Further blog posts will be added at:
Science and Values
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Sue Blackmore - Opening Minds ?
Sue blackmore reveals her ignorance in a Guardian article Opening Minds, (4th Sept 2008) that typifies the lack of understanding of some Darwinists who fail to even fully grasp the arguments relating to creation and evolution.
Ms Blackmore asserts that once natural selection is understood it will lead to acceptance of Darwinism. But all creationists accept natural selection; that isn't the problem. The problem is whether that is sufficient to account for all of life, and there are severe hurdles to overcome in the neo-Darwinian thesis because it requires a directional or progressive increase in complexity, without a director. The concept of undirected direction is an oxymoron. These hurdles are so large that many evolutionists are at a loss to explain it, they just keep the faith believing a non Darwinian explanation may one day come to their rescue - (it is called intelligent design, but they don't know it yet). Seth Bullock at a recent conference in Winchester commented that
"Evolution on its own doesn't look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life,...It's a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us....Understanding how those two processes combine is the biggest challenge in biology." Comments from Winchester Conference
The other problem Ms Blackmore fails to note is a foundational fallacy, the belief that scientific explanations are akin to absolute knowledge. This is scientism, long rejected by most philosophers of science because all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions and scientism is self-refuting. Ms Blackmore needs to read up a little more on the philosophy of science before commenting further on education policy in the UK.
You can read her article here: Sue Blackmore - Opening Minds [or not]
Ms Blackmore asserts that once natural selection is understood it will lead to acceptance of Darwinism. But all creationists accept natural selection; that isn't the problem. The problem is whether that is sufficient to account for all of life, and there are severe hurdles to overcome in the neo-Darwinian thesis because it requires a directional or progressive increase in complexity, without a director. The concept of undirected direction is an oxymoron. These hurdles are so large that many evolutionists are at a loss to explain it, they just keep the faith believing a non Darwinian explanation may one day come to their rescue - (it is called intelligent design, but they don't know it yet). Seth Bullock at a recent conference in Winchester commented that
"Evolution on its own doesn't look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life,...It's a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us....Understanding how those two processes combine is the biggest challenge in biology." Comments from Winchester Conference
The other problem Ms Blackmore fails to note is a foundational fallacy, the belief that scientific explanations are akin to absolute knowledge. This is scientism, long rejected by most philosophers of science because all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions and scientism is self-refuting. Ms Blackmore needs to read up a little more on the philosophy of science before commenting further on education policy in the UK.
You can read her article here: Sue Blackmore - Opening Minds [or not]
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Darwinism and Education Policy
A New York Times Editorial [1] falls back on empty rhetoric and provides a rather confused argument in seeking to defend Darwinism in the US education system. Stating in the headline for instance that ‘creationism’ is a ‘con,’ and commenting that ‘creationists tend to struggle with reality’ in the first sentence, but then they fail to present a positive case for Darwinism. This rather aggressive approach to defending evolutionary science is a staple of Darwinist propaganda; firstly taken up by Thomas Huxley who was described as ‘Darwin’s bulldog;’ then by people like Andrew Dixon White who helped develop a sense of conflict between science and faith, and later by Richard Dawkins, otherwise known as ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler,’ who often uses polemical argumentation to reinforce his point in favour of atheism.
The object of the NYT attack would seem to be the Texas State Board of Education that is seeking to maintain teaching standards in the school education system. The contested approach is one that insists that evidence must be presented to schoolchildren in terms of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ in scientific theories such as Darwinism. In arguing against this the NYT falls back on the tired old dogma that ‘science must be naturalistic’ and ‘Darwinism is proved’ by naturalistic science, which is kind of a circular argument. If naturalism is assumed true at the start of scientific investigation, a naturalistic explanation will be the result, whether naturalism is true or not. They also come out with the following ill-thought out statement that defies logic, suggesting that ‘the elegant truth of evolution...has…evolved.’
‘Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin.’
What happens if we apply this same logic to mathematics? Suppose a school child puts on her exam paper that although she knows her answer does not follow the rule of arithmetic the ‘elegant truth of mathematics has evolved’ and therefore she should be awarded full marks. And the Darwinists want us to believe that they are the guardians of standards in education.
Are we to believe now that truth is a relative concept that can evolve? Of course science changes over time, but that isn’t about ‘truth evolving’ it is an admission that scientific explanations were wrong in the past or only partially correct and a new and better way of understanding science has developed. Science progresses in this way because scientists study the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of theories through a process of falsification.
