Center for Global Food Issues Tue, 30 Jan 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years,” by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change,” by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites.
“Unstoppable Global Warming” shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
. . . more
Dean, read between the lines. The piece is a preemptive strike. The Guardian wants the UN report accepted and they know that think tanks like AEI will provide the most solid critiques. The Guardian wants to descredit AEI before the facts emerge.
The “payments” are no more than grants. They go to people criticial of the thesis that global warming is man made (the central point of the UN study from what I hear) and appropriately so. The connection between Big Oil money and AEI is a given, but no attempt is made to connect the Oil money with AEI study simply because nothing has been offerred yet.
This is politics, nothing more. The credibility of the study (both UN and the AEI response) should depend on the science, not the funding. (You could argue that the UN is just as biased actually, and as for credibility, just remember the Oil for Food scam).
Wait until the reports come out. Don’t draw conclusions based on a hit piece.
Exxon Mobile has directly given money to Christian groups that have sought to discredit the sceince of global warming. This calls into into question their credibility, impartiality and motivation on the issue.
Signers of Environmental Statement Funded by ExxonMobil
Dean, it doesn’t mean any such thing. You approach the issue of man-made global warming as if the advocates have no interest in advancing the thesis except for a benevolent concern for the environment. But this just isn’t so. It’s a highly charged political fight that falls into conventional right vs. left camps. Look who is the most visible champion after all — Al Gore, hardly an impartial participant.
Further, oil companies have an interest in how the question is finally resolved. They are not blind to the political dimension and know that if Soros funded and Gore promoted think tanks have their way, the outcome is virtually certain to land on the man-made side regardless of the science. We see already the difficulty that critics of the Gore thesis have in getting heard.
You are correct in casting a skeptical eye toward big oil. But cast it in Soros’ and Gore’s direction as well. Don’t think there is not a political agenda behind the left. In fact, I would argue that currently the left is more aggressive in fostering the claim despite the science challenging their claim.
I’m curious if anyone would have a different answer to the perception-checking question: Which side of the political spectrum, on balance, is more pro-science?
Interesting question. I would argue that the right is more “pro-science” simply because they tend to have a more aristotelian view of man, nature, etc. Thus, they are better at weighing scientific claims of facts and methods. The left, tending much more to the neo-platonic/Hegelian side of things, tends to absolutize “science”, thus not weighing it properly against the moral and political realms.
My observation is that a strategy of the right is to introduce an opinion held by a minority of scientists ….still gives credence to the minority viewpoint.
This comes back to the balancing truth claims above. What you are calling a cynical strategy is really prudence and the recognition of the “group think” that modern scientists , and especially the scientific populizers, tend toward…
Christopher writes: “This comes back to the balancing truth claims above. What you are calling a cynical strategy is really prudence and the recognition of the “group think” that modern scientists , and especially the scientific populizers, tend toward…”
Good answer, because then you can have it both ways. If scientists come up with a conclusion that you agree with, then you have the weight of science behind you. If they come up with a conclusion you don’t like, then a few scientists who disagree with the vast majority are bravely resisting “group think.”
Christopher: “I would argue that the right is more “pro-science” simply because they tend to have a more aristotelian view of man, nature, etc. Thus, they are better at weighing scientific claims of facts and methods. The left, tending much more to the neo-platonic/Hegelian side of things, tends to absolutize “science”, thus not weighing it properly against the moral and political realms.”
Yes, for the right, ideology and theology trump everything else. You can judge the truth of a scientific claim by the extent to which it supports right-wing ideology and theology. Since for the right it’s all about ideology, there really is no “objective” science. Rather, science is seen as being driven by ideology. Thus, if a scientific claim contradicts right-wing ideology, it does so not because of any “truth,” but only because the scientists in question have a defective worldview. In this way the right-wing worldview is kept safe from any outside contamination.
Note 7. Jim writes:
Jim, think this through. You are committing the fallacy you claim exists on the right. You argue the right is closed to any scientific claim if it “contradicts right-wing ideology”. Yet your argument is an ideological claim, not a statement of fact. It closes off all possibilities except those that agree with your position.
Are you sure you want to say this?
By that logic, no one could ever accuse a group of a tendency to ignore facts because of a secondary motive, because a “tendency” is itself a nonfactual claim.
Is that what you’re suggesting?
It’s fair to point out that the left is not entirely innocent when it comes to “spinning” science or ignoring facts. Factual statements that are “politically incorrect” can be met with condemnation. (Larry Summers’ speech mentioning that further research should be done concerning aptitude difference in the sexes comes to mind.)
I wonder if we can look at DDT as a case study for how the scientific establishment and both sides of the political spectrum address an issue when “rogue scientists” make a claim that is contrary to commonly held opinion. Public opinion shifted about DDT following “Silent Spring” and the resultant uproar, but the current thinking seems to be shifting. The left is hardly pro-DDT, but recent analyses have indicated that in some countries it may save more lives than it harms.
Note 9.
No. Even ideological claims requires evidence of fact. Jim’s claim contains none. (It’s too broad to be proven accurate anyway.)
