Objectivity, Faith and Reason
"All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast biodiversity on Earth, including the many extinct species attested in the fossil record." --From Wikipedia's entry on "Evolution"
"If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science." --From Wikipedia's entry on "Falsifiability"
In the ongoing battles over Darwinism and intelligent design, as well as the historic battles between religion and science more generally, the rationalists like to argue that religion is inherently unscientific in that it is based not on observation and experimentation but on unverifiable hypotheses of a spiritual nature. Being unscientific, it is therefore rendered unsuitable for teaching to young children or for being put to use in any matter of public policy or debate.
This faith-versus-reason dichotomy is fine if your terms are narrowly enough defined. If "science" is the body of knowledge gained from repeated experimentation and verifiable results, and "religion" is limited to speculation about matters unseen and unseeable, then the two can happily ignore each other. But no one uses their terms in such a limited way, and no scientist or religious person approaches either body of knowledge on such pedestrian terms. What scientist, after noticing the striking physical and biological similarities across animal species, or the way the continents and the rocks at their edges all fit together like a puzzle, can stop and not wonder why these things are so? Speculation is the natural next step, and Darwinistic evolution and continental drift theories soon follow. But neither Darwinistic evolution or continental drift is empirically verifiable or repeatable in any sense; both processes are much too slow to be observed. Similarly, what serious religious person can avoid curiosity about how God, or Vishnu, or Gaia, or Allah made the stuff around us, or whether he (or she!) did so?
When a scientist prays (and let's not doubt that many of them do, for they are humans with diverse opinions and beliefs like the rest of us!), we can say he is being "religious", not "scientific". When the same scientist does an experiment in the lab, he is being scientific. When the minister does an experiment (ministers can have lab equipment too, you know), he is being scientific, and when he prays, he's being religious. But in that grey area where the results of repeated, verifiable experimentation are interpreted, religion and science inevitably and inseparably mingle.
Since I tend to have much more sympathy for the intelligent design side of the debate than the Darwinism side, I'm always amazed that the Darwinism side rarely if ever admits that their "science" is mixed through and through with a religion all its own. And it's not a religion of lab coats and verifiable hypotheses! Instead, it's an unshakable faith in one plausible explanation of how things came to be, even though there are serious problems with that explanation and there are other explanations that are equally plausible. Yet they persist in claiming the "scientific high ground" by pushing the science versus faith concept past all rational limits.
Do they really think this will work? Do they really believe it themselves?
"If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science." --From Wikipedia's entry on "Falsifiability"
In the ongoing battles over Darwinism and intelligent design, as well as the historic battles between religion and science more generally, the rationalists like to argue that religion is inherently unscientific in that it is based not on observation and experimentation but on unverifiable hypotheses of a spiritual nature. Being unscientific, it is therefore rendered unsuitable for teaching to young children or for being put to use in any matter of public policy or debate.
This faith-versus-reason dichotomy is fine if your terms are narrowly enough defined. If "science" is the body of knowledge gained from repeated experimentation and verifiable results, and "religion" is limited to speculation about matters unseen and unseeable, then the two can happily ignore each other. But no one uses their terms in such a limited way, and no scientist or religious person approaches either body of knowledge on such pedestrian terms. What scientist, after noticing the striking physical and biological similarities across animal species, or the way the continents and the rocks at their edges all fit together like a puzzle, can stop and not wonder why these things are so? Speculation is the natural next step, and Darwinistic evolution and continental drift theories soon follow. But neither Darwinistic evolution or continental drift is empirically verifiable or repeatable in any sense; both processes are much too slow to be observed. Similarly, what serious religious person can avoid curiosity about how God, or Vishnu, or Gaia, or Allah made the stuff around us, or whether he (or she!) did so?
When a scientist prays (and let's not doubt that many of them do, for they are humans with diverse opinions and beliefs like the rest of us!), we can say he is being "religious", not "scientific". When the same scientist does an experiment in the lab, he is being scientific. When the minister does an experiment (ministers can have lab equipment too, you know), he is being scientific, and when he prays, he's being religious. But in that grey area where the results of repeated, verifiable experimentation are interpreted, religion and science inevitably and inseparably mingle.
Since I tend to have much more sympathy for the intelligent design side of the debate than the Darwinism side, I'm always amazed that the Darwinism side rarely if ever admits that their "science" is mixed through and through with a religion all its own. And it's not a religion of lab coats and verifiable hypotheses! Instead, it's an unshakable faith in one plausible explanation of how things came to be, even though there are serious problems with that explanation and there are other explanations that are equally plausible. Yet they persist in claiming the "scientific high ground" by pushing the science versus faith concept past all rational limits.
Do they really think this will work? Do they really believe it themselves?
posted by Under The Mountain | 5:46 AM
3 Comments:
I think I want to name my daughter Pangea - kinda rolls off the tongue.
Good observations. I think that most people can convince themselves of just about anything, if they want it to be true badly enough.
I wonder if some of the Darwinites really believe in evolution that strongly or if they are afraid to not believe in it so strongly that they have to believe it. (Said a much less verbose way, do they believe because they are afraid of the alternative?) I think some people are that way in terms of Christianity - they may not totally be sold, but they have to latch on to it because their fear of Hell outweighs their belief in Christ.
I, personally, became a Christian to avoid hell. That's a very rudimentary faith, but it grew!
If we have a daughter, we can name her Poopie Olive Loaf if we want to. If you make a person, you get to call that person whatever pleases you best. That's why my dad calls me Maggot Rat Face. It's meant to be endearing.
Su.
ds -- I think many Christians reject Darwinism not so much because of the scientific evidence against it OR because of a thought-through faith commitment but because they fear they will lose their way (and their faith) if they accept Darwinism. I don't necessarily think this is so, as there are plenty of evangelicals who believe in some form of Darwinism. However, I fully understand why it seems this way, and I have always thought that full-blown Darwinism is inconsistent with the Biblical account of the fall of man and redemption through Christ. But people believe inconsistent things all the time, so, even if I'm right about the inconsistency, it's NOT the case that Darwinists cannot be Christians. It's just that, for me, since I can't get past the inconsistency, I would have to reject orthodox Christianity at the same moment I embraced Darwinism. I would then become a sociobiology enthusiast, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home