In fact thinking through ‘strengths and weaknesses’ is an excellent strategy for science because it puts false science between a rock and a hard place, thus allowing truth to be seen. Dishonest science that goes through this process will be either exposed as false, or if it resists the need for scrutiny will be exposed as not science, but metaphysical dogma. That doesn’t mean that science cannot have religious or philosophical commitments, but that they must be honestly addressed. In fact it is impossible to do science without such commitments. Creationists are honest in noting that they cannot prove that design is the best explanation scientifically because of the foundational limits of science, but that design is the most logical explanation when the extreme complexity of life is fully considered. Christian faith, and belief in the creator ultimately come via revelation from God. But naturalists should at least be honest and also acknowledge that naturalism cannot be known to be true scientifically. The NYT Editorial comments that ‘All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.’ But science cannot fully know whether a divine creator exists or not. Such naturalistic science is exposed to the problem of searching for a solution that may not exist leaving many excellent scientists ‘barking up the wrong tree.’
The NYT article seeks to defend itself by commenting that ‘Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.’ But the NYT fails to give an example of this ‘abundant evidence’ preferring empty rhetoric instead. And the history of science shows that once well-established theories often come unstuck at a later date.
Education
The secular humanists and Darwinists want people to believe that they are the guardians of science standards in education, but they want to restrict education to learning given ‘facts’ and not allow students to think through issues for themselves, such as understanding the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism. This in effect leads to the ‘dumbing down’ of education that was incidentally a part of the pagan social order proposed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand Christians believe that all students should be educated to the level of thinking human beings so they may find their potential in Christ, thus enabling them to consider the deeper meaning and purposes of life and not be reduced to the level of productive economic units serving the purpose of a neo-pagan or secular elite. Education is not simply about producing materialistic, economic human units, but about giving human beings the skills and ability to find their full God given humanity.
Sources
[1] Editorial, ‘The Cons of Creationism,’ New York Times, 7th June 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion
The object of the NYT attack would seem to be the Texas State Board of Education that is seeking to maintain teaching standards in the school education system. The contested approach is one that insists that evidence must be presented to schoolchildren in terms of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ in scientific theories such as Darwinism. In arguing against this the NYT falls back on the tired old dogma that ‘science must be naturalistic’ and ‘Darwinism is proved’ by naturalistic science, which is kind of a circular argument. If naturalism is assumed true at the start of scientific investigation, a naturalistic explanation will be the result, whether naturalism is true or not. They also come out with the following ill-thought out statement that defies logic, suggesting that ‘the elegant truth of evolution...has…evolved.’
‘Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin.’
What happens if we apply this same logic to mathematics? Suppose a school child puts on her exam paper that although she knows her answer does not follow the rule of arithmetic the ‘elegant truth of mathematics has evolved’ and therefore she should be awarded full marks. And the Darwinists want us to believe that they are the guardians of standards in education.
Are we to believe now that truth is a relative concept that can evolve? Of course science changes over time, but that isn’t about ‘truth evolving’ it is an admission that scientific explanations were wrong in the past or only partially correct and a new and better way of understanding science has developed. Science progresses in this way because scientists study the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of theories through a process of falsification.
In fact thinking through ‘strengths and weaknesses’ is an excellent strategy for science because it puts false science between a rock and a hard place, thus allowing truth to be seen. Dishonest science that goes through this process will be either exposed as false, or if it resists the need for scrutiny will be exposed as not science, but metaphysical dogma. That doesn’t mean that science cannot have religious or philosophical commitments, but that they must be honestly addressed. In fact it is impossible to do science without such commitments. Creationists are honest in noting that they cannot prove that design is the best explanation scientifically because of the foundational limits of science, but that design is the most logical explanation when the extreme complexity of life is fully considered. Christian faith, and belief in the creator ultimately come via revelation from God. But naturalists should at least be honest and also acknowledge that naturalism cannot be known to be true scientifically. The NYT Editorial comments that ‘All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.’ But science cannot fully know whether a divine creator exists or not. Such naturalistic science is exposed to the problem of searching for a solution that may not exist leaving many excellent scientists ‘barking up the wrong tree.’
The NYT article seeks to defend itself by commenting that ‘Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.’ But the NYT fails to give an example of this ‘abundant evidence’ preferring empty rhetoric instead. And the history of science shows that once well-established theories often come unstuck at a later date.
Education
The secular humanists and Darwinists want people to believe that they are the guardians of science standards in education, but they want to restrict education to learning given ‘facts’ and not allow students to think through issues for themselves, such as understanding the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism. This in effect leads to the ‘dumbing down’ of education that was incidentally a part of the pagan social order proposed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand Christians believe that all students should be educated to the level of thinking human beings so they may find their potential in Christ, thus enabling them to consider the deeper meaning and purposes of life and not be reduced to the level of productive economic units serving the purpose of a neo-pagan or secular elite. Education is not simply about producing materialistic, economic human units, but about giving human beings the skills and ability to find their full God given humanity.
