Hey again Josh,
You are on the right track. There are two worldviews in conflict and there
are assumptions being made. The first problem is that science and religion
are and always will be mutually exclusive. Faith can never be "proved" with
science, no matter how hard you try. That is the very definition and nature
of faith, as well as the realm of philosophy. I have always been confused
as to why religion(in the broader sense) feels the need to compete with
science, or vice versa for that matter. I do not think it is a matter of
science vs. religion; it is a matter of the resistance of both to being
integrated with the other. It does not work.
I had a long discussion once with one of my friends about the
"self-evident" truth of the Bible. He was verging on the ID terminology,
but not yet in a full blown fashion. Anyway, it confounded me that he did
not realize that it was his strong faith that made him feel the Bible is
self-evidently true, and not the reverse. He also clearly did not
understand what "self-evident" meant, and was confused as to why I did not
see it , as it is plainly evident in the text. He refused to accept that he
was making a conscious assumption that shapes his worldview, where I had
not made the same assumption. Indeed, the assumptions I make also shape my
worldview, but I am not condeming him for his, or his lack thereof.
The second problem is that the two approaches, ie science and religion, are
going at it from different angles. Science seeks always to prove itself
wrong in order to learn and grow in knowledge. Religion(fundamentalist
versions anyway) seeks always to prove itself right, and does not require
any new understanding. The two approaches are incompatible, and new
terminology will not help bring them together. To answer the question,
science is proved...every day...until proved wrong. Religion is assumed.
A paradigm crisis in natural science may eventually come, but only after
all the questions have been asked, tested, and proved right or wrong.
Simply because someone is already asking a question that is both improper
for the field and ultimately unanswerable by that field does not indicate
the imminent demise of natural science. Unscientific questions can only be
answered in unscientific ways. Science does not ignore religion, it simply
has no stake in it. Religion has already had far more effect on science
than most people realize.
Interestingly enough, people are not arguing about the faith aspects of ID
or even religion in general, but rather the improper use of "science" and
assumption to make the assertion. It is not a matter of whether we were all
intelligently designed or not. It is simply that you can not prove it with
science, or philosophy for that matter.
Science always takes the risk that it will be proved wrong, but that is the
nature of how science improves and grows. Faith is a choice, whether
decided upon through long philosophical introspection or given to you by
the grace of whatever god you worship, and involves no risk. Niether
science nor faith takes courage in their daily activities, unless you are
working with dangerous materials or living in a communist country. The
courage comes in when you are forced to defend your point of view,
especially when you have no option but to stand and take ithe fire or run.
Anyone who wants to respond to any of those charged statements is welcome
to bash me off-list, but if you respond on-list the discussion may continue
on-list.
Have a great Wednesday.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
Joshua Steffen
<raincaller7@YAHO
O.COM> To
Sent by: Museum [log in to unmask]
discussion list cc
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM> Subject
Re: religion vs. evolution vs.
natural selection vs. babies found
02/02/2005 09:44 under cabbage plants vs. the stork,
AM ...!
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
Indigo, I appreciate that point very much. When I do engage in these
discussion either with "fundamentalists" (that seems to be the appropriate
label for this group) or with those "infidel" scientists the discussion is
so one-sided that it is laughable.
I just read an article on a website run by Chuck Colson (written by Mr.
Moore) that declared that thesists should stop playing by the rules and
terms and lingo of the scientific (read naturalistic) establishment. "We
need to create our own lingo" (not a direct quote) is what we should do. I
agree that other points of view that infer intelligence (alien or divine)
in the natural world most be able to present a convincing counter-paradigm
(non-naturalistic) before they will be given legitimacy and that is exactly
where these movements are going. Unfortunately in the arena where it most
counts, peer-reviewed journals, one is not allowed to publish, because one
includes non-naturalistic causes as a part of the discussion. Meaningful
dialogue is not allowed because the very terms, rules, standards, and
definitions are not the property of all, but the property of one camp. So
people like Mr. Moore will throw up their hands and say discussion is
useless get out the cannons. Wit hout legitimate discussion over the rules
we all have to play by, and these rules are being derived from naturalism,
then the culture wars continue. And as Phillip Johnson wrote in, Reason in
the Balance, "culture wars" is one step short of "shooting wars." Alarmist?
Just look to Germany for examples of this.
The real issue here again is not a battle of evidence or science versus
religion. No, the heart and soul of this culture war, this intellectual
clash, is one between two giant worldviews. Often the battle is termed
theism vs. naturalism, Christianity vs. Secularism or Humanism.
