LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  April 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE April 2005

Subject:

Re: Scientists victims of their own bad education

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:12:38 +1300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (137 lines)

        John Landon's essential point below, if I've discerned it from so
many words, looks OK to me  -  as far as it goes.  I agree (neo)Darwinism
does not go far towards explaining evolution.
        The tiny point asserted by IDT is not wrong  -  it's just Paley
1802, as brought up to date by Broom (1998)  -  but the IDT movement is
very odd in staying stuck on this point, as if they have to wait around
harping on just this one little point until such radically unreasonable
atheists as Dawkins and Steve Jones concede it.
        IDT has detectable links to fanatical fundamentalism  -  thru the
"Discovery Institute" of Seattle, and thru the heated polemicist Philip
Johnson (emeritus law prof, Berkeley).
        One under-rated fault of IDT is its refusal to acknowledge the main
writers of the recent past.  Wm Temple, Sir Alister Hardy, John Morton, &
Rupert Sheldrake have woven Paley's point into coherent philosophy of
evolution whereas main IDTer Dembski fails to refer to any of these
scholars.  His writing would look scholarly to many uninformed observers,
but he departs drastically from normal standards of scholarly building on
what has gone before.

        If it is agreed that the way fw from the current log-jam is thru
philosophy, it will not be of much immediate help to flash the names of
philosophers whose original works are notoriously difficult to read.  I
have found that those who've earned big badges in philosophy usually desire
their subject to be arcane, genuinely hard to understand, requiring many
years to grasp.  Well, my closest friend all thru high-school and much of
university moved from science into philosophy, so I have some glimpses of
what he went into.  After 3 decade he moved out of it, saying "I realised I
was surrounded by people who just wanted to be arguing  -  as long as it
wasn't about anything important".  Even if (as I tentatively espy) that
nerdish evasiveness is becoming less current, I fear actual philosophers
are not gearing up very effectively to confront IDT.   Us amateurs to the
rescue!
        I contend that the main answer to both fundamentalisms  -
Creationism® and Dawkins/Jonesism  -  is to insist on all 4 Causes as
defined by Aristotle and significantly updated for the age of science by
John Morton which I précis:

>       What are the causes of the bottle of claret I'm now decanting?
>       The *material* cause includes the grape juice and the yeast,
>materials transformed by the efficient cause into this peculiar substance
>claret.
        The *efficient* cause, as in Aristotle's prototypical example 'the
making of a statue', is the action of the yeast on the grape sugars and
some minor components, a process resulting in aqueous ethanol and some
minor chemicals characteristic of claret.
>       But my bottle of claret has also a *final* cause: a person (named
>Babich) willed to organise suitable vessels & conditions for the
>substances which are the material cause, and planned a sequence of
>operations, for the purpose of making claret by maximising the likelihood
>that the efficient cause for claret would operate i.e. the particular
>biochemical action of the yeast on the grape juice leading to claret.
>       Aristotle's *formal* cause is in this example the 'claret idea' in
>Babich's mind.

All of those 4 causes are needed to explain the bottle of claret.  A bottle
of claret cannot come into existence without all 4.  Similarly, to explain
the bacterial flagellum, let alone the evolutionary development of
ecological order, will take more than the two first-mentioned causes which
are all that are alluded to by Dawkins, Jones, S Weinberg, L Wolpert, and
other aggressive atheists claiming  -  in one of the biggest con-tricks of
all intellectual history  -  that Darwin obviated final and formal cause.


An additional mode of attack on the current logjam is reading lists for the
seriously interested.  Here's mine on philosophy of evolution:-

Broom, N. 1998. How Blind is The Watchmaker?  Aldershot: Ashgate ; rev edn
IVP 2001.

Gilson, E. 1984. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.   U. Notre Dame
Press (trans J Lyon from Fr edn 1971).

Hardy,  A.  1965. The Living Stream.  London: Collins.

Morton, J.  1972.  Man, Science and God.    Auckland & London: Collins.

Sheldrake, R. 1990.  The Rebirth of Nature.  London: Century.

Temple, W. 1934 . Nature, Man and God [Gifford Lectures].  Macmillan.



> Doesn't  everyone know yet that Darwinism is a flawed theory?

        Obviously, John, they don't.  Telling them will entail not merely
flashing names like Kant but also expounding, in simple ways not generated
by any of your big-name philosophers, their main ideas relevant to
evolution.  Can you not get any inspiration from Morton's accessible
summary?  Can you build on that?  Sock us a drop o' the old Kant, then.
Give us a simple paraphrase of his main point against the Argument to
Design.  (I adopt Flew's name, in preference to the old 'Argument from
Design'; I reject your novel 'Argument by Design'.)


> Science has become a victim  of its own propaganda, and the sheer inertia
>of those incorrectly educated has  made change very difficult.  The
>nemesis of an equal and opposite propaganda  force, and the conservative
>thinktank dollars, is the paltry substitute for the  reasoned critiques of
>many scientists, all of whom have been silenced by their  inability to
>make themselves heard.
>    The refusal or inability of trained biologists, scientists, and
>teachers to  deal with the real history of their own subject is nothing
>less than a scandal.  This has produced a tremendous problem in the
>paradigmatic rigidity of their  position.  Scientists seem unaware of the
>weakness of their sceintific postures  on evolution, and react with
>aggressive indignation to defend error.  And their  opponents, having read
>all the scientific critiques buried in the stacks of  research libraries
>where students never see them, end up better informed than  the science
>public.
>   The result is that Darwinists are trained to defend  propaganda talking
>points, which aren't science, and seem bewildered by their  critics, at
>least the ID critics who tend to be more sophisticated than the  earlier
>waves of Creationists.  Informal surveys show this writer than most
>students of science are unaware of, shall we say, the Kantian critiques of
>design arguments.  Defending a position against design requires care not
>to  provoke metaphysics in reverse, and most students here are simply
>incapable of  dealing with the issue. Instead students are fed the false
>notions that Darwin's  natural selection forever refuted design.  The
>misleading character of that claim is going to prove the tombstone of
>science education if the estabishment here  doesn't do some homework.
> Thus the constant suggestion by science  figures that all is well in the
>biology realm and that somehow these dastardly  creationists are dealing
>in pseudo-science is true enough, but  beside the point.  They need to set
>their own house in order, and train their  students to think critically on
>the subject of evolution, with something better  that the watered down
>parodies of philosophy and science methodology now  current.  The
>alternative is the new pseudo-paradigm of a figure such as Dembski  where
>intelligent criticism and religious pleading have hopelessly entangled the
>clarity of discussion in a new brand of sophistry.
>The moment scientists  confront the limits of Darwinism the obsessive
>quality of the Darwin defense  syndrome might fall away toward a more
>intelligent appraisal of the limits of  current theory, and this would
>rapidly take the wind out of the sails of those  who wish to exploit the
>failure of science to indulge in self-criticism.
>
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager