Below is a quote from a comment made on the Intelligent Design and More site. It is in response to an article entitled, “Darwinists Discover the Experimental Method,” which exposes the somewhat slipshod manner of research that many evolutionary biologists subscribe to!
The commenter states,
This hits me close to home in a number of ways. I’ve been in academia for about twelve years now, if you include both grad school and my teaching gigs, and I’ve had a lot of up-close and personal encounters with how the university works. (No doubt I’m due for a lot more, too.)
Thing is, universities in this country are not about teaching for its own sake, and they are not about the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Universities and colleges are ‘corporatized’, where professors, lecturers, post-docs, and grad students fall into different categories of cheap, exploited labor. Under these conditions, the difference between employment and unemployment means whether one keeps on getting grants (the university always takes a cut for itself), whether one keeps on racking up publications. So difficult and time-consuming experiments take a back burner.
In other words, don’t be so hasty to blame evolutionary biologists — but take a step back and consider the system of which they are a part, the system of the corporate university. (emphasis added)
In other words, these research biologists must satisfy their corporate heads (just like any entry level peon at IBM or AT&T) with “scientific” publications whether they are accurate or not.
Is it any wonder that we have “scientific” fairy tales being sold as legitimate science in our public schools and universities? Is it any wonder that after 150 + years of Darwinism less than forty percent of the public buys into evolution? Is it time that we stopped funding bad science and its resultant false theories and hold our universities and “science” researchers accountable for their use of federally and state funded (tax payer’s) money? Is it time to stop the educational indoctrination of this kind of “science” in our children’s classrooms? I wonder?
You can read the entire article here:
via Darwinists Discover the Experimental Method | Intelligent Design and More.
Tags: Darwinism, education, evolution, material science, Truth
April 7th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
What’s amazing to me is that the Darwin crowd fights tooth-and-nail against even the strengths and weaknesses of evolution being discussed in the classroom. This is not a scientific position, it is a position of atheist dogma.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I agree totally! If the theory is so bullet-proof then why are they so protective and fearful? Scrutiny is not a good thing for anything that’s flawed!!
April 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The inference I would draw — in contrast to your “in other words” — is that there’s a very strong incentive to perform research where the results can be gathered quickly and published quickly. This does not, in any sense, imply that those results are inaccurate or the conclusions false.
We are protective of the truth and fearful of falsity, especially of falsity that masquerades as truth — and that is exactly what we take creationism to be. In other words, we see creationism much as you see evolution — as a lie that is presented as truth by self-serving authorities who wish to manipulate and control the gullible and unquestioning.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Carl wrote,
The difference being, of course, that I won’t have to explain myself to Darwin after this life, or any other mere human being, while you will have to explain your contempt for the truth to God Himself!
“In other words,” I am pleased that you consider me to be “manipulated, gullible” and a believer in a “lie!” To not be aligned with you Darwinians (”WE?” Finally you’re being honest, Carl), in this disgusting age, is a great blessing from God! Thank you, Carl, for the compliment!!
April 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
You’re quite welcome, DB.
As for my attitudes towards Darwinism, I perhaps understand it differently than you do. The dogmatic formulation is that all evolutionary change (whether “macroevolutionary” or “microevolutionary”) is sufficiently explained in terms of random mutations and natural selection. I have no reason to believe this is false, but I have some reasons to think it is inadequate. It neglects, for example, the all-important question as to how mutations impact morphogenesis. This formulation also tends to focus, as Darwin himself did, on intra-populational competition for scarce resources, at the expense of a more holistic and fine-grained theory of ecosystems. So if I were pressed for a dogmatic formulation of my own as to what evolution is, I would say that evolution is the influence of ecology on development.
I regard it as the best scientific theory we have thus far, but I would not be surprised if it is superseded within my lifetime. It offers very good explanations for certain questions, but there are too many good questions that it cannot answer. However, I would astonished if Darwinism were not a component within a larger, more comprehensive theory — just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of general relativity.
I should say, at pains of excessive clarification, that unlike you, I do make a distinction between theism and creationism, and so I do think that creationism is false — indeed, obviously false, so obviously false that only someone with utter contempt for science could be a creationist — and yet I have no complaints at all against someone who affirms theism — even though I am not at all a theist, and my reasons for being an atheist have nothing to do with my reasons for being a Darwinist.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Carl, you have made the claim before that you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Have you evolved since you made this claim on the Shrink’s site, or are you uncertain of your unbelief status?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
This is amusing. I wonder if Carl is referring to “Young Earth Creationism”, or simply that material existence has no personal creator?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Mike said,
Who knows, I don’t!
April 10th, 2009 at 8:56 am
In order to call something false, you must believe in some kind of truth. I’m glad he’s finally making some kind of sense in that regard. And actually it is not necessary to have utter contempt for science to be a creationist. It’s only necessary to recognize that the metaphysical worldviews of scientists colors how they will interpret the same set of facts. Science is an abstract concept. Scientists are biased human beings. That’s not to say that good science cannot be done. We just don’t consider narratives of the imagination to be good science.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, etc. are of little, if any interest to me. In fact, I’m really a religious naturalist, if that helps at all.
I was referring to Young-Earth (and Old-Earth) Creationism. I don’t think there’s any evidence available for determining whether or not “material existence has a personal creator”, and in fact, I’m somewhat puzzled by the appearance of ‘material’ in the phrase.
I think that this move towards presuppositionalism won’t work, because there are still questions to be raised as which presuppositions are more rational. For a working scientist, what function for her as presuppositions are often what appeared to her predecessors as controversial claims for which evidence was required. And what appears to the scientists today as questions that need answering, will very likely appear to those who come after us (if anyone does come after us) as presuppositions which can be relied upon for posing new questions.
