CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
cjbaldw, your post is a perfect example of how the religious right approaches this topic. It is a political issue pure and simple. All this mumbo jumbo about scientific priesthoods and cultural influence and some kind of implied conspiracy in the scientific communityâ?¦all of it is the fabrication of the religious right and all of it is basically crap.
Nice try, but it's not going to work. Who are the most respected scientists in the field currently in respect to evolution? Stephen Jay Gould is one, and in his own analysis while he is an avid supporter of evolution, has written many articles analyzing the fossil record and is basically in agreement that there are serious holes in the theory of evolution as Darwin originally theorized that cannot be explained by what the fossil record is telling us. Gould has his own set of theories to fill in the gaps so to speak, and my guess is that eventually a newer theory will replace Darwin's theory, however in order for this to happen, we need people willing to stand up and state that the original theory of evolution according to empirical evidence simply doesn't add up.
Quote:
Scientists do not see evolution in those terms. Scientists see evolution as simply the best internally consistent explanation for the richness of life that we see on this planet.
Not all scientists agree with you. The few that are brave enough to stand up to the scientific naturalist establishment are generally chastized and oftentimes disgraced and forced out of their chosen profession. Do your homework and you'll see several instances where this occurred. Fabrication? Sure. Thankfully, there have been some recent (within the last decade) conferences within the scientific community that have prompted honest discussion about what I'm talking about here. Micheal Ruse debated Phillip Johnson in 1992 following Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial", and Phillip Johnson in fact was arguing (as he does in his book) that naturalistic metaphysics upon which Darwinism is based (and there is no argument on this in the scientific community BTW) is NOT compatible with any meaningful theism, whereas Micheal Ruse (author of Darwinism Defended and a well known advocate and study of Darwinism) took the position that certain kinds of theism can be reconciled with the theory of evolution. Funny that you've got the guy who is in opposition to scientific naturalism arguing that theism's got no place, whereas you've got the evolutionist arguing otherwise? In any case, apparently this debate had a major impact on Ruse, because in February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a conference at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The conference was organized by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a privately funded group dedicated to protecting science education from the menace of creationism. This group in practice openly admits that it's primary mission is to produce materials aimed at mounting rhetorical attacks on anyone who questions naturalistic evolution. Conspiracy theory? Sure. Check the facts for yourself. The usual NCSE line is that all critics of naturalism are either overt or covert Biblical literalists, and so it was a real step forward for Ruse and in reality for the group to ask Ruse to speak on a topic labeled: Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. It is worth noting that your reaction was much like I just described here - which BTW never even attempted to deal with my post based upon the merits - you merely attempted smear tactics by labeling my post as zealotry motivated by some hidden religious motivating factors which don't exist. Deal with the merits, I'm still waiting.
To continue, Ruse changed his usual Johnson-bashing after a few minutes, and engaged in some profound public soul-searching. He reported that he actually found Johnson and the other participants to be very likeable people, and he thought the discussions held had been quite constructive. Mainly they had talked about metaphysics and Johnson's position that naturalistic metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience, "In the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas (background - Ruse was a critical part of the case in Arkansas regarding evolution versus creationism in schools), I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Although Ruse is still very much an evolutionist, he publicly acknowledges "that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of laww - but I think that in all honesty that we should recognize." The audience greeted his remarks with stunned silence, indicating that they sensed the possible political and cultural consequences of making such a statement. Arthur Shapiro, in response to this lecture, wrote an article in the next issue of NCSE Reports entitled, "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?"
Johnson's goal is to one day soon convene a conference of leading scientists and philosophers for further discussion of the ideological assumptions that influential scientists are determined to impose not only within their own disciplines, but through public education upon the culture at large. BTW, in Shapiro's text in his response to Ruse's admittance, he publicly admitted, "Of course there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science."
So, it appears that while you may feel this is all conspiracy, fabrication, and crap, those at the top of the evolutionist field are starting to at least realize the depth of the ideological philosophy (bad philosophy even?) that may exist within the scientific community specific to scientific naturalism, and are starting to take steps to explore whether or not this is the case. I say, here here, the sooner the better.
Quote:
Youâ??re right that the scientific community does have an immense cultural influence on society. It gained and maintains that influence by faithfully applying the scientific method and the incredible benefits that it brings to our society. There is nothing mysterious or hidden about science â??? it is totally open and available to anyone with a willingness to learn.
That's why NCSE type orgs exist right? Don't confuse good science (original theory of evolution) with philosophy (scientific naturalism and neo-Darwinism).
Quote:
In any event, the real issue here is not science, or the definition of science or anything along that line. The real issue is the threat to the churchâ??s power and influence posed by a method of describing the world that basically says, â??question everything.â? How dare scientists explore the nature and origin of life! â??? these are topics that only the priesthood has the right to address. This is too important a topic to be explored outside of religion, and besides, we already know the answer! Our holy book lays it all out!
BS, and a typical smokescreen not to deal with the issues on the merits. Nice try though, I'm not buying it.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 09/06/05 02:36 PM.
|