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, think this through. You are committing the fallacy you claim exists on the right. You argue the right is closed to any scientific claim if it “contradicts right-wing ideology”. Yet your argument is an ideological claim, not a statement of fact. It closes off all possibilities except those that agree with your position.”
My assertion is based on both observation of others and personal experience during my ten years as a fundamentalist Christian. Certainly it does not apply to every conservative Christian, but there are a number to whom it does apply.
To some extent everyone looks for confirmation of existing beliefs and resists contrary evidence, at least initially. But to the extent that a person’s life centers around a particular ideology, the rejection of contrary evidence becomes paramount.
In my case, I suppose you could say that I have an “ideology.” But my ideology is based on the sum total of all my experiences, conversations, study, etc. After my fundamentalist beliefs fell apart, I basically had to “put the world back together,” so to speak. So from a myriad of individual details, my beliefs, my ideology if you want to call it that, slowly emerged over a period of 20 years. But what this means is that as individual facts emerge, as more evidence is assembled, as theories are refined, my beliefs change. I don’t automatically reject anything merely on the basis that it is “conservative” or “religious,” or “right-wing.” In fact, one of the reasons I hang out here is precisely so that my existing beliefs will be tested and probed.
So if it turns out that someone comes up with compelling evidence that miracles occur, hey, I’m there. If someone can demonstrate convincing historical evidence in behalf of the Virgin Birth, then I am a VB believer. If the weight of scientific evidence shows that the earth really is only 6,000 years old, then I’m ready for the Garden of Eden and the talking snake.
Conservative religious belief, and to some extent, conservative political belief, is very different. Religious conservatives tend to adopt whole “packages” of beliefs, whether or not those beliefs can be historically confirmed. When I became a fundamentalist Christian, I bought the whole package. I believed that the earth was 6,000 years old. I believed in the details of all the stories about Moses, Abraham, David, Ezekiel, and everyone else. I believed in walking on the water and all the other miracles. And this was prior to and in the absence of any research into the historicity of any of these things.
Political conservatives tend to start with basic principles, and then deploy those out to specific situations. So a political conservative might start with the belief that government should have no role in the provision of social services. So for that person evidence is simply not going to matter. Even if one can prove without doubt that a particular government social program is highly effective, that won’t matter, because whether the program is good or bad, the conservative in question believes that it is not the proper role of government to have that program.
In the case of science, it works the same way. If 99.9 percent of scientists hold that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, then the Creation Research Institute will latch on to the .1 percent of scientists who have a contrary opinion. Look, they say, we have scientists and smart people on our side too!
This is because principle-based beliefs are absolute beliefs. For example, if a Christian believes in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then accepting even one contrary belief destroys the entire structure. A fundamentalist Christian once explained to me that if the Bible has a single error of fact, then that means that God is a liar, because He said that His word is perfect. And if God is a liar, then there is no morality and no eternal life, and you might has well go out and rob and rape and pillage, because nothing matters. So for this fellow, accepting a single contrary fact would destroy his entire worldview, his entire meaning of life. It would be a devastating rupture in the very fabric of the universe.
Or closer to this venue, what would happen if an Orthodox Christian came to believe that the Virgin Birth was not historical, that in fact it didn’t happen. Well, he wouldn’t be an Orthodox believer any more. The foundation of all his beliefs — confidence in the church’s teachings — would have vanished. Pull one loose thread in the garment and the entire garment unravels. One crack in a stained glass window destroys the entire church.
So Christians build up tremendous defenses and systems of belief to ensure that this never happens. The loose thread is never pulled. And that crack in the stained glass window really isn’t a crack at all, and anyone who says that it is has been polluted by secularism and modernism. At all costs, the belief must be defended.
It’s fair to point out that the left is not entirely innocent when it comes to “spinning” science or ignoring facts.
One thing I think is important here to remember is that when it comes to the political implications of “science” and “facts”, the facts are not really that important. It’s the moral and practical application of said facts that are in dispute. First example is global warming. The fact that we are in a warming trend is not what the source of the conflict/disputes/difference between political ideologies. It’s the implications of that warming trend morally, and how people/governments should respond. Second example is abortion. There really is not a “factual” (i.e. “scientific”) answer to “what is man” and if whether an unborn child is a human being is worthy of recognition as a human being.
Again, the right understands (and makes necessary distinctions) between the factual and moral realms, the left does not…
Note 12-
I’m going to disagree with you here. As I mentioned, there are really three propositions:
1. That global warming is occurring.
2. That it is caused or accelerated by human action.
3. That we can take action to impact the rate or degree of global warming.
All three of those are propositions of fact, even though each of them is complicated and difficult to prove or disprove.
You claim that the first proposition is not a source of dispute between political ideologies. I’ll agree that there is less dispute about the first prop than about the second, and less about the second than the third. But many right-wing ideologues absolutely dispute the very notion that global warming is occurring. A greater number of right-wing ideologues dispute the notion that global warming is caused by human action, and so on.
The moral implications of global warming, and the ways that people/governments should respond, are certainly more dependent on policy and values, but the right is attacking the facts first, so that there need be no discussion of the best policy to deal with global warming.
