I would have to disagree with the assertions that the scientific theory
of evolution started with the belief that God did not exist, and that
evolution is not subject to serious scrutiny and debate within the
scientific community.
Firstly, the theory of evolution arose in the 19th century from the
study of nature and a recognition of the vast extent of biodiversity,
both living and fossilized. Both Darwin and Wallace, who arrived at the
same mechanism independently, were so overwhelmed by the pattern of
diversity they observed in the tropical world as well as the temperate
zone that they more or less felt compelled to describe the pattern in
terms of a mechanism that could produce it. Darwin did not however deny
the existence of God and totally eschew religion although he did
question some of the tenets of organized religion. So he did not start
as an atheist in denial of God. Rather, he felt the pattern of life
required a theistic explanation. He did not begin with preconceived
ideas- rather he reworked his intellectual paradigm so that it fit with
observations of the world.
Also, evolution as a theory is continually subjected to intense debate
among evolutionary biologists- Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, did not
deny evolution as a process but instead took exception to explanations
as to its mode and tempo. This type of debate is not an isolated
instance but rather continues, with the result that evolution continues
to be refined and, as more information is available from new
technologies, it is held up to scrutiny.
There may be evolutionary biologists who hold on to the idea that
evolution and a belief in God cannot coexist, and with the same passion
that IDs hold on to their beliefs- personally I don't see anything in
evolutionary biology that prevents an individual also from being a
profoundly religious person. But the forms of hypothesis testing and
scrutiny to which evolutionary biology is held are significantly
different.
Nina S-R
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/31/05 4:02 PM >>>
Mr. Nowlin, Thank you for presenting these points. They are strong ones,
and often used. Here is what people will often counter with.
1. The definition of Science: "Creationists" (IDer's by the way would
not call themselves Creationists and vice-a-versa.) feel that the very
"rules of engagement," terms, and definitions are automatically framed
in favor of evolutionary biology. They would counter, and rather
convincingly, that both camps are starting from pre-ordained beliefs.
Each decides a priori that either God(s) exist or they do not. Either
one is theistic or naturalistic in their starting point, their filtering
of the evidence. They would argue that any explanation that assumes a
super-natural basis is not "scientific" because it views reality
differently. Unfortunately, this part of the debate rarely comes to
light in main-stream discussion because it would be a royal mess to do
so. It is unsettling.
2. The sphere of presentation: Since ID or creationism is "religion"
(that which only certain people can know), it should be constrained to
religious settings, right? As long as that remains the case, then there
is no real dialouge. One group continues to yap in their pews and the
other continues to shred the other in the press. As long as naturalism
is the only philosophical basis for obtaining knowledge (that which
everyone can know) then it reigns as the indisputable king of public
discourse. If metaphysical discussions are important to the private well
being of community life, then I would think that they are just as
pertinent to public ones. The key is to get both in the same arena a
rare event I assure you. Strawmen abound and everyone is left wondering
where the real Wizard of Oz might be.
Thanks for responding. -jss
Stephen Nowlin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 1/31/05 11:18 AM, Joshua Steffen's electrons arrived as:
> If they are unscientific, present the concept along side those which
are
> deemed scientific. Show how these ideas are should not be accepted. As
long as
> each side tries to use one-sided debates and does not openly discuss
> definitions and concepts they we are all locked into our little box.
That's fine - nobody's saying both versions cannot be presented.
Personally, I think they should be. However, only one version is science
--
so present the other in churches or in schools' religion classes.
The problem is that the conclusions of science -- innocent of any
agenda, I
might add -- have led in a direction that does not correspond with the
pre-ordained beliefs of the religious community. So that community has
invented a low-res sciency religious theory and now wants a free ride to
credibility and equivalence with the high-res evidence for evolution.
It's
not going to happen -- not because of political right/left bias or
agendas,
but because the ID science does not have enough merit.
_____________________________________
S t e p h e n N o w l i n
http://stephennowlin.v3.net
_____________________________________
=========================================================
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 best 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).
|