I ask does science prove naturalism or is it assumed? I believe if one
looks at discussion before the evolutionary synthesis of the 1950's one
would find that naturalistic science was still out to prove itself. By the
time of Darwins centennial in 1959, though the paradigm had been so
successful in offering explanatory solutions that it became a latent
assumption of the scientific community, and thus taken for-granted. Today,
therefore, scientific naturalism is assumed not proved. "Science" must
start and end with a naturalistic explanation, if not forget grant dollars
and publishing in mainstream journals.
Some of us (this includes all "fringe" groups) ask for intellectual
honesty. We outsiders believe that naturalism is reaching a paradigm
crisis. Kuhn stated that a paradigm's life span nears its end as its
explanatory power fails to answer the large unsolved questions. The big
questions like the rise of information, we feel are not adequately
explained, and simply stating that science (read naturalism) will
eventually find the answer (It has been so successful in the past, right?)
is an evasion to at least allowing other explanations to be proffered.
The stakes are high, and they are personal in a lot of ways. But retreating
into "science" and "religion" only continues to polarize academic
discussion and public policy. "Science" will continue to ignore and
religion will continue its "end round" to borrow a phrase from Eugenie
Scott. The risk is to be proved wrong, but it is a risk that I as well as
everyone else must be willing to make. That takes courage, and I am still
wondering if I have it.
Thanks again for everyones contributions. I hope dialogue of this type can
continue not only here but in every institution between professional and
visitor. It too requires of us professionals, as one AAM publication puts
it the relinquishing of "our traditional authoritarian roles in favor of
new responsibilities as both resources and facilities of dialogue about
those things that matter most to people."
Sincerely, Josh
Indigo Nights <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Tim, let's be clear about this list's purpose. I got
the info by clicking on the link list owner John
Chadwick has had pated onto the bottom of every note:
2. PURPOSE.
Museum-L is a general purpose, cross-disciplinary
electronic discussion list for museum professionals,
students, and all others interested in museum related
issues. All museum related topics are acceptable for
posting and discussion at this time. Membership in
Museum-L is open to anyone with e-mail service.
So, please, folks, don't always presume it's just for
museum professionals, that everyone reads list mail
only at work, or that if you don't like a topic that
obviously piqued so much discussion, everybody else
ought to shut up.
There are times this list is Capital Y, Yawn, Capital
B, Boring, for me. That's when I put my delete key to
good u se. From my perspective, this has been one of
the most intriguing topics in quite a while.
The beauty of this list is that, in most instances,
there is something for everyone. Sometimes, when
folks try to squelch honest discussion/debate, it
feels like a one-side love affair. Once one partner
has gotten his/hers, the party's over.
Filter, delete, or do whatcha gotta do. As long as
people aren't pinning tails on each other or talking
about their mommas (exception in a
creationist/evolutionary kind of way), it ought to be
fair to follow a thread to its conclusion.
If you got yours already, go smoke a cigarette, LOL.
--- Tim Bottoms wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was out to an all day meeting yesterday and came
> back to the religion vs.
> evolution, conservatives vs. liberals, haters vs.
> lovers, etc., etc., etc.
> thread. Don't know if anyone noticed, but there are< BR>> at least 52
postings
> relating to this topic. All I've got to say to
> those participating in this
> thread is, I wish I had y'all's jobs because you've
> got way too much free
> time on your hands! Considering the real purpose of
> this list, which is, I
> think, museum professionals helping each other, why
> are we wasting time on
> something that'll always be divisive from now to the
> end of the
> universe/rapture? Come on folks, I know there are
> strong opinions out
> there but if someone starts a thread like this and
> you disagree, then
> disagree with them off list!!!!!!!! Well, I know
> I'll catch pure-T hell
> for my opinion, but there it is.
>
> Tim
>
> PS: for those that disagree with me, don't bother
> e-mailing because I'm
> through with this topic!
>
>
>
> Timothy S. Bottoms · Registrar · Cape Fear Museum ·
> 814 Market Street ·
> Wilmington, NC 28401 · 910.341.4350 x 3011 ·
> 910.341.4037 (fax) ·
> [log in to unmask]
> NOTICE: E-mail correspondence to and from this
> address may be subject to
> the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
> disclosed to third parties
> by an authorized county official.
>
=========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may
> obtain detailed information about the listserv
> commands by sending a one line e-mail message to
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the
> message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one
> line e-mail message to [log in to unmask]
> . The body of the message should re ad "Signoff
> Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
=====
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
Josh Steffen
Longwood Graduate Program
126 Townsend Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2106
Tel: 302.831.2517
Fax: 302.831.3651
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the bes t spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
========================================================= Important
Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