Global warming is distinct from abortion, because it is first and foremost a debate of fact. Look at the lede of the article at the top of the page, “Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle.”
The claim that the books are making is unquestionably a statement of fact. It disputes proposition number 2.
Note 11. Jim, first you write:
Then you write:
Certainly it does not apply to every conservative Christian? Does this qualification apply to the top statement as well?
I would strongly recommend that you end the ridiculous practice of attaching the “junk science” tag to articles regarding Global Warming, particularly in light of the the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Elizabeth Kolbert writes in the most recent New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/070212ta_talk_kolbert
You say that claims that global warming is man made are “politically motivated.” If so, what are the motivations and what do the claimnants stand to gain?
Note 15. Dean writes:
Control of the means of production.
Fr. Hans asks: “Certainly it does not apply to every conservative Christian? Does this qualification apply to the top statement as well?”
Of course. I’m talking about patterns of belief and how people handle contrary evidence. My statement in question — “Yes, for the right, ideology and theology trump everything else. You can judge the truth of a scientific claim by the extent to which it supports right-wing ideology and theology” — I think is true for a significant number.
The problem is not right-wing beliefs per se, but the extent to which one’s beliefs originate in some kind of a priori principle. Inasmuch as someone in the middle or left has the same kind of beliefs, that person will also have the same “immunity” from evidence. But it is my observation that such beliefs are much more prevalent on the right. This is not really a controversial statement, is it?
When you talk to conservative Christians, many even extoll the virtues of such belief systems. They talk about having “unshakable” faith, and that is seen as a virtue. (I ask: why is it a virtue to hold beliefs that could never be changed, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?) They talk about their “sure foundation.” They make unfavorable comparisons between their system of belief and the systems of others. Anyone who isn’t a conservative Christian is “wishy-washy” and has “no foundation” for their moral beliefs. Etc., etc.
Notes 15 & 16: Most of the proponents of man-made global warming are also proponents of big government, even international governement. Obviously, if their catastrophic approach is accurate it will take global government to address the problem. Great power over all of our lives will be taken. Is there anyone here who thinks such power would be used benignly?
Re Phil #13: My list on global waring contains 5 possibilities
1. Global warming is principally or wholly man-made, and catastrophic
2. Global warming has little to due with man-made activities but is the result of significant climate change that will have long-term social and economic impact
3. Global warming has man-made elements combined with cyclical climate trends.
4. Global warming is merely a transient occurance of little concern
5. Global warming is a fallacy.
My observation is that the majority of those who support #1 are statists and anti-capitalists, while the majority that support #5 are extreme free-market, anti-governemnt. My logic tells me that the truth is likely to be somewhere in between with #2 or #3. Unfortunately, most people are wholly unequipped to either access the facts or evaluate them if access were available.
Since virtually eveyone’s position on global warming and the actions that must be taken is informed, tainted, or controlled by political, social, and religious convictions determining what is acutal is difficult. All the more reason for people to avoid any demogoic approach to the subject. #1 has the most traction right now, but, IMO, its proponents have created that traction by the use of largely demogoic tactics which drastrically decreases the chances that we should act as they propose.
Father and Michael: A more apt comparison is the Tobacco industry and claims that cigarettes cause cancer.
For decades, the Tobacco industry denied and attempted to refute evidence that smoking increased the likelihood of cancer and respiratory ailments. The large and profitable Tobacco industry saw its sales and revenues threatend by the findings of established medical research community. In response, the Tobacco industry funded alternative studies designed to produce different results so they could later claim that the science was “inconclusive.” Legislators and government officials who sought to impose limits on tobacco sales and/or discourage smoking were attacked as agents of a socialist nanny state trying to take away our freedom
Would you say that efforts to reduce cigarette smoking were motivated by a desire to “control the means of production”? Would you say that people who believe cigarrete smoking and second-hand smoke are unhealthy are “statists and anti-capitalists?”
If those seeking to reduce carbon-based emissions were motivated by a desire to control the means of production why haven’t they called for nationalization of the oil industry, as in Venuzuela, or nationalization of future alternative energy technologies? In fact, we have no call for nationalization of enegery sources at all. At most, there have been efforts to promote a windfall profits tax, which is something different than “contol of means of production”.
Many of those promoting alternative energy technologies are capitalists frantic that the United States will fall behind other nations in the development of highly profitable new industries. Remember, it was an American who designed the hybrid automobile engine, but Toyota and Honda who are now reaping the profits from the booming sales of hybrid-engine vehicles, like the Prius, whu American automakers struggle.
note #13:
Phil,
Let’s assume #’s 1-3 are true. Why would we want to take the action in # 3? As you admit, that is a moral question. As to # 2, I suppose you find some on the right disputing this, but this is not the crux of the debate. As most thoughtful people on the right ask, why does change in the climate = bad? Also, why is #2 important now given that climate change is a constant – even in recorded history we have proven examples of climate change? The assumption of the left is that #1 = bad, and #2 = really bad. Why (as you seem to be a member of the left)?
check out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/
Note 20. About the only connection I can see between tobacco and climate change is the attempt to link the oil industry with the critics in the attempt to discredit the criticism.
