Syndicate
User login
Navigation
A defense of science, Part 2
Continued from A defense of science
I think it important to take science back to the invariable root question of cosmology, especially since this root question is at the heart of what makes science possible. Science is the process of finding out “what is the cause of the effect I am studying?” The Laws of Causation are the very foundation of our scientific methodology. If we throw away the ideal that every cause needs a sufficient effect, then we have thrown away the ability to apply the scientific discipline.
Therefore, all scientific questions lead back to the original, and greatest, of scientific questions. “How did all of this start?” What caused it? Since every indication is that the Universe began, then we must also accept the fact that it is an effect and thus needs a sufficient cause. Until we begin to apply every scientific question within the confines of that greater question, then we are hobbling the scientific method.
Since science shows us a definite point where nature began, then the cause of nature is supernatural by definition. Yet scientists seem intent on keeping the idea of the supernatural out of scientific possibilities. For instance, the design elements seen in the Universe are only apparent design, a priori. But how can an open-minded discipline make this assumption when the very foundations of our nature are supernatural by definition? How can biology claim the development of intellect as blind and unguided a priori? How can it disavow the possibility of an outside influence when (a) everything points to an outside influence that started the cosmic ball rolling in the first place and (b) the most logical conclusion would be that intellect would come from intellect?
It comes back to philosophical paradigms. It comes back to the worldviews of those who apply the methodology. Science is not the methodology of disallowing certain answers a priori. Science is not the practice of setting boundaries upon potential answers to the hard questions. In its strictest form, science is the process of making observations and finding the best answers to fit what we observe—what is apparent to us, if you will.
Empiricism is a philosophy. It is a philosophy that has been attached to science, but is not the philosophy upon which science rests. It can’t be if science points us to the supernatural, as noted above. If empirical observation points us to the knowledge of non-empirical evidences, then empiricism shows its own failure. As a matter of fact, empiricism needs no help in showing its own failure, as it can’t even live up to its own claims.
Hume stated the empirical philosophy perfectly when he defined that you can’t trust anything that is not either (a) self-evident, or (b) supported by empirical evidence. But empiricism is neither self-evident, nor is it verifiable empirically. So, empiricism fails its own test. There must be something greater to place trust in. Science ends where we lose the ability to quantify that which science points to.
Those who practice the scientific discipline should be more appropriate in what they speak of as scientists. And those who decide to lambaste the dogmatism of the religious groups should recognize their own dogmatisms in areas where empiricism has both indicated the greater truths, and where empiricism is failing them.
That was pretty long-winded, I know. And I realize that it came across as more of a meandering rant, so please forgive the format. But I wanted to put the subject to rest within my little blog-sphere here. I hope that my respect for science shines through. More so, I hope that I have finally made the proper distinctions in calling many in the scientific community to task.
Be blessed…
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
Brief points
I actually agree with much of what you post here, except of course, for your conclusion that science points to a supernatural cause. Just because we theorize a beginning to nature as we know it doesn't mean there wasn't a different kind of nature before that. That's not a big point of contention, though. I do applaud you for pointing out the dividing lines between observational science and philisophical disciplines.
I would like you to expand on this statement, though:
the most logical conclusion would be that intellect would come from intellect
I'm afraid I don't see the logic here.
It's actually very logical...
There are several ways to clarify. We could note the code in DNA as requiring an author. We could note the apparent design in our fine-tuned biological systems that allow our intelligence. We could pose the philosophical assertion that whatever caused our intelligence must have been sufficient to have caused it. In other words, is it not more likely that what caused intellect would have had it inherently to impart?
More so, in the context of the discussion, I'd like to deal with your first objection before going further. There are two points to be made about your objection to my use of the "supernatural." You claim that whatever caused our nature could have been another type of nature. But from our perspective, that statement is false by definition. Whatever caused our nature is separate from our nature. We can not experience it, so it is by definition supernatural-- above and beyond nature as we know it.
If your claim is that the "nature" that caused ours is like our nature, only preceding it, then it too would need a cause for itself. If it was/is a time-based alternate universe, then it too is an effect, and you seem willing to trade a universe designer for a universe factory designer. :) If it is not a time-based nature such as ours, then it is not natural as we define natural, and is thus supernatural by definition.