Sources
[1] Editorial, ‘The Cons of Creationism,’ New York Times, 7th June 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion
Friday, May 30, 2008
Malnutrition, not climate change, is main threat to world.
The Copenhagen Consensus initiative, which includes five Nobel laureates in its panel, has declared that tackling malnutrition should be the main priority in the world.
The Times-Online news website has reported that the provision of nutritional supplements, such as vitamin A and zinc to babies and children in the developing countries is most important in order to prevent totally avoidable deficiencies that are known to affect hundreds of millions of children. They comment that this is the 'most cost-effective way of making the world a better place.'
The aim of the report is to prioritise solutions to the world’s many problems according to their costs and benefits, and the most important priorities it concludes is to improve diet. On the other hand, efforts to reduce global warming through reductions in greenhouse gases, were rated at the bottom of the league table. The economists considered the costs of effectively tackling climate change too high with limited overall benefit, while research into renewable energy and new low-carbon technologies, such as solar and nuclear fusion power, was ranked 14th in important.
See: Peter Henderson, Forget Climate Change, we should spend on nutrition.' Date 30/05/08
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Science, ideology and idolatry
There is an interesting article in the Daily Mail today (21/05/08) by Geoffrey Lean where the modern dogma of secular science is described as 'institutionalised idolatry.'
There are further examples given of the persecution of scientists because they made discoveries that did not suit the hegemony of scientism. He argues that scientism is damaging public trust in science.
"Beware scientists who insist they always know best" by Geoffrey Lean (Last updated at 12:44 AM on 21st May 2008)
I am currently reading Michael Polanyi's Science, Faith and Society, (OUP 1946). He argues that science must be free from authority in order to pursue the evidence as a truth seeking exercise. Scientism on the other hand sets up a sort of clerical authority that actually damages science. There is a need to cool passions so that science can progress within an ethical framework.
See also: Dispatches, ‘In God’s Name’ and liberal bullying, CSM, (20th May 2008).
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Embryology Bill and the Moral Failure of Secular Humanism
There is some irony in the latest developments regarding the Fertilisation and Embryology Bill going through the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament.
The most controversial idea is to place human DNA within the female gamete of an animal, such as a cow, having removed the animal’s DNA, and create human-animal hybrid embryos for the sake of stem-cell experimentation. The reason this is considered necessary is to increase the number of embryos available for research, as human embryos are apparently in short supply for stem cell research. It is argued that it is important for medical research to find cures for various genetic diseases, although such claims ignore the fact that the ends cannot be used to justify the means. It totally ignores the evidence that human stem cells can be just as effective in research of this nature, and considers the ethical disgust felt by many as simply a ‘yuk’ factor that will be overcome when the process is underway. Leading science institutions such as the Royal Society, and well-known secularists such as Lord Robert Winston, Polly Toynbee and David Aaronovitch support the measures.
Those opposed include the Catholic leader in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who said the Bill was a ‘monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life,’[5] and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright who commented that ‘This secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people...’ Both Winston and Aaronovitch have accused the leading clerics of ‘lying’ for objecting to this Bill in their Easter messages.
It also reveals that the philosophy of secular humanism in fact suffers from a fatal paradox. The more humanists seek to remove limits to scientific research, so as for instance to experiment on human-animal hybrids, the less human 'humanism' becomes.
Read the full text here.
Embryology Bill and the Moral Failure of Secular Humanism
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Why Pigs don't have wings
Philosopher of science Jerry Fodor (writing an article in the London Review of Books 18th October 2007 entitled 'Why Pigs don't have Wings') rejects natural selection as unworkable. He also claims that evolution has left us 'a little crazy' and asks why we are so good at making ourselves misrable, noting that the suffering of the last century was 'terrible,' but holds out little hope for the next. Our present science, he observes, offers little help with its Humean axiom that ought cannot be derived from is.
Fodor continues to believe in evolution, but he says that
Fodor continues to believe in evolution, but he says that
"...the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds."
"If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice."
Fodor notes that perhaps our minds have not evolved to suit our modern world, but then concludes that he doesn't feel like a hunter gatherer.
"I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don’t feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I’m not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing. "
Darwinists continue to struggle with the rationality of Darwinism, but believe it true despite the problems, perhaps hoping that one day someone will deal with them adequately. The overall problem is that if the Darwinists could account for everything in purely material terms, then where would non material things like truth and value fit in? Darwinism is ultimately a self refuting exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
