a creator at an earlier stage of creation, and that evolution was part of the Creator’s plan.
http://salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/index_np.html
Note 22.
Again, it’s statements like this that lead me to question if you have done your homework. It’s formulated totally within the concepts and terminology of the cultural debate. That debate is important, but the only reason that debate exists is because the science is no longer in Darwin’s favor. (For example, probability theory : there is less chance of a single cell emerging from inert matter than a tornado blowing through a factory and assembling a Boeing 747.)
Darwinism is on the defensive is because the ID folks (call them anti-Darwinists if you want), know that the “science” cannot sustain Darwinism. Rather, the evidence points to design, not randomness, as the fundamental “pre-scientific” order in the material world, which is to say that the philosophical materialism that sustains Darwinism is insufficient for the evidence. Darwinism will prove to be a period piece, too tied to the assumptions of the generation in which it was developed.
This is not “creationism” although Darwin’s defenders consistently paint it as such. As a tactic it works in the cultural debates, but again, that Darwin’s defender’s employ these tactics rather than science, is more evidence that evolutionary theory cannot be sustained by the scientific evidence.
Have you read any of the ID work? Go to Discovery.org, ground zero of ID.
Note 25. Stepping out on a limb here, but it appears that the concepts Collins draws on are the deist (or Aristotelian) god. He sees the design written into the fabric of the material universe (and wisely sees that the world’s complexity makes foolish the claim it arose randomly), but he needs to rely on the theologian a bit more than he does.
The God of scripture is not “prime-mover” as such. Rather, he enters the world through a Word. As for the speculations about what God knows, again, the God of scripture (through the word of the apostle in the this case), says that all man can know is the “mind of Christ”. We do not and cannot know the mind of God. (Here Pope Benedict’s speech that caused all the furor last week becomes relevant as he posits the Muslim idea of God as a wholly transcendent monad (my words)).
I had the same reaction to Collins (leaning to if not fully in the deist camp). I heard him on National Pagan Radio a few weeks ago, and he is “media savvy” to say the least. This means he is also vague and vacuous where he needs to even be allowed to speak in such a venue…
As an aside, the fact that there is still a National Pagan Radio (something that was to be on the chopping block 1994) is yet another reason this conservative will be staying home this coming November…
The biggest problem for me is that deist thought essentially denies the Incarnation and therefore our salvation.
Well, it’s the reduction of faith to philosophical propositions, a “god of philosophers” as it were but this, in the end, will prove insufficient as well. The world is changing gentlemen in ways we are only just beginning to grasp. We are the edge of a seismic cultural shift.
Quoting Solzhenitsyn:
This is an exciting, if perilous, time to be alive.
IMO Theistic Evolution is way too close to Deism for me to agree with it.
Fr. Hans: “For example, probability theory : there is less chance of a single cell emerging from inert matter than a tornado blowing through a factory and assembling a Boeing 747.”
Examples such as this have been refuted by scientists for years now. There are perfectly good explanations, but you’re not going to find them on the Focus on the Family web site.
Fr. Hans writes: “Darwinism is on the defensive is because the ID folks (call them anti-Darwinists if you want), know that the “science” cannot sustain Darwinism.”
First, the only place I hear evolution referred to as Darwinism on a regular basis is here in Orthodoxy Today. So I’m not sure if you’re referring to
Darwin per se, or to evolutionary theory in general. It’s kind of like hearing someone refer to Christianity as “Saint Paul-ism.”
Second, “Darwinism,” is only on the defensive in the Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, the Discovery Institute, and so on. It is doing quite well everywhere else. But surely this is no surprise. A regular tactic is for the right to create it’s own propaganda quite outside the realm of standard scholarship, and then claim that the standard scholarship is “in doubt.” That happens in biblical studies, natural sciences, and social sciences. It also happens in the political realm. So if there is a Democrat with medals, you create a Swift Boat counter attack, giving the appearance that there is this groundswell of evidence against whatever it is that’s being attacked.
Christopher writes: “As an aside, the fact that there is still a National Pagan Radio (something that was to be on the chopping block 1994) is yet another reason this conservative will be staying home this coming November…”
That’s great news. It’s interesting that you find NPR so offensive, when the government-funded portion of its budget wouldn’t fund a few hours of combat in Iraq. But hey, whatever keeps you away from the polls.