Either way, it is separate from our knowable reality and thus, by definition, supernatural. You are therefore making an appeal to the supernatural to answer these questions. As such you are verifying the need for science to look outside of natural causes, which is exactly what the empirical philosophy says can't happen.
In that philosophy, the apparent design in the universe is dismissed for no other reason than one of a priori. The apparent design in our complex bodies, systems, organs, down to the very DNA code which is the alphabet of life is dismissed for no better reason than a priori. Because a philosophy states that it must be proven otherwise.
Is this a good reason? When we already see that something outside of our natural existence caused our natural existence... When we see apparent design in this existence, from the fine-tuning of the Universe to the incredibly organized complexity which is the foundation of our DNA and thus our intellect... When we note the incredibly fortuitous nature that is, in total, our life and the Universe that supports it... Is a philosophical mandate a good reason to dismiss what we observe, and write it off as only "apparent" (i.e. apparent design)?
Perhaps it is apparent for a reason? Because it is there? If we (a) currently see the need for an outside cause for our existence, and we (b) see apparent design in our existence then (c) it seems logical to believe that an apparent designer was at work.
I can understand whatever disagreement you may have, and I respect your position. If nothing else, our exchanges should prove that there are sincere and reasonable people on both sides of these discussions.
Overall, I hope that we can agree that our differences of opinion are rooted in the collision of philosophies, and not the collision of science. If that is the case, then I am closer to stating my point in these blogs than ever before. And if I am getting closer to that endeavor, then it is in no small part a result of interaction with you, and your ability to point out where I need to clarify my thoughts. So, thank you for that.
With all that said, I hope that I clarified my use of "supernatural", and how my mind logically connects that nameless, faceless cause with a personal, intelligent Creator.
Blessings...
More clarity
OK, I won't get too caught up in the semantics of supernatural. Your broad definition of supernatural ("separate from our knowable reality") is fine with me, as long as you recognize that this definition covers lots more than just deities.
My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
Our differences are greatly philosophical, but I think there's also a gap between our acceptance of the authority of science. You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
However, I, too, appreciate the challenges you present that force me to refine my understanding.
My problem with the
My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
What suggests that? Yes, we have a vast amount of intellect in the world. Now where did it come from? We don't even have answers to the beginning of life, much less any indication of how intellect came into the mix. My point is that we can't stop mid-stream in the causes and effects. We have to go back to the original. When trying to explain the existence of intellect, you can't just point to its existence and say that it got better as it went.
And we do have a precident of intellect causing intellect. Artificial intelligence is a fast-growing field right now. True, we haven't created intellect equal to our own, but that merely indicates that a greater intelligence was at work.
You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
I can see how you would interpret it that way. And to a certain extent I agree with you. I see a lot of clergy claiming paper-mill degrees so that they can speak as scientists. But I also see scientists bringing up valid points that contradict "accepted" science. There is a difference, and I would hope that you would make the distinction.
And I'm surprised that you would tread so dangerously close to the fallacies of arguing to popularity, arguing to authority and that of the bandwagon. After arguing so well in defense of the (accepted?) scientists who use the scientific process to contradict accepted science, are you now indicating that science should just go with the masses? Or are you saying that only scientists have the authority to apply critical thinking, reasoning and intelligence to our surroundings? I don't have to be a cobbler to know if my shoes hurt my feet. :)
I think the picture you paint of these empirical statements breaks down in the details, though. The ID camp isn't making this stuff up, dogg. Even "accepted" scientists recognize and comment on the apparent design in nature. To claim that the Judeo-Christian God did it is an a priori statement. To dismiss it as only "apparent" is an a priori statement. To state that there is design apparent in nature is empirical evidence. What one does with that information is a matter of their own worldview.
I've stated my beliefs using empirical statements, but not as a scientist. I've gone to great lengths to tie the apparent design and the need for a cause. This tie between empirical statements is a large part of why I believe that a personal, intelligent God is behind this. This is not such a huge a priori jump either. This logical conclusion is why so many in the naturalist camp so strongly dislike the ideas of a first cause and intelligent design. Apparently us Christians aren't the only ones that see this conection.
Be blessed...
Do you really not see the
Do you really not see the evidence for intellect progression in nature? We have multi-cellular animals that span the range from barely more than a colony with no centralized nervous system, to mammals with complex brains, and everything in between.