I see the global warming movement more in line with Erlich’s population control ideas in the sixties and seventies, the idea of an impending ice age a while back, the idea that nuclear energy portended catastrophe, etc. — in short many of the secular apocalyptic scenarios that have come and gone. Having Al Gore lead the charge doesn’t inspire much confidence either.
As for controlling the means of production, many cultural Marxists have moved green. These days, environmentalism is concerned with more than preserving the environment.
Notes 19 and 21–
Just to clarify: when I identified 3 propositions, I was not intending for them to be read as arguments. Rather, a proposition of fact is a statement that is either true or false. So, for example, “1. Global warming is occurring” is a proposition that can either be proven or disproven, but it cannot be chalked up to a difference of opinion.
In note 19, Michael, you’re correct in pointing out that the degree to which global warming is a separate proposition. However, I would contend that “Global warming is catastrophic” is a proposition of value. It is not an either/or statement, but a question of degree and importance.
Note 21–
First you say
Then you say
…huh? I’m not sure we’re understanding each other. You cannot say that “the proposition is not the crux of the debate because it is not true.” The debate is about whether it is true or not. Further you suggest that few on the right dispute it…and then you dispute it.
Note 22–
That link is awesome. George Will identifies six tenets of the “consensus catechism,” and the first three he identifies are, with wording changes, essentially the same as the three I mention in Note 13. I’m tickled, but I promise I didn’t lift them from Will.
His fourth tenet is a value proposition, and his sixth tenet is a policy proposition. His fifth is a separate fact proposition, which I agree follows logically from the first three. (“That we can” do something and “that we have the knowledge of how to” do something are separate things.)
Note 17–
If you read the George Will link that Christopher links to, you’ll note that George Will criticizes both Kerry and Boxer for voting against the Kyoto treaty ten years ago.
Note 24. Phil writes:
Not really. Will’s point was that the no vote on Kyoto contradicts all the hand-wringing about man-made global warming on the liberal side. The “inconvenient truth” Will mentions reveals this internal contradiction: despite all the calls for regulating carbon dioxide and other emissions that ostensibly cause global warming, Kerry and Boxer shrink from passing the far reaching (and poorly conceived) legislation their calls require. Will doesn’t criticize Kerry and Boxer for voting no on Kyoto but points out that their no vote contradicts their present earnestness.
Fr. Hans writes: “About the only connection I can see between tobacco and climate change is the attempt to link the oil industry with the critics in the attempt to discredit the criticism.”
I wasn’t going to say anything, but since you brought it up . . . . one of the authors of the article, Fred Singer, has also been a contractor for the tobacco lobby:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer#Tobacco_Industry_Contractor
Singer also receives compensation from the oil industry:
So one obvious connection between tobacco and climate change is that the author of the article you posted has worked for both the tobacco and oil industry.
note 24:
I think I see your point – and if I do, I do not see how #3 is not a “question of value” as opposed to a question of fact. Personally, I find it likely #1 is occurring (the only other possibility is it’s opposite), but #2 is in real dispute. In other words, I do not think the debate is about “what is true or not” but about what climate change means morally.
In fact, on balance (we discussed this at length not long ago here) I think a global warming trend is a positive for mankind. If it was legal, I would probably start a fire at the tire recycling plant I pass on my way home…;)
Note 25–
You’re right. I shouldn’t have implied that Will was lambasting Kerry and Boxer for voting against Kyoto per se, rather, his criticism was in keeping with Jim’s observation in Note 17, that those on the right tend to believe it’s a virtue to hold beliefs that do not change. One way to interpret a ten-year-old “no” vote that contradicts a current stance on an issue is hypocrisy, and that’s what Will seems to be saying.
Note 27–
Well, whether we can do something and whether we should do something are separate arguments, but I’ll agree that there are those who think that even if we can do something, we needn’t.
Starting a fire at the tire recycling plant probably has unintended consequences beyond a warmer clime for your outdoor cookouts this spring.
Global warming is only a moral question if you accept that it’s significantly influenced by human action. If it’s inevitable, then, sure, we should make the best of it.
Note 26. Jim writes:
Jim, this misses Dean’s point and my reply. The focus is not whether this person or that worked for the tobacco and oil lobbies. The focus is whether or not climate change carries the same moral onus as the tobacco wars (we’ll leave aside for the moment whether that onus is weighted properly). Dean was implicitly arguing it does. I argue that Dean’s argument attempts to win through aspersion.
Note 28. Phil writes:
No, that’s probably not accurate either. “Hipocrisy” functions as a polemical charge that is influential in campaigning but almost functionally useless otherwise. Instead, Will is projecting that two trajectories may collide because the certainty that the Democrats portray about global warming is more apparent than real.
note 28
Starting a fire at the tire recycling plant probably has unintended consequences beyond a warmer clime for your outdoor cookouts this spring.
lol! Your probably right. Then again, the Springfield tire fire has been burning for at least 10 seasons now and the Simpsons family seems all right 😉
Fr. Hans writes: “The focus is not whether this person or that worked for the tobacco and oil lobbies. The focus is whether or not climate change carries the same moral onus as the tobacco wars (we’ll leave aside for the moment whether that onus is weighted properly).”
