January 26, 2006
SCIENCE ISN'T NATURALIST (via Tom Corcoran):
When Cosmologies Collide (JUDITH SHULEVITZ, 1/22/06, NY Times)
Given what it takes to train for a career in science, you have to ask why a person would persist if naturalism didn't strike him as the best way of explaining the world. It's no accident that you find a far greater proportion of nonbelievers among American scientists - upward of 60 percent - than among Americans in general. Those who deny that they discount nonmaterialist accounts of reality may have conducted a cold-eyed scrutiny of their own assumptions, but it's equally possible that they haven't. "Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard objective triumphs of science," the philosopher Daniel Dennett has written. "But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."Could something as trivial as scientists' lack of self-awareness help explain why, nearly 150 years after Darwin, creationism in its various forms has become the most popular critique of science? [...]
[P]hilosopher of science Michael] Ruse is "an ardent Darwinian" who has testified against the inclusion of creationism in public school science curriculums. Nonetheless, he says here [The Evolution-Creation Struggle ], we must be careful about how we use the word "evolution," because it actually conveys two meanings, the science of evolution and something he calls "evolutionism." Evolutionism is the part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science. Evolutionism addresses questions of origins, the meaning of life, morality, the future and our role in it. In other words, it does all the work of a religion, but from a secular perspective. What gets billed as a war between hard science and mushy theology should rather be understood, says Ruse, as "a clash between two rival metaphysical world pictures."
Even if you accept her 60% assertion, which is dubious, isn't the salient fact that barely half of even scientists are naturalists/materialists and a majority of medical doctors disbelieve the naturalist account of evolution? The answer to her question--why would a person persist in science if naturalism didn't strike him as the best way of explaining the world?--would appear to be that naturalism is justa philosophy that isn't particularly important to the practice of science.
Unloop.
Posted by: oj at January 27, 2006 10:24 AMI thought you would quote Shulevitz' conclusion:
"In other words, evolutionism - the conviction that evolution explains life's meaning and tells us how to deal with the future - remains as powerful a cultural force as ever. But what should we do about it? ... Besides, those people may well be right. I'd suggest something else: Teach evolution in biology class and evolutionism in religion class, along with creationism, deism and all the other cosmologies that float unexamined through our lives. Religion class is just the place for a fight about religion."
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 27, 2006 11:37 AMRobert,
Shulevitz's conclusion sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. Now where is the public school science curriculum that features "evolution explain[ing] life's meaning and tell[ing] us how to deal with the future"? Any specific examples?
Posted by: creeper at January 27, 2006 3:13 PMcreeper-
In the classrooms where the social 'sciences' are taught.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct, at January 27, 2006 3:28 PMOrrin,
"A Rice University poll of 2,200 natural and social scientists found nearly 67% view themselves as "spiritual.""
--------------------
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Scientists 5% 40% 55%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Posted by: creeper at January 27, 2006 4:15 PMTom C,
If that was a flippant attempt to classify biology as a social 'science', then you'll have to back that up with an example of a biology class where these things are taught.
Otherwise, never mind of course.
Posted by: creeper at January 27, 2006 4:16 PMGenesis is evolution. Darwinism is evolutionism.
Posted by: oj at January 27, 2006 4:47 PMRobert: That argument is a common one, but the utter disingenuousness of those who say "Teach Creationism/ID in a different class" was displayed for all in the past few weeks with the case of Hemet, CA.
Posted by: b at January 27, 2006 6:26 PMcreeper-
With all due respect, I need not back anything up. Darwin, and your version of his faith leads to evolutionism or a justification for pure materialism and social engineering in all it's revolting manifestations. I am not a Darwinist. Human beings and their societies, customs, cultures and traditions cannot be understood or improved upon by a surrender to the materialistic imperatives that Darwinists would like to impose on 3000 years of organic development. There is much that science cannot explain, no matter how certain it believes it does. The origin of life being only one. I've never considered sociology a science, nor politics, economics, city planning, fiscal policy or racial and gender studies, yet they pretend to be and much of their justification comes from the world view that matter is all there is. The 'Descent of Man' is their holy book.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct, at January 27, 2006 10:22 PM