Why redirect the question to one of beginning of life? There are coutless organisms with no nervous system at all. Regardless of the source of life's beginning, we certainly don't have to know that answer to study the progress of life's development.
Human-created artificial intelligence is actually nothing like biological intellect. We've tried our best to imitate it, and evolutionary algorithms display the power of selection to create, but binary electronics have a long way to go before they will perform the same jobs that nervous systems do.
Sure there are scientists that contradict accepted science, and that's the way it's supposed to work. Sometimes they're right, and accepted science changes to reflect the new knowledge. I never claimed that we should follow the masses on these questions. I merely pointed out that religious people tend to put forth arguments based on feeling (e.g., your "ludicrous" statement) yet try to claim these are empirical conclusions.
The ID folks are indeed making stuff up. I can point you to many examples. When they're called on it, they try to hide the facts in overly complex formulas and misused jargon. Why don't we see any of their work in peer-reviewed journals? Don't bother claiming a vast scientist conspiracy to keep the truth hidden--as I said, science progresses through the presentation of new ideas. It happens all the time, but crackpot ideas with no real evidence don't get very far.
Science doesn't call nature's organization "apparent design" a priori. It's simply that you can't call it actual design without evidence. Similarity to human designs might be a piece of that evidence, but that's certainly not nearly enough. Maybe human design mimicks nature's design because we are part of nature?
Do you really not see the
Do you really not see the evidence for intellect progression in nature? We have multi-cellular animals that span the range from barely more than a colony with no centralized nervous system, to mammals with complex brains, and everything in between.
No. I really don't. No more than I pull out my kitchen drawer and think that knives, spoons and forks are a progression of evolving utensils. I see variety of design to perform different tasks. I pointed you back to the beginning because that's where the answer lies. Perhaps not even the beginning of life, but definitely the beginning of intellect. Again, you can't point to intellect's existence as answer to the question of its existence.
The ID folks are indeed making stuff up. I can point you to many examples. When they're called on it, they try to hide the facts in overly complex formulas and misused jargon.
If that is the case, then it sounds familliar. Since we both agree to the seperation of science and philosophy, I won't belabor the point. Now, since we are silencing the ID scientists philososphy, shall we silence the naturalist's philosophy in science? And since the naturalist scientists are making things up, hiding it behind complex formulas, and still getting published by the scientific journals, when do I get to play the "conspiracy" card? :)
Take care and be blessed...
Sorry to double-up on you dogg...
...but I had a further comment on your question:
"Do you really not see the evidence for intellect progression in nature?"
Again, no. I don't. And neither do you. You are confusing "evidence" with the interpretation of facts. There is a big difference. Evolutionary science is one of forensics. It must interpret what is finds.
When compared to the fouding premises that it is based on, that interpretation fails. For instance, Darwin said that if the incredible complexity we see is to be explained by evolution, it must rely on an incredible amount of speciation occurring at all times. So, the fossile record should be full of transitional fossils. But it is not. It is remarkably silent there. It has failed.
Creationists are often lambasted for demanding more and more transitional proof, but we are merely echoing the founding father of natuiral selection. Current evolutionists such as Gould also note this break-down in the core tennants of classical evolution.
The fact is that the fossil record shows the sudden and intact appearance of species'. For me, that is a large indication that the premises that evolution is built on are flawed, thus my use of "ludecrous" in the other blog.
I hope this clarifies...
Wow.
I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
Knives, spoons, and forks do indeed perform different functions. Nervous systems of various complexity also perform various tasks, but all the ones we see today have been through the same amount of evolutionary time. Still, do you see that great a difference between the job of a cat's brain and a monkey's? Does one allow transportation of soup to your mouth and one carving steak?
You deflect my complaint of your deferrment to spontaneous generation to a less restrictive "beginning of intellect." Where exactly does intellect begin? I'm seriously asking that question. Where is it? Is it possessed by organisms that have cooperative behavior? How about solitary creatures that appear to learn behaviors from parents rather than rely on instinct?
Now, claiming that scientists appeal to philosophy as much as IDists appeal to science is a bit much for me to accept. Sure, you've quote-mined a few folks who support the mainstream side and make philosophic statements. However, what you haven't done is shown those philosophic statements in the peer-reviewed academic literature. The folks that do the day-to-day work of science rarely overstep the bounds of empiricism, in my experience.