Michael writes: “The biggest problem for me is that deist thought essentially denies the Incarnation and therefore our salvation.”
Well, just because something challenges a cherished religious belief doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
Jim, Just because it challenges a religious belief doesn’t mean its right either. If, as you apparently belief, we have no need of salvation because it all ends when we die anyway, what’s the point? Why even bother to argue with anyone about anything, it really dosen’t matter.
Father: Your opposition to “materistic science” derives from what you see as it’s attempt to exclude God from mankind’s conception of the universe, so it would be fair to say that this opposition is spiritual in nature. In some of the debates regarding science, howver it seems that there has been an attempt to expand the opposition to science from the valid spiritual objection that science is advancing a “Godless” view of the universe, to a much broader and sinister objection that science is actually beholden to a rival political or moral agenda. This is certainly an objection I detect in your comments, for example when you say that science views the theory of evolution as dogma, rather than as the product of decades of research.
Science should only be beholden to fact, evidence and empirical data. Respectable scientific claims and theories are the result of research conducted using the scientific method. They are submitted in peer-reviewed papers to the wider scientific community where they are subjected to scrutiny and subsequent testing. It seems logical therefore to conclude that if a dubious scientific claim was made to advance a specific political or moral agenda, the analytic weaknesses in it’s underlying methodology would eventually be exposed and discredited. The only basis upon which claims that science as a whole is beholden to political or moral agendas rather than scientific evidence can rest therefore, is the rather incredible assumption of a vast conspiracy among those in the scientific community.
There is a valid spiritual concern that science should not be intepreted to advance a Godless universe. But I would ask you to consider the political and economic ramifications of the wider conspiracy theory you advance. Clearly such arguments have been, and are continuing be exploited by special interests who have a vested economic interest in discrediting and supressing the findings of science? The findings of science are easier to discredit if they are seen, not as the product of evidence, but portrayed as the product of a conspiracy to advance a worldview that challenges Christianity. It works out pretty well for companies like Exxon/Moble if millions of people can be persuaded to reject the scientific evidence of global warming and instead view it as a challenge to their religious beliefs. Which is why I’m sure organizations like the Discovery Institute which you mention, receive much of their funding from large corporations.
It is a great crime and diservice to Christianity to make the authority of the Church the prostitute and handmaiden of powerful economic interests. When Global warming, in particular, threatens to cause unimaginable damage to our planet and it people, it would be a crime for the Church to attempt to confound and obstruct a clear understanding of the evidence of environment changes for dogmatic reasons that future generations will see as selfish and petty.
Dean, you complain about a conspiracy theory creating an opposing conspiracy theory. Does that really make sense?
As I mentioned to Phil a few posts ago, the scientific community does not have to be a conspiracy if their a priori assumptions and philosophical beliefs automatically exclude anyone who accepts neither their assumptions nor philosophical beliefs. It is a case of people of like beliefs gathering around a particular belief system and promoting it as the truth against all challengers. Those who don’t believe the same things, can’t be part of their clan. They don’t claim divine inspiration or source because they deny the reality of God as Creator and as present in His Creation. In the course of working from their quite coherent, logical system of belief, they wish to persuade everyone else that man is and should function solely as a material being. They refuse to even consider any evidence that does not support their beliefs no matter how logical or clear since all such evidence is the product of immature, irrational and superstitious thinking that will soon pass away anyway. They simultaneously arrogate and denigrate their own species depending upon which of the superstitions about man they are trying to counter.
Basic assumption: Modern astrophysics and evolutionary biologists: the natural world is a product of chance with no intrinsic meaning.
Orthodox Christianity: The visible (and invisible world) is created by a loving God to be in conscious communion with Him through man. We are responsible for caring for His creation and by His Grace sanctifying it for Him. We are able to do that as our communion with Him and our knowledge of His creation deepens.
Two equally intelligent, competent scientists working on the same experiments using the scientific method will likely arrive at quite differing results if each starts from a different foundation of belief. What is so hard to understand about that? Why is that so threatening? There are times men wholly naturalistic criteria and methods are appropriate to arrive at partial conclusions.
