I think there may be a misunderstanding of the role of science, a
confusion between science and philosophy. Science's role is strictly to
attempt to explain the natural universe in naturalistic terms, in terms
not invoking the supernatural. Asking it to integrate the supernatural
is like asking a penknife to do the work of a computer, and asking
religion to explain the universe entirely in naturalist terms is like
asking a computer to do the work of a penknife. These are tools
designed for different purposes, and attempting to infuse one with the
other pretty much destroys their functions. Admittedly, the flexibility
of religion is much greater than that of science, in that religion can
hold that God created the natural universe by creating natural laws
which are then followed without further intervention (and many
mainstream religions do essentially this, though usually with the direct
intervention of God involving mankind in some way).
In a sense, asking a scientific journal to accept a paper that doesn't
follow the methodogy of science is much like expecting the Bible to add
a parenthetical comment regarding the sun standing still: "(of course,
the sun really didn't stand still because that isn't in accord with what
we know of the natural universe)". Different disciplines, different
acceptances of what's allowable.
It's the job of philosophy (used in a very broad sense) to investigate
the roles of science, religion, ethics, and the like, in the human
context. Each person formulates (under various influences) their own
personal philosophy: entirely naturalistic, entirely religious (in the
sense of supernatural), or, as with most people, a mixture of the two.
Those who claim to deny the supernatural on the basis of science are
merely expressing their personal philosophy (perhaps strongly influenced
by the naturalistic nature of science) just as those that claim the
Creator is involved in every aspect of everyday life are expressing
their personal philosophy (perhaps strongly influenced by the Bible
and/or religious teachers).
There are two strongly different worldviews at work where there is
conflict between science and some versions of religion--in one, that the
final authority in determining truth is observation of the natural
world; in the other, that the final authority is Authority (i.e., the
Bible, the Koran, etc.). Most people are content with some position
within the continuum between the two. Those toward opposite ends of the
spectrum are fated to engage in battle.
Joshua Steffen wrote:
> 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
>
> *//*
>
> 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).
>
--
Laboratory for Environmental Biology, Centennial Museum
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968-0915
[log in to unmask] http://museum.utep.edu/
http://museum.utep.edu/chih/chihdes.htm
=========================================================
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).
|