By contrast, the ID folks regularly mix philosophy with their science, then complain when it isn't published. If you really are appalled by this situation and want to convince me of your argument, just show me an ID article that hasn't been published and an equivalent mainsteam academic article with comparable scholarship.
Your second response is merely more quote-mining, this time from Sr. Darwin, himself. The man lived over 100 years ago, and he wasn't a god. The information he had at his disposal is quite limited compared to what even you accept as fact today.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence. I've shown it to you before, but you continue to deny it. Gould's statements have often been misused by anti-evolutionists, but this one is unmistakable: ...paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology.
The fossil record certainly does not show sudden, intact species appearance. The best evidence for this is the difficulty in assigning species barriers. If it's so sudden and intact, I invite you to tell me if horses, mules, donkeys and zebras are all the same species? How about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and hyenas? Lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, and cougars? Last but not least, humans and chimpanzees? If you really want to show me that there is a distinct barrier of species and a special creation of intellect, tell me which fossils on the following page are ape and which are human:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
To quote the Dead Kennedys, "Where Do You Draw the Line?; I'm not telling you, I'm asking you."
I'm seriously open to new information here. Science absolutely does not have all the answers. I'm desperate for insight into greater knowledge on this subject. I'll latch on to anything you can provide, but I'm afraid my standards are pretty high in this area.
I knew the standard ID
I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
This shouldn't surprize you since I mentioned in a few places that I believe that scientific theories must in large part be filtered through these greater questions of "beginnings". The naturalist/empiricist prepositions will boil down to how they try to explain these greater questions, and they have offered no reasonable explanation for the most basic questions, such as "I think, therefore I am". Or, ex nihilo nihil fit...
If the scientific theories that rely on naturalism as their dogma defy the most basic logic and reason that we adhere to as the core of our intellect, then they should be looked on with suspicion. It boils down to the battle of a priori statements, as we have both illuded to or implicitly stated. When this is the case, we must take an honest look at the statements and see which is a more reasonable lense to interpret data through.
The naturalistic presuppositions dictate that:
(A) The cosmos came to being through the act of no outside, transcendent and (especially) intelligent cause. The need for this cause is seldom argued against these days due to the scientific observations of the last century or so. So, the bedrock of naturalist science is that either the universe sprang into existence from truly nothing, or that the universe is self-existent despite its pinpoint beginning in a singularity, or that the universe is caused by some other cause such as a mythological universe factory.
The first and second explanations defy all logic and reason. They defy every observable and logically sound thought that can be applied to them. They are a willful suppression of what we know as inherently true of the possible and impossible. The last explanation merely pushes the "cause" back a step. To explain our observations of apparent design, they all rely on absolutely unscientific "just-so" explanations.
(B) Life sprang forth by chance from a chemical concoction when base chemicals coincidentally combined into proteins that coincidentally combined into DNA that coincidentally formed a literal alphebet that carries literal information. This too relies on "just-so" theories in an effort to side-step the apparent design in the apparent information. It ignores the Principle of Uniformity that good science is based on, in that it requires conditions on Earth that we have no evidence ever existed, and which would have killed any life that may per-chance have formed in the first place. It is a process that scientists are presently trying to recreate in the lab to no avail. It is a statistical impossibility based on the actions of something that has no power whatsoever-- chance.
The naturalistic a priori statements claim repeatedly, in several contexts that nothing does something miraculous. The ID/Christian/Theist a priori statements claim that something did something, and further that Someone capable of the miraculous performed the miraculous. It is an intelectually dishonest statement that naturalists do not believe in the miraculous. The truth is that they believe in the impossibly miraculous by dismissing a sufficient cause to the miraculous that we see inherent in our life.
In this philosophical diatribe, I'll leave it up to each reader to decide which set of a priori statements seem more plausable, and more congruent with observation to earn the right as "filter" by which we screen the data.
You're applying the filter of naturalism by interpreting "evolutionary time" into the data presented. Isn't this a circular argument? Evolution is true because we see "evolutionary time". Evolutionary time happened because evolution is true. This argument is making the assertion that similarity means "kinship" and that one came from the last, which came from the previous... I am unconvinced, especially considering that it is an extension of the presupposition that nothing did something miraculous.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence.