However, ecology is the inter-relationship of an organism with its environment. If the nature and the behavior of the primary organism in an eco-system is profoundly misunderstood, any attempts to restore balance in the eco-system will fail and likely make matters worse. Science that does not properly understand the nature of man and his function in community will not produce good long-term results.
Western Christianity has failed to counter the logic and belief of the scientistic crowd because it unfortunately shares similar beliefs: 1. God is removed from His Creation, despite the Incarnation; and 2) Since all we need to do is follow certain legalistic formula for our salvation (or we are all pre-destined) it really doesn’t matter what the world does. The scientist rightly sees challenges from the western heresies as irrelevant, immaterial, even superstitious and irrational. All legalism leads to superstitious and irrational behavior.
Orthodox Christianity is profoundly different, but we have to recover the Orthodox vision for the modern world. Unfortunately, as long as our prelates are running around blessing the really awful ecological pronouncements of the NCC and their ilk, progress will be much tougher.
Once again Dean, we are back to the fundamental question which you have ignored for months: What is man?
Are you ever going to even attempt to answer it?
Jim, a cultural shift is happening right before your eyes and you don’t see it.
Check out this list of signers challenging Darwinian evolution. Read this press release about it: Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s TheoryNo slouches there.
Got to wake up, Jim. The world is changing.
Reread Gilder’s piece: Evolution and Me: The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance. Compelling stuff. Try not to filter it through a liberal bias though.
Dean says:
“Science should only be beholden to fact…The only basis upon which claims that science as a whole is beholden to political or moral agendas rather than scientific evidence can rest therefore, is the rather incredible assumption of a vast conspiracy among those in the scientific community.”
Khun (and all those like him) discredited this years ago. Yours is the ideological view of science – not the actual one that occurs around us. If only it were true. You are right though, modern materialism does have moral and political implications. It’s not a “vast conspiracy” but it is a result of a philosophy. neoepicureanism does lead by necessity to certain moral truths, just as the belief in a loving God leads to certain conclusions.
The rest of your post (as Michael notes) is silly conspiracy theories of the “vast right wing conspiracy” type…
Note 34. Let me try again. I’ve never used the term “materialist science.” I use the term “philosophical materialism.” This terms refers to a school of philosophy that posits the only thing that exists, the only thing that is “real”, is matter — the “stuff” we can touch, see, smell, measure, etc. Nothing exists apart from it. It is indeed “Godless” in this sense: whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the philosophy. God has no bearing on matter (including the material universe), no functional existence for all practical purposes, and to the extent that anyone believes God exists, it (God) exists only a concept, in the realm of the “ideal” which has no real existence anyway because it is not material.
(Understand the above and you will understand this: Darwinism is the creation story of the philosophical materialist.)
Where Darwinian evolution misses the boat is that it exceeds the proper domain of science. It posits that the complexity of the material universe came into existence through random chance, that is, without any coherent system, structure, energy, whatever, guiding that development. It posits that complex systems develop from simpler ones, also an idea modern scientific finds are challenging (its called “irreducible complexity”). There are more, some of which I mentioned upstream (the Boeing 747 example, for example).
IOW, it is science itself that is proving the Darwinian hypothesis false. Now, if you accept these findings and many scientists do, then what do we make of the hypothesis itself? If is not based on science, what is it based on? Where did it come from? Why did it appear to so many (and still does to others) to be self-evidently true? These questions of course are not only scientific questions but also philosophical and religious questions, and necessarily so since philosophy and religion deal with meaning, purpose, ie: how to arrange the “facts” into a coherent frame of meaning (a “narrative”).
This works from the other direction as well. There is really no such thing as “pure science” unless you mean by the term fidelity to the scientific method. If you do fine. However, every experiment also has a form, a structure, imposed on it, apart from the method that the scientist brings into it. Evolutionary theory was just such structure. In fact, it is still imposed on science today. Read any high school biology book and the Darwinian hypothesis is assumed.
Now, if Darwinian evolution is being proved untenable, and it turns out that the hypothesis is not science at all but philosophy masquerading as science, then it’s proper to call the hypothesis (philosophic) dogma.
