Kevin Dorner

You are confusing metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the "nature is all that is" that you refer to. Methodological naturalism is what science practices, which is removed from such pronouncements.

Example: Isaac Newton was deeply religious, but did not use supernatural influences in his physics. He practiced methodological naturalism by doing so. Incidentally, science was called "natural philosophy" in his day, including physics. Would the inverse square law of gravitational attraction work better if he had thrown in the towel and said "It's irreducibly complex. No one can understand it. It's supernatural." How would this increase human understanding? How would the rest of the theory have been developed? Does the inverse square law become less valid because it was devloped under a worldview that called itself a "philosophy" as you indicate?

The difficulty in differentiating these terms is analogous to the difficulty some people have in differentiating "secular" from "atheistic." For example, the Pledge of Allegiance. "One nation indivisible" is secular as it is neutral towards religiosity. "One nation, under no God, indivisible" is atheistic and "One nation, under God, indivisible" is theistic. Each of the latter two advance a religious viewpoint.

Likewise methodological naturalism does not advance a religious viewpoint. It merely seeks to describe objectively measurable reality.

By the statement that scientists/science practices metaphysical naturalism, the implication is that no scientist can be religious. Clearly this is not true: Newton, Liebniz, Pascal, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur and many other scientists were religious.

I suggest a reading of "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, who is both a devoted Christian and a cellular biologist skilled in evolutionary theory. He covers this difference in detail.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Yes, I realize the distinction. But they are the same, in practice.

This is seen clearly when the dogmatically naturalist scientist ridicules the creationist for claiming that God is directly responsible for, say, the existence of the universe, or the immense non-material differences between humans and chimps.

That should make it clear.

Now, let me ask you a question, Kevin:

How have you been critical of Darwinism? What is one major problem that you see with it?

Vanderzyden

Albion

Of course they aren't the same in practice. This is seen clearly when the Christian or Jewish scientist makes clear that his scientific work, which uses methodological naturalism, is directed toward studying God's creation and giving praise to God in the process.

By saying that because some scientists are atheists the whole of science is philosophically naturalistic and founded upon the denial of God or anything else supernatural, you're making a leap of logic that can't be justified without ignoring a lot of rather inconvenient facts.

ps418

I am definitely interested in methodological supernaturalistic science. Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to give me the faintest idea how it works in practice. I'd like to check out the goods before I buy. In particular, I'd like to know how scientific disputes are resolved/can be resolved within the context of methodological supernaturalism.

For example, how would a methodological supernaturalist demonstrate to another methodological supernaturalist that "Created Last Thursday-ism" is wrong? What empirical data would be inconsistent with the supernatural creation of the universe and everything in it last thursday?

How would a methodological supernaturalist demonstrate to another methodological supernaturalist that the brown bear has one origin, rather than numerous independent origins?

Kevin Dorner

I would imagine in this respect that the "how" of the process is what's being ribbed. Most creationists, when you get right down to it, resolve all of their arguments down to a single statement that God used methods and forces in creating life that are not visible today. At this point, one might as well argue for Lastthursdayism because it equally can't be proven, disproven, questioned, refuted or completely understood. Scientific inquiry grinds to a halt.

If you are referring to a scientist using evolutionary biology to promote atheism or disbelief, then I agree with you. I don't support that. Scientists certainly have religious opinions and beliefs or lack thereof, but they should not speak for science when they promote them, exactly as politicians should not use the state to advance religious views. As much as I like Dawkins' writings and think he's a brilliant person, I think he may be doing more harm than good in this respect. Not only is he reinforcing the fallacy that evolutionary biology is a strictly atheistic science, but he may end up alienating his best supporters in the churches of England and elsewhere who have spoken strongly against creationism, calling science a "God-given pursuit" and emphasizing that the universe that science has shown us, billions of years old, containing trillions of worlds, is far more conducive to reverence than a piddly six thousand year old universe deliberately created to fool us as to its scale, nothing more than a painted backdrop.

The man who started it all, Mr. Darwin, put it best:

"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science.

First and foremost, I realized early on that I don't have the credentials to debug a science that the best minds in the world have been hammering away at for a century and a half, as my criticisms would amount to roughly an equivalent of a schoolboy dismissing mathematics as nonsense because he finds the question "2-7=" in his textbook, and has not yet learned of negative numbers.

So, instead of being critical, I instead realized that some of the most important conclusions in science are counterintuitive; not everything in this world is obvious enough that a simple moment's thought is enough to dismiss or accept it, that a wealth of well-researched detail exists that most of us never encounter. So, I tried to learn as much about it as I could.

The parts that I found counter-intuitive and the answers that I find satisfactory were as follows:

Q: Why does life seem to increase in complexity? A: Two parts to this: sometimes complexity is illusory, for example, a hermit crab has a larger genome than a human. "Complexity" is a term that has many definitions and not all of them are concordant with each other. However, there is selection pressure for complexity in regards to the internal structure and differentiation within an organism, and this is due to selection pressure for size. In a world with only single-celled animals, the first multicellular predator will be extraordinarily successful, because it is unlikely to be consumed by its tinier prey. There will therefore be a selection pressure to increase body size. A slightly larger predator will be able to consume the smaller predators as well as the single-celled organisms. However, when an organism becomes large enough, its internal cells are no longer in direct contact with the outside media (ie water.) If there is no differentiation, internal cells will starve and the increase in body size is halted. Differentiation into specialized respiratory, gastrointestinal or circulatory systems will be favoured as this will allow for continued increase in the organism's size. Complexity as defined by the number of specialized cell types in an organism will increase.

Q: What use is half an eye? A: None at all, which is why complete and working eyes, (which have evolved independently over 40 times) and not -half-eyes are found in all stages of development in nature, from light-sensitive bacteria to the simple cup eyes of molluscs to the compound eyes of insects to the eyes of birds of prey whose visual acuity rivals ours. A blind organism that needed sight to survive could not do so for the hundreds of thousands of generations that it would take to evolve complex eyes with automatically focussing lenses, colour vision, etc. from scratch, and natural selection would eliminate it. Instead, sighted organisms that exist today evolved from organisms with slightly poorer but still-complete eyes. There was never a "half-an-eye" to contend with, but instead, fully working eyes that may have been half as acute. There are sightless cave animals (ie fish and salamanders) that live their lives in total darkness, and yet they have non-functional eyes because their ancestors lived in the light. When they became cave-dwellers, whether their eyes worked or not was no longer a factor in their survival, natural selection no longer weeded out mutations in their ocular system, and because of this they are now blind.

I could add a few more, but I have to clean up the house now, and this post is getting rather long.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

scigirl

Well one problem that I have right off the bat with this question is your repeated use of the word Darwinism. You seem to think that evolution is analogous to Christianity, and rather than worship Jesus, we worship Darwin!

Darwin's book was only the beginning - many, many scientists have contributed and added to his theory over the last century and a half. Unlike, say, the Bible, which doesn't change much over the years, except for maybe a couple pronouns here and there.

Vanderzyden, I am a biologist. I am currently in medical school, being trained to study the human body, so that I can someday become a doctor to, among other things - help ease human suffering and cure diseases. You could say my philosophy or beliefs do drive me to this type of humanistic career. Of course my beliefs about the world will affect how I am as a doctor and as a human!

However, when it comes to the science itself - I see evolution as one theory, as one tool, that can help medical professionals understand how the human body works. I am not a "Darwinist," I am a scientist who accepts that evolutionary theory is a good explanation for how humans got here, yet who also accepts many other theories - such as the idea that cancer is caused by alterations in our DNA, or that autoimmunity might be induced by viral infections. I don't separate "evolution" from all the other science - it is simply an idea that integrates itself into other areas. Just like the idea that structure correlates with function tends to help us study and understand anatomy, both gross and micro.

In temrs of being critical of evolutionary theory, I suggest you peruse through some recent journals such as Science or Nature. There are many different debates going on today among scientists regarding many aspects of evolutionary biology - human origins in particular. You will be hard-pressed to find support that scientists are all dogmatic darwinists after you complete this task.

I personally have some problems with some of the conclusions drawn by evolutionary psychologists, and also by some paleontologists. Certain claims need more data before I will latch on to them as 'fact.' For example, Robin Wright's book called The Moral Animal attempts to explain all of our sexual behavior in terms of evolution. While I agree in part, I just don't think the data consistently supports his theories.

scigirl

Quick disclaimer - I have no problems with evo psychologists and paleontologists trying out different theories based on data they find. That of course is what makes science different from just data gathering. I am just a bit skeptical of some of their inferences (and of course, they are too - that's why they are still looking for more fossils or data)

GeoTheo

V:
So the answer to my question is that you consider your origin through human sexual reproduction a secondary cause of the first cause, which is special creation?

Amos

Not too long ago American's came back from African safari's and concluded that locals were soo stupid that they did not know that 9 months after their orgies all the girls would have babies.

Now only 50 years later we discover that not sex but creation must take place prior for conception to occur. We now find that we can have lots of sex at home but increasingly fewer babies are conceived (and we have the fertility clinics to prove this).

Sex is not even second but third because the sperm must have independent life and the ovum must be a suitable partner. After that sex will do it.

Vanderzyden

Broadly, yes.

First, we must note that many secondary causes follow a first cause. The sperm, the egg, the processes, the suitable environment, etc. are all secondary causes.

Second, I insist that "special creation" might take many forms. Sure, it's possible that with respect to humans, God established a first cause and, through a succession of material secondary causes, a human "frame" came to be. But again, I call for convincing evidence.

The bigger problem facing naturalists is the enormity of non-physical difference that we observe between humans and apes (chiefly language and reason). For example, despite the interests of extremist groups, we do not grant human rights to apes. Humans are persons; apes are not.

What goes unmentioned by those who take up the naturalist position is the possibility that humans were created, not from the frame of an ape, but directly from earth elements. This is not creation "from nothing", but rather SEPARATE special creation. It is well known that the early Cambrian fossil record may be readily interpreted as providing striking evidence in favor of this type of "special creation". Not surprisingly, I don't see this mentioned on these boards.

Vanderzyden

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Coragyps

VZ - monkenstick asked you a question up-thread a little, and I, too, would really, really like to see your answer.