I think there’s more to it. Whenever mainstream science goes against conservatives, their strategy is to attack science by creating “reasonable doubt” through alternative “scientific” organizations and experts. We’ve seen this in the case of tobacco. We’ve seen it in the case of evolution with the conservative “creation science” and “intelligent design.” Now we’re seeing it in the case of global warming. I’m not surprised to see a former tobacco hired gun working for the oil companies on global warming. It’s the same strategy.
Next time mainstream science comes out against something cherished by conservatives, what do you think will happen? You know exactly what will happen.
Note 32. I don’t recall conservatives coming out against tobacco studies (the tobacco industry did, however), but I do recall objection to the states using the tobacco industry as a private piggy bank through lawsuits. Some conservatives made a good case as I recall.
As for Darwinism and Intelligent Design, this debate is more nuanced than you seem to understand. Sure it is crude on a popular political level, largely because the dominant media doesn’t understand either Darwinism or ID, but don’t be fooled. ID, by exposing that philosophical materialism underlies the Darwinian hypothesis, strikes at the heart of the theory in ways that Darwinians are finding hard to counter. Labeling this debate as solely a liberal vs. conservative spat leaves you sitting on the sidelines.
As for global warming, it’s a bit early to affirm with any certainty that Al Gore and crew really understand the complexities of global climate change, don’t you think? If this too is solely a liberal vs. conservative spat, and if the conservatives are willfully ignorant of the science as you directly imply, then you functionally define liberalism as little more than the unreflective defense of the status quo. Your analysis (a bit shallow, IMO) and implicit dismissal of any criticism of the liberal orthodoxy allows no other conclusion.
Fr. Hans writes: “I don’t recall conservatives coming out against tobacco studies (the tobacco industry did, however) . . . ”
Well, your author Fred Singer did. The interesting thing to me is that the same strategy used by the tobacco industry in now used in other contexts.
Fr. Hans: “As for Darwinism and Intelligent Design, this debate is more nuanced than you seem to understand. . . . ID, by exposing that philosophical materialism underlies the Darwinian hypothesis, strikes at the heart of the theory in ways that Darwinians are finding hard to counter.”
I guess you and I are reading very different material. Evolution is what ties together a number of different disciplines including paleontology, biology, genetics, geology, plate tectonics, and so on.
Concerning ID “striking at the heart” of evolution, have you actually read the 139 page decision in Dover v. Kitzmiller? I highly recommend reading the actual document itself. ID makes for good sound bites, but when ID is pitted against evolution in a venue where the evolutionary arguments can be put forth at length, ID goes down in flames.
But just as important, the vast, overwhelming number of scientists who actually work in the various fields related to evolution are supporters of evolution. So it seems odd to me to claim that evolution is on the ropes, when the overwhelming number of scientists say otherwise. To focus on those of contrary opinion is basically to adopt the tactics of the tobacco industry of some years ago.
Note 33–
As I understand it, you use “materialism” to refer to the view that matter and physical phenomena, and nothing else, make up the universe. You can probably phrase it better than me, but that’s the gist of it, right?
As such, how is the theory of evolution by natural selection any more materialistic than any other scientific theory? There doesn’t seem to be any part of the scientific method that allows for “this hypothesis must allow for the untestable spirit world.” That’s not to say that all scientific theories refute religious beliefs, but aren’t they materialistic whether they refute a specific belief or not? I mean, you could say that, in Newton’s theories of gravitational force, “God willed the force into being,” but it’s not really part of the theory; it has no effect one way or the other. And lots of people say, of Darwin’s theories, “God is the cause of evolution.” It’s the same thing.
I’m not saying that the theory of evolution is not materialistic, just that all scientific theories, by their nature, are scientific. So if ID strikes at the heart of “Darwinism,” then it strikes at the heart of aerospace technology, Linnaean nomenclature, cancer research, quantum physics…everything like that.
Note 34. Jim writes:
My author? Look, public relations is public relations. It’s just the way it works. Don’t you think that “An Inconvienient Truth” gets hyped as well? Or that some of the man-made global warming types worked on Gore’s campaigns in a previous life? Big deal.
Besides, the tobacco industry lost out big time it seems to me. If your thesis is true, maybe you should be encouraging the tactic instead of criticizing it.
Here we go again. Tactics of the tobacco industry?
Note 35. Phil writes:
No. Don’t confuse the Darwinian hypothesis with science. Science deals with material processes; the Darwinian hypothesis (randomness brings forth order) is a cosmology that makes sense only within the intellectual confines of philosophical materialism. Take away the philosophy, and the hypothesis is revealed for what it is: a creation story.
Again, no. The Darwinian hypothesis, particulary the creation story, can be understood apart from science and not as a logical outgrowth of it. The creation story functions as narrative, not science, just like the book of “Genesis” does.
Start here: George Gilder Evolution and Me The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.
I’m going to assume you’re aware that Darwin’s theories are an explanation of speciation, not an explanation of the origins of life. That said, by your criteria, wouldn’t any scientific theory of speciation (or the origins of life) be a creation story? Isn’t Big Bang theory also a creation story?
You mistakenly say that Darwin’s hypothesis is that “randomness brings forth order” because you assume that the purpose of evolution was to produce human life, or higher life forms. That’s because when the randomness does not bring forth order, a member of the species, or an entire species, dies. All we see is what’s left, and it gives the impression of order.
If I stuck a few dozen pins into the ground and then threw bushel baskets of sand into the air chaotically above them, eventually a few grains of sand would rest on the head of a pin. If I pointed to those tiny grains of sand and said, “Look, from chaos has come order,” that wouldn’t be the whole truth. It’s the illusion of order; the vast majority of sand would have fallen to the ground.
You lose a lot of credibility in your discussion of this topic when you refer to evolution by natural selection as Darwinism. No one goes to college to major in “Darwinism,” and evolutionary biology teachers don’t say, “And now for the chapter on Darwinism.” It’s a rhetorical tactic used by opponents to re-cast the theory as a cult of personality, making it sound like Buddhism or Mormonism. It’s akin to having a discussion about religion with a Catholic and referring to Catholicism as Mary-Worship. You’re not going to get very far by insisting on a label.
I’m going to assume you’re aware that Darwin’s theories are an explanation of speciation, not an explanation of the origins of life.
I thought the standard evolutionary theory of human “origins” includes humans all life on this planet as we understand it? Are you saying speciation is seperate from what I am, and how I got here?
Isn’t Big Bang theory also a creation story?
Are you saying that evolutionary biologists and cosmologist use a different methodology/philosophy? I thought they depend on the same cosmology, and thus the “theory of everything” is at least a theoretical possibility?
….All we see is what’s left, and it gives the impression of order. and It’s the illusion of order; the vast majority of sand would have fallen to the ground.
So, evolutionary theory is not a theory at all, because to be in possession of a theory requires an agent that is in some sense, ordered?!? Seems like here you want it both ways; you want to claim an order, and explanation, yet you want to (strangely) nihilistically deny it at the same time. Seems to me your playing word games…
You’re not going to get very far by insisting on a label. Ha! What label would you choose? We are talking about the same thing here, are we not – or are you trying to rhetorically divide and conquer?
I’ve always thought there was a great similarity between the cosmic cycle of the Big Bang-entropy-coalescence-re-Big Bang cosmology of the scientistic establishment and the Hindu/Buddhist cycle of illusion-birth-death-rebirth.
Since I am a glutton for un-resolvable psuedo-debates (conflicts of belief masquerading as logical discussion without any serious reference to the foundational assumptions), I’ll throw myself once again into the fray like Wellington’s “Forlorn Hope” in the Napoleonic Wars:
The question comes down to whether one believes in Creation ex-nihilo or simply in self-organizing matter. All other questions are simply adjunct to the essential beliefs. Unfortunately, the debate is colored by the pre-supposition on both sides that the “others” are irrational fools to hold their beliefs.
As one irrational fool to another then let us put aside the fallacy that Christians at least should and would engage in superstitious, non-corporeal explanations as an out for not thoroughly investigating the material world of which we are stewards. Christians are tasked by God to dress and keep the earth. While our task has an undeniable spiritual dimension (the earth will become more the Theophany it is created to be as we advance in Theoria), our fundamental task is one of understanding the order, interconnectedness and beauty God has placed in His Creation so that we may do our job. We need to know how to best interact with and manipulate the created world to fulfill our duty.
What possible harm could come of allowing scientists to openly and unapologetically work in their field from such a foundation? Why is the current scientistic establishment acting so much like the Catholic Church at the time of Gallileo? I thought science was supposed to be open to all avenues of inquiry, testing each hypothesis to see what works and what does not. Would it not at least be possible that such an approach would yield a more complete, more human and humane science than what we have now. With all of the ethical minefields built into science these days, could not a Christian approach shed light on not only how to do something, but why and even more importantly why not?
Note 38. Phil writes:
All we have is an “impression of order”? Really? Then why do I understand your paragraph?
What you’re missing is that the order already exists: gravity. Where did the physics that compell the grains of sand to fall have its origin? Yes, evolutionary theory, at least honest evolutionists, have to confront that question as well. The only possible answer is a philosophical one, and philosophical materialism, the conceptual ground of evolutionary theory, can’t answer it. In fact, it is blind to this dimension of reality because of the presumption that everything that exists has only a material origin (all the energies directing development has its source in the material it is directing).
Your assertion comes immediately after labelling my criticism with all sorts of perjoratives. It doesn’t make your point convincing.
Note 40. Michael writes:
Yes, to the first point (a very good point, BTW), no to the second. In the popular media, the debate on origins (more precisely, which creation narrative will guide how we organize knowledge) is drawn from pop culture references like “Inherit the Wind” and the like. This is probably the extent of most people’s understanding. On a more scholarly level, the arguments pro and con are much more compelling. Take a look at the Guilder piece again. Powerfull stuff; information theory apllied to Darwinism. I first encountered it in “Wired”.
Note 40. Michael writes:
I’ve noticed that the model of human evolutionary development replicates the development of the unborn child in the womb (water to air, etc.). I’ve wondered (just wondered, not making any sort of assertion here) if the model is primordial memory (in the sense that this memory may precede and underlie consciousness) projected into the universe.