Do some reading on your own. Again, discovery.org is the logical place to begin. Here’s a good intro: What Intelligent Design Is — and Isn’t: The more scientifically sophisticated we get, the stronger the argument for intelligent design.
I don’t really understand why you even bring up conspiracy thinking except that you want to characterize my objection to Darwinian evolution (actually my support of ID) is based on conspiriatorial thinking because it challenges Christianity, correct? This is weak, Dean. If so, it shows you don’t understand the meaning, history and cultural power of philosophical materialism. (The wiki explains it a bit.)
Further, when you state that:
… it shows me that you are letting the dominant media shape your perceptions and thus not really grasping the scope and nature of the change happening around you. Starting digging deeper if you really want to understand this (and don’t assume that reporters always understand the issues they report about).
I’ll overlook the stuff about Exxon, global warming, that you say is the stuff of conspiracy as well.
(If truth be told, you think that the discrediting of the Darwinian hypothesis is a conspiracy by Christians against science. Such is the power of secular dogma. You really need to read Gilder again. But next time don’t reflexively dismiss it. Try to grasp his meaning, even if you don’t agree with it at first.)
Fr. Hans writes: “Check out this list of signers challenging Darwinian evolution. Read this press release about it: Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory. No slouches there.”
Lists like that really don’t mean anything. One article gives a good summary of the problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
I did my own little experiment. There were around 15 pages of dissenting scientists listed in the Discovery Institute’s document. I decided to look at just one. At random I picked one from page seven, George Lebo, an astronomer from the University of Florida. A two-minute web search revealed that Lebo is a member of the Reasons To Believe ministry: “Founded in 1986, Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior.” Lebo is listed as one of their scientists. http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml
Another problem is that the list represents “600 scientists,” but out of how many? My guess is that there are potentially hundreds or thousands, or perhaps even more, who could be on that list. Having 600 people is not that many, as the “Steve Project” shows.
I think you could easily get 600 scientists on a list affirming that the earth is 6000 years old, or that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. But so what? What would it prove? That scientists can have religious beliefs too? But we already know that.
Fr. Hans: “Where Darwinian evolution misses the boat is that it exceeds the proper domain of science. It posits that the complexity of the material universe came into existence through random chance, that is, without any coherent system, structure, energy, whatever, guiding that development.
Well . . . . there is more than one kind of randomness. Evolution is random, but not chaotic. It is stochastic — you can’t predict what will happen to an individual, but the outcomes have a definite shape and structure or distribution. It is random in the sense that it is not a deterministic process, but not random in a chaotic sense.
It’s the same kind of randomness we talk about in genetics. What I don’t understand is this: people here seem to think that belief in the operation of randomness in evolution reflects a kind of godless, materialistic thinking. But when we talk about randomness in genetics, that seems acceptable. Is it godless and materialistic to say that there is around a 50 percent chance of any particular fertilized egg developing into a female? Or is the belief that God “custom-designs” each fertilized egg down to the level of the DNA sequences?
Fr. Hans: “It posits that complex systems develop from simpler ones, also an idea modern scientific finds are challenging (its called “irreducible complexity”). There are more, some of which I mentioned upstream (the Boeing 747 example, for example).”
Modern science doesn’t challenge that. The Discovery Institute and their friends do. There are all sorts of scientific examples of things that are allegedly “irreducibly complex” that are in fact derived from other structures that have had other uses earlier in the chain.
Note 38:
A good explanation, but I don’t see Dean listening due to the fact that ID seems to fall on the wrong side of the cultural divide. He seems to make his decisions in large part on who seems to be holding what position (i.e. do liberals or Democrats generally think this or that, what is the “dominant media” saying at this time, etc.). As much as he talks about “dogma”, he does not seem to recognize it.
Could you speak more about this cultural shift (I am thinking of the Solzhenitsyn above). We had a neighborhood “end of summer bash” the other day and I got to meet allot of my neighbors (granted, on a very superficial level). I am having trouble seeing any sign of a shift – indeed I see modernism still burning brightly, however the fruit still being a slow decay. Now, something could change this (e.g. a real Islamic threat or a real economic meltdown). Even when I think of the Christian’s I know, I see them largely peaking out from modernism almost unconsciously – propped up by their faith…
Christopher: As I affirm every Sunday I believe in God as the Creator of heaven and earth, and have dismissed ID only as not belonging within the realm and scope of science. Intelligent Design is theology not science; as such it does not belong in a science text book, and should not be represented as science.
As Judge John Jones explained in the December 2005 Dover School District ruling.
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
I have the feeling that perhaps mathematics might be the next discipline to be attacked by the religious right. To follow your logic, the fact that no mathematical equation is taught in schools demonstrating how to multiply a half dozen loaves and fishes into thousands that would feed multitude must mean that mathematics is denying the possibility of miracles and the very existence of God. Let every person of faith demand that math textbooks discuss “DE”, Divine Exponents, so that are souls are not degraded by the “materialistic limitations” of secular humanist arithmatic.
As I affirm every Sunday I believe in God as the Creator of heaven and earth
I do not doubt that.
have dismissed ID only as not belonging within the realm and scope of science. Intelligent Design is theology not science; as such it does not belong in a science text book, and should not be represented as science.
Which is why I say you are not listening. As Fr. Jacobse has explained over several posts now, ID is an internal critique within science, not an external “theology” being imposed from without. Scientists themselves are, scientifically, questioning certain assumptions (mostly ones from a somewhat unconscious Epicureanism) and implications of ON.
As he further explains, the media and many others are not able or willing to understand this. Look at the quote from your judge friend. All three are not scientific objections, but objections that come from dogma – the dogma of a certain philosophy that can not see past a neo-epicurean metaphysic. I believe your not willing to understand this critique on it’s own terms because you are more interested in scoring debating points (indeed, most of your posts here seem to be a zero-sum debate – you rarely ever seem to dialogue). Since you get your information about ID from partisan sources, you simply dismiss it with the crass “religious right conspiracy” and the like.
So, to sum up, it is you my friend who is the dogmatist in this thread…
Dean writes: “To follow your logic, the fact that no mathematical equation is taught in schools demonstrating how to multiply a half dozen loaves and fishes into thousands that would feed multitude must mean that mathematics is denying the possibility of miracles and the very existence of God.”
Chemistry will have to change too, since you have to be able to turn water into wine in a way that is both religious and scientific.
But this is actually the goal of the Discovery Institute. It’s not just about intelligent design, but about replacing all of science with a mix of science and religion. From page 68-69 of the Dover decision:
” . . . the [Discovery Institute] Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.”
Christopher writes: “As Fr. Jacobse has explained over several posts now, ID is an internal critique within science, not an external “theology” being imposed from without. Scientists themselves are, scientifically, questioning certain assumptions . . .”
He has explained mistakenly over several posts. ID is a fringe movement within science, a small minority of scientists, most often people whose expertise is not evolutionary biology, often people who have conservative Christian religious beliefs.
Christopher: “Look at the quote from your judge friend. All three are not scientific objections, but objections that come from dogma – the dogma of a certain philosophy that can not see past a neo-epicurean metaphysic.”
The judge — a Republican appointed by Republicans — has one philosophical objection, and two scientific objections — first, that ID’s “complexity” argument doesn’t work, and second, that its arguments against evolution have already been refuted.
The philosophical objection is that it essentially inserts theology into science, which violates the whole basis of science. This is typically criticized by the religious right as a cultural or intellectual “prejudice,” against religion, but it is not.
The problem is that the supernatural doesn’t seem to show up very often. And if it did, it really wouldn’t be supernatural any more. As the author Sam Harris noted, if Jesus suddenly appeared in the sky saying “Hello all, I’m Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Trinity. Watch this as I do some amazing things,” there wouldn’t be a religion of Christianity; there would be a science of Christianity. After a few appearances and miracles, there wouldn’t be any more doubt about Jesus than there is doubt that the sky is blue. The existence of Jesus and his ability to perform extraordinary miracles would just be another set of interesting facts about the world, and these kinds of explanations would be an accepted part of science.
The problem is things like that don’t happen. I really wish they did, because that kind of world would be a lot more fun and interesting to be in.