For the record, I did not make that statement that I can recall. I sincerely do question any specimen that is offered as a transition fossil. I question the assertion because any claim for a transitional fossil is a forensic interpretation. It is jumping to the conclusion that similarity is evolution, as mentioned above. What I did do was question where all of the needed transition fossils are?
I am said to be quote-mining when I go back to the statements of the authorities that I am asked to trust. Classic Darwinism calls for a steady "stream" of transition fossils if it is true. During the long expanse of "evolutionary time" life has been steadily evolving. Therefore, we should be seeing transitional fossils all over the place. But we don't. We see a very few fossils that some interpret as transitional. Classic Darwinism is applying the "god-of-the-gaps" in its science.
Yes, Darwin lived 100 years ago. The gaps are still there. Evolution still relies on natural selection and an explanse of time with life evolving steadily, which should be producing an incredible amount of transitional evidence. The fossil record still doesn't reflect this.
That's why we have "punctuated equellibrium" on the scene now, and the intense infighting within the evolution camps. At least some of these scientists that you refer to, who have spent their lives persuing knowledge, recognize the failure in classic evolution. They recognize the bare shelves of the fossil record. And the evolution of sudden transition is a reliance on the miraculous, yet fails in the same way as mentioned above. They have robbed their miracles of that which can perform the miraculous.
That's why I don't feel such a need to break down species as you ask that I do. I'm sorry. I am not interpreting data through the "evolutionary time" constraint that you claim is apparent. I am not inferring that similarity equals descent. Just as I see apparent design in every facet of existence, I see that the design contains similarities.
Now, I know that this is not exactly the response that you had hoped for. I know that you may even see this as a cop-out. I can in all honesty say that this is not the intent. I am trying to get you to go back to the very foundations of how we should judge what we are presented, most especially on subjects of data that are beyond our ability to observe directly. Test the presuppositions that are offered you against that which you have at your disposal, dogg. Does the worldview that seeks to answer these greater questions for you stand up to scrutiny at the most basic level?
Common sense should be based on sound reason and logic. Naturalism fails miserably. Neither of us can discard or ignore the miraculous we see in life, the universe and everything else. Ask yourself what greater there is to explain it. When facing these types of data, filter it through that which gives the greatest reasonable answer to the miraculous we see in all of this.
I applaud you in your honesty. We are all desperate for the answers to the greater questions. It is sad that many or most rely solely on that which can't answer them and reject that which can.
I've said from the start of my time in this blog-site that I am not seeking to prove God. I would be sadly disappointed in my attempts if that were the case. I do, however, hope to show Him as a reasonable response to what we observe. He is. And He can be known.
I pray that you will try to, because He can't be known from without. One must stop suppressing that which is evident. And that takes a conscious decision to do so. Romans 1 states that God can be known by that which is created. In other words, existence points to Him. And it does, if one stops willfully suppressing that truth.
Again, I hope that this does not come across as cop-out laced with appeal to emotion. I've tried to explain the filter by which I judge the data which is presented as evidence. Aside from that, the emotion is genuine. It is laced with a genuine and abiding brotherly love for one whom I have come to value and respect after years of friendship. I pray without ceasing that you find the greater answers that all of humanity is desperate for.
They are there for the plucking, and they only cost you your life...
:)
God bless you, bro...
Another case of doubling up on you...
By contrast, the ID folks regularly mix philosophy with their science, then complain when it isn't published. If you really are appalled by this situation and want to convince me of your argument, just show me an ID article that hasn't been published and an equivalent mainsteam academic article with comparable scholarship.
I'll go a step further, I'll point to a current instance of the scientific bigotry. You may have read of this. Here we have a largely published scientist whose credentials are backed, but since he believes in ID he is blacklisted. You keep referring back to the need for peer review, and yet can't seem to recognize the dogmas of the "peers" that refuse to revue. You seem to have this idea that ID scientists are all a bunch of crackpots. Now, granted, there are crackpots in there. But there are legitimate scientists in the group too, and their views bring the full brunt of the majority of "accepted" scientific establishment.
Yes, I said dogma. And yes, I meant it.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/worlds_premiere_scientific_jou.html
Blessings... :)