Note 41–
You do?
You’re right. Philosophical materialism doesn’t answer it, and can’t answer it. Science, which is materialistic, is a poor tool for answering such philosophical questions.
But philosophical materialism is the ground of all scientific theories. What makes evolutionary theory “more materialistic” than Big Bang theory? You seem to concede that gravity just “is,” but that natural selection omits the Creator. There’s no basis for the distinction. Evolutionary theory omits the agent of cause in the same way that theories of planetary attraction omit the source or cause of that attraction.
None of the arguments I’ve presented in this thread support the notion that evolution is a superior explanation to ID. I just don’t see how philosophical materialism underlies evolution more than it underlies quantum physics, for example.
Exactly. Nothing in science gets at the philosophical notion of who or what caused the universe to exist, and very little in science deals with why things like gravity or tree frogs exist, on a philosophical level. (When I say science here, I’m referring to the systematic study of the natural world, not to the culture of scientists, who are human and prone to the same foibles as the rest of us.)
With the exception of the joke at the beginning of this post (which I couldn’t not make), I’m curious what you consider to be an example of my pejoratives. I’m not kidding there; I thought I was being pretty straightforward in my previous post.
If I hurt your feelings, I apologize, both for causing that and for my failure to realize I was doing it.
Note 39–
Speciation refers to how an ecological system arrived at having the diversity of species that it does. Evolution through natural selection is an explanation of speciation; it is not a theory of how life began from inanimate matter. A number of scientific hypotheses exist about how early life may have formed on this planet, and certainly nonscientific hypotheses abound as well. Evolutionary theory is not dependent on a particular explanation for the origin of life, and it does not contradict every single religious explanation for life’s origins. Many Catholics, for example, believe that God is the cause of all of the processes in the Universe, including the process of evolution.
Note 40–
I think the answer to your question depends on what you mean by it. If you’re saying, “Why can’t a Scientist also be someone who believes that the reason for the Universe is a higher power?” I think the answer is that they can. I’d guess that the majority of scientists throughout history have believed in some kind of higher power, and many were adherents of very strict religions.
If you’re asking, “Why can’t science test the beliefs of religious people as rigorously as it tests materialistic beliefs?”–again, it can, and perhaps it should. Occasionally a study will be published about the efficacy of prayer in healing disease or prolonging life, and certainly we could test the theory that God protects the Bible from factual errors by publishing thousands of inaccurate bibles and distributing them in different countries to see if they survive. The problem with such study is not necessarily that it’s bad science, but that it can really offend the people whose beliefs are being tested. (I’d wager that my hypothetical bible-testing example has offended someone, and that’s just from discussing the possibility of the act.)
There are many religious hypotheses that science can’t test, however, and many moral questions which require a different tool to answer. Science can’t tell us whether it is “good” to restrict greenhouse gases, for example, because goodness can’t really be tested or objectively determined. (Along the same lines, Mathematics cannot tell us whether it is right to divide our children in half, or whether it is right to add another dessert to our plate.) Some kind of philosophy is required if you’re going to apply what you learn from studying the world.
Fr. Hans writes: “In fact, it [evolutionary theory] is blind to this dimension of reality because of the presumption that everything that exists has only a material origin . . .”
There are all sorts of dimensions of reality to which science and other academic fields are blind. When I studied classical Hebrew in college, the professor completely failed to instruct us in gematriya, the system in which Hebrew letters are assigned a numeric value, thus revealing the mystical aspects of various passages. Linguistic materialism, I suppose. In chemistry we learned nothing of the various spiritual properties of the substances we studied. More philosophical materialism. In math there was no mention of the sacred and mystical properties of various numbers, thus demonstrating the mathematical materialism of math teachers. In biology class I was never told what my totem animal is. What’s up with that?
Note 44. Phil writes:
I don’t think you grasp the meaning of philosophical materialism. The term doesn’t point to a construct that posits materiality against non-materiality. IOW, it does not posit a dichotomy or dualism between material objects and an unseen reality. Instead, philosophical materialism posits that only matter has existence, thus the information that directs the ordering of matter into compounds and organisms (physical laws, etc.), have their source in the matter they are directing and not outside of it. The meta-physical does not exist, IOW.
You have to grasp this definition in order to understand how revolutionary Gilder’s thinking is in the piece I posted upstream. He argues that the proteins (the DNA) that carry the information are mere carriers of the information, not the information itself, something like the paper that words are written on have nothing to do with the meaning of the words themselves. The information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule. Read it again in order to understand how tenuous the Darwinian hypothesis is becoming in academic (not popular) circles. (Guilder calls the notion that information is wrapped in matter a “materialist superstition.”)
Information theory is not the only discipline undermining the “materialist superstition.” Probability theory, which did not exist until relatively recently, looks at the vast complexity of the cell and calculates that the probability of a single cell emerging from inert matter is greater than a tornado blowing through a factory and assembling a Boeing 747.
So, no, philosophical materialism is not the ground of all scientific theory. Again, I don’t think you understand the term and are confusing it with the scientific method.