Dean, Jim. Your arguments are purely political and thus bound to the categories the debate takes shape in the culture, ie: ID perceived as creationism under a different guise, and Darwinian evolution accepted as scientific “fact.” Nothing inherently wrong with this but it says nothing about the science.
Thus, what a judge decides is largely irrelevant to the scientific character of the debate as well, although not to the cultural dimension. His decision simply reveals the current political temperature. There is no science there. That’s fine. Judges are not scientists, nor can the law settle this question anyway. I’m surprised neither of you see this. Both of you assume this will ultimately be settled in a courtroom. It won’t be, trust me on this.
Meanwhile, guys like Guilder (no slouch either, trust me on this) come forward with the radical assertion that Darwinian thinking actually hampers the development of science. Again, more is happening here than either of you are aware of, and after today, seem unwilling to consider. I think events are passing you by. Time will tell.
So Dean, when you write stuff like this:
…the only thing heard is the familiar sneer we hear so often from the left whenever they run out of ideas. You offer no ideas here, just finger-wagging, (incessant) scolding, and even a dash of intimidation. “Oh those poor ignorant fools” you declare as your subtext, and expect that your readers should assume that you actually have the qualifications or authority to make such a judgment.
You don’t of course which is why I direct you back to Gilder, to the article that outlines ID, to a definition of philosophical materialism (which is evident you don’t quite grasp), and other sources.
Note 44. Out of almost everything you wrote Jim, only this has any real relevance:
Not quite. The objection is that the Darwinian hypothesis is, utimately, philosophy (an interpretive structure/grid) not corroborated by the scientific evidence. That’s it.
The other ideas you tacked on are editorial comments that reflect the cultural fallout of the objection. The cultural dimension is interesting and even important, but it does not address the objection. In the end, only science can do that.
Note 40. It’s deep structure stuff, the underlying assumptions. It won’t be evident in the larger culture for several decades maybe. I see the same thing you do. Today on the plane I sat behind a girls volley ball team passing around their copy of “Cosmo”. I won’t go into details but the modernism as you put it, clearly dominated how they saw the world. I see it in Church as well where many people just view Christianity is a kind of shamanism, a way that good intentions and actions are validated by the higher power while bad things are warded away.
What penetrates this of course is the Gospel in the proper and full sense of the term.
The assumptions shape how we think, and how we think is what we see (contra the modernist assumption that reality is imposed from the “outside”). “Be tranformed by the renewing of your mind,” the Apostle Paul says, “and offer your bodies as a living sacrifice wholly acceptable unto God.” What transforms the mind, and thus what enables us to see, is the preaching of the Gospel (in spirit and truth — just as the Word of God *is*), because this preaching reveals Christ who is Truth. This means as well that our priests and hiearchs have to wake up to the Gospel of Christ. This, btw, is what the Fathers taught. Read St. John Chrysostom’s “On the Priesthood.”
BTW, culturally it might get worse before it gets better. However, like you, I believe the Islamic threat will compel a return to a moral sobriety, at least among some who are not completely invested in their secular dogma. You see some signs on the horizon already like the leftist who actually recognizes the Islamist threat in the article I posted earlier. I think that people are more willing to recognize the real distinction between civil rights and the efforts to sanction homosexual behavior coming from the gay lobby, as another example. Abortion has turned into a loser for the Democrats. Even Kerry came out with a (convoluted) statement on faith and abortion this week. If the climate wasn’t changing (if he didn’t feel a statement was necessary in order to gain political favor), he wouldn’t touch faith and abortion with a thirty foot pole. None of these are conclusive in and of themselves but something is happening.
Don’t pin me down too hard on this though. It’s still basically an intuition.
Note 46.
No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn’t quite make it accurate. Since none of us can (yet) go back in time to observe the process of speciation taking place, the matter of whether the scientific evidence actual supports the theory of evolution is one of interpretation. The notion (I’ll agree not to call it a theory) that evolution is not supported by scientific evidence is very popular with nonscientists, and is even supported by a tiny minority of actual biologists. Since it’s a matter of interpretation, though, it’s worth mentioning that the vast, vast majority of actual biologists do _not_ find the evidence to be so insufficient as to cast substantive doubt on what you call the Darwinian hypothesis.
We can of course, argue about this until the cows come home–or until the cows turn into hyper-evolved supercows. Each side can present experts with strong opinions.
Intelligent design proponents have a weird advantage in the current sociocultural debate. As the underdog non-theory, they can simply take swipes at the generally accepted theory.
“Irreducible complexity,” the chief feature of intelligent design, makes sense if we presuppose that we are special, and that we are the end product of something. This is the fallacy of your analogy about a tornado blowing through a factory and assembling a Boeing 747: certainly, if we were trying to create a Boeing 747, that would be an astronomically unlikely way to create one.
But in truth, if a tornado blows through a factory, the wreckage will fall into some kind of unpredictable pattern. If you tried to predict what kind of pattern you’d get, the odds of any given pattern are unbelievably low. But some pattern must occur, and it will.
The theory of evolution posits that tiny accidents, which make a pattern more likely to recur, can accumulate over millions and millions of years. The end result is a statistical anamoly, sure. But all of the atoms of which we are composed would have been in some kind of pattern, whether simple proteins had formed in the primordial soup or not. And that pattern, were it not human, would also have been stunningly unlikely.
Aren’t we fortunate, then, that we formed? I find the staggering complexity of evolution to be much more compelling evidence of a God than the simplistic notion of an “intelligent designer.”
Note 48. Phil writes:
Phil, it refreshing to read your response because even though you are a supporter of the Darwinian hypothesis, you recognize the question is ultimately a philosophical rather than scientific one. You understand how it works. And yes, I agree that it is still dominant in scientific circles. My point is only that the philosophy on which the hypothesis draws, which gives it its internal coherence, is falling, as we have seen with Marxism and Freudianism which depended on the same philosophic structure.
Will it fall? I think it is inevitable. Time will tell.
I don’t understand your objection here. The Boeing 747 example deals with the probability of a cell emerging from inert matter. It doesn’t deal with how that cell emerged. The comparison gives shape to the improbable odds of such an event (the cell emerging) occuring in evolutionary terms.
You can argue that time is the variable here. But again, where does the notion that time moves in linear terms come from? And why do we invest the direction of time with the value of progress? These are philosophical considerations brought into our reasoning from the outside because it too “presuppose(s) that we are special, and that we are the end product of something”. Keep in mind that linear time was not known to pagan antiquity. It entered culture through the Hebrew prophets, Genesis actually. Darwin took it as a given, as did Marx.
What do you mean by “staggering complexity of evolution”? Evolution is a process, not an organism. How can it exhibit complexity? Do you mean to say that it is staggering that mankind (the world?) formed against improbable odds?
Phil writes: “Intelligent design proponents have a weird advantage in the current sociocultural debate. As the underdog non-theory, they can simply take swipes at the generally accepted theory.”
That’s right. They spend most of their time playing to a friendly, non-scientific audience, building support. Another advantage ID has it that their “swipes,” as you call them, are typically colorful little examples and simple principles that feel like common sense, whereas evolution has to make a scientific argument.
But when ID goes head-to-head against evolution as explained by actual scientists, it doesn’t do well at all — witness the case in Dover.
Phil: ““Irreducible complexity,” the chief feature of intelligent design, makes sense if we presuppose that we are special, and that we are the end product of something. This is the fallacy of your analogy about a tornado blowing through a factory and assembling a Boeing 747: certainly, if we were trying to create a Boeing 747, that would be an astronomically unlikely way to create one.”
Irreducible complexity only makes sense if the physical structures in question are in fact irreducibly complex. Many of the examples used by IDers have turned out not to be irreducibly complex. The Boeing 747 is a nice example, but the problem is that no one (outside of the ID community) believes that is how evolution works.
Besides that, if there is an intelligent designer at work on all of these structures, one has to ask why there are vestigal organs? For example, we would find it odd to climb into the cockpit of the oft-mentioned Boeing 747 and find, among the various high-tech controls, leather traces and harness once used on a stagecoach, or the AM radio faceplate from a Plymouth Belvedere. Why would any intelligent designer intentionally incorporate non-functional structure from previous modes of transport? But this is exactly the problem that vestigal organs pose for ID. Why would the “intelligent” designer include those in the latest model?