Yes and no. Yes, the scientific method should stop short of cosmological statements. The method is a method, not the philosophical ground of a creation narrative. Let the science point to where it points, as Guilder does. No, Darwinism does not restrict itself to the method. Order emerging from randomness is a creation story, not science. In fact, if increasing scientific knowledge confirms Guilder’s assertion that the deep structure of the material universe is hierarchial in origin (information is necessarily hierarchical in order to be meaningful), then the why bubbles to the surface as an unavoidable question that must be asked. Agnosticism will appear as a pose, rather than sophistication.
Note 46. Jim writes:
Kinda…sorta…maybe
When I use the term blind, I mean is not capable of seeing which doesn’t exactly fit with the examples you offered. The philosophical materialist, because he believes that nothing exists except matter, would be blind to, say, Guilder’s thesis noted above. This is different than the point you are making with your examples which, frankly, sound more like hoaky scholarship, at least if I understand you correctly.
Fr. Hans writes: ‘When I use the term blind, I mean is not capable of seeing which doesn’t exactly fit with the examples you offered.”
The point is that any “materialst” approach — an approach that focused only on naturalistic entities, either observed or postulated — will necessarily be blind to other dimensions of reality, spiritual or otherwise. It’s a consequence of the methodology.
Fr. Hans: “The philosophical materialist, because he believes that nothing exists except matter, would be blind to, say, Guilder’s thesis noted above.”
Let’s talk about Gilder. In fact, Gilder’s thesis is no less naturalistic than evolution, though it may not be strictly speaking a “materialistic” (concerned with matter) thesis.
Gilder’s thesis reminds me very much of Stephen Wolfram’s book A New Kind of Science. In NKS Wolfram shows that very simiple deterministic rules — programs, if you will — can give rise to randomness and great complexity. An introduction to the book states that
In postulating that natural systems can function as programs, Wolfram is not postulating the existence of a grand “programmer” or of any other kind of overarching intelligence. At the same time his thesis is not based on anything like “materialism.” In other words, it is possible to have scientific explanations that are not materialistic, yet are completely naturalistic.
What I keep hearing is the notion that one must be a “philosophical materialist” to subscribe to a theory like evolution. But, in practice, there is no difference between the work of the atheist evolutionary biologist who believes matter came from nothing and that DNA is information, and the Catholic evolutionary biologist who believes that God created the Universe and the laws of physics and then allowed or directed evolution take place, and that DNA merely carries information from God.
Sure, it’s a creation story in the sense that it posits an explanation for how something (a species) came to be. But how is it more of a creation story than any other scientific explanation of something’s origin or progress? How is evolution more of a creation story than the Big Bang?
I think you really believe that. But, when you say, “The Darwinian Hypothesis” are you referring to the process of evolution by natural selection?
Note 49. Jim writes:
I’m not sure what you mean by “materialist.” You may be conflating the scientific method and philosophical materialism here, or perhaps you are reducing the term “philosopical materialism” to mean simply “materialism” in which case you have a point although then my definition would not apply. In that case the scientific method (this is what it seems you are trying to say) would preclude a non-material explanation. I would agree with this. But again, this point is different than my original point.
This illustrates why Guilder may call the materialist pressumption a “superstition.” I think though that the qualifier against a “grand designer” is editorializing, a religious statement really, and as out of place as a creation scientist exclaiming that Genesis is a “scientific” text rather than a creation narrative. Science cannot in any sense prove the existence of a “grand designer”, but it can point out that hierarchy and order, in short, a design exists in the material creation that may preexist the ordering of matter. The qualification implicitly makes this point; it would not be needed otherwise. For that reason I am not sure I would call his approach “naturalism” either since it implies a philosophical orientation apart from the scientific method.
We might be entering an era where the old philosophical categories don’t apply.
Note 50. Phil writes:
Right, there is no real difference between theistic evolution and Darwism. Theistic evolution is Aristolean, that is, God set the whole world in motion, unmoved mover, etc.. and the evolutionary process is the working, the movement, of the machine. The philosophical materialist borrows Christian teleology (the Big Bang is Genesis rewritten) but does not assign the existence of any power (God, design, etc.) that directed the ordering of matter. I don’t believe theistic evolution is credible any more because it is subject to the same critiques that bedevil Darwinism.
Evolution, the Big Bang, all of it comes out of the same pot. I think what you should be asking however is how do creation stories influence the way we structure and organize knowledge? Only a few creation stories exist such as the Big Bang, Genesis, the Gilgamesh epic, Greek mythology, etc. What is necessary is to compare the narratives with each other to determine which each reveal.
You have to understand that I take Genesis to be one of the most important texts ever to be written for many reasons, one of them being that it asserts God exists outside of space and time. Think about this. Don’t just react to it. Genesis is the source of our understanding of linear time (time has a beginning and will have an end) which, ironically, gave birth to the concept of progress which makes a philosophical notion like evolutionary progress (growth into complexity over time) comprehensible. (It appears that Darwin never understood how much a man of his time and culture he was.) Robert Nisbet examines the concept of progress in his book “A History of the Idea of Progress” (1994) which should be required reading for anyone discussing these ideas.