Now, there are presuppositions that run deeper in the heart of the scientific enterprise — such as the presupposition that human beings can discover some things about the world us through experimentation, observation, and testable inference.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well Mike, I guess Carl’s “personal creator” is nature (mother earth etc etc).
I guess, Carl, this explains your vehemence about animal rights etc? Do you worship any particular flora or fauna, or am I blaspheming for asking?
April 10th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Carl,
You’re welcome to comment here as often as you like. I, however, will no longer be responding to your comments and for reasons that would mean little or nothing to you. Just wanted to let you know.
Also, this goes for the Shrink’s site and any other also! Don’t feel the need to respond to this, it’s not necessary!
Take care!
April 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
DB, We are nothing but lab rats to Carl. He doesn’t believe he has a soul, so his definition of “truth” is worth nothing more than the brain molecules it is imprinted on. He knows this, and that doesn’t bother him in the least. He contributes here in order to get a thrill of some sort, I imagine. Perhaps a particular rush of synapse firings in order to keep his brain in good working order. I, in turn, get good finger dexterity exercise in responding to him, which in Carl’s terms is just as valid a reason for coming here. Long Live Man, O Great and Wonderful Piece of Meat!
April 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Mike,
I hear you, and I know!
I just posted a new piece that deals with this very subject!
April 16th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Carl, I changed servers and I had to copy and paste Mike’s last comment to you. Here it is:
I can’t say I understand what you mean by “rule-governed” behavior – ie: if that means “thought-governed” or something else? Even so, your premise only holds as long as we are still in the biological realm. For instance, we know that it’s possible to probe someone’s brain with a phallus and make their right arm raise. But that person will say to the doctor “you did that, not me!”.
Neither do I. I said that it doesn’t actually exist – not that it is true or false. Just as a political view doesn’t actually exist as a metaphysical entity in itself, but is rather a picking and choosing of subjective preferences that just happen to fall in line with lots of other people’s choices (to the extent it can be systemic).
Naturalism by itself I can understand as a metaphysical statment of truth. But then the “religious” aspects are rendered meaningless by that very commitment to naturalism. Self-expression, artistry, spirituality, social relations etc, have no rational basis for being embraced other than “we evolved in a way that we give those things value”. But that explanation completely devoids of value everything implied and exemplified by self-expression, artistry, spirituality, social relations (such as a love between parent and child) etc… because it could just as easily have not been the case that we evolved that way.
Your definition is simply more inclusive, but it amounts to the same thing, which is nothing. Again, you are confusing facts with truth. If it can be observed in every person who ever lived that ‘parents always love their children’. Then you can say it is factually and objectively true. As a commited Darwinist you might spin off a few theories of the biological process that causes it. But if I ask you, “So what? What does that fact mean? What does it tell you?”, you cannot answer. All you can say is “It means nothing – we just evolved that way”.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:04 am
…except Carl’s original comment is now gone…
BTW: By “phallus” I meant a metal stick of some sort (sorry, I don’t know the precise medical term!!) Bad choice of word!
Also, my last sentence can be amended to:
All you can say is “It means nothing – we just evolved that way”. Or “It means whatever anybody wants it to mean”.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Sorry, Mike and Carl, some posts were lost and some comments also because of the switchover to a new server.
I’m sure no one took offense to the word, phallus! I think we knew what you meant!
April 19th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
By ‘rule-governed,’ I was drawing attention to a peculiar feature of our lives: that we are, and regard ourselves as, governed by rules which prescribe what we ought to do and how we ought to think. Not only ethics, but also logic and epistemology, are fundamentally normative. That’s why we’re able to talk about whether a certain line of thought is rational or irrational, or whether a certain action is moral or immoral.
And you’re quite right, Mike, to see that there’s some deep connection between normativity, agency, and responsibility. Only if our thoughts and actions are governed by rules, does it make any sense for us to be responsible for those thoughts and actions. And to be responsible is to be an agent.
The real issue which is at stake between us, I think, is whether or not the normative dimension of human existence is consistent with regarding human beings as no more than a part of the natural world. And I want to be quite insistent on this point, because so much depends on it — including whether or not we’re able to have a mutually enriching and productive conversation.
For it is no part of my view that the normative is unreal, illusory, non-existent, etc. (You assert that this is Dawkins’ view; I disagree, but I don’t wish to get bogged down in the unhelpful exercise of Dawkins interpretation.) Again, it is important to proceed slowly! For it seems to me that your view comes down to the following:
1) The normative dimension of human existence cannot be reconciled with a naturalistic view.
2) Therefore, if the natural encompasses all of reality, then the normative is unreal;
3) Conversely, the reality of normativity requires acknowledging the reality of the non-, trans-, or super-natural.
I think that this argument is valid, and eminently reasonable. But my view is not captured by (2) because I reject (1). That is what I was trying to express in the post which was deleted when DB switched servers.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I just wanted to apologize again for the lost comment!
April 20th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Yes, You’ve made it very clear that that is your position not just here, but all over Shrink’s blog.
And in my view, “normativity”, when looked at logically and rationally (and I’m able to presuppose those based on theism, while you are not able to point to anything – aside from hypothetical goo – that allows that presupposition), clearly lends more evidence that 1) is true, rather than false.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am
(and I’m able to presuppose those based on theism, while you are not able to point to anything – aside from hypothetical goo – that allows that presupposition)
ie: Otherwise you end up trying to authenticate “normativity” by using normative means (like logic and reason). Which is circular.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
No worries, DB. These things happen.
Mike, you and I stand on the possibility of having a genuine dialogue rather than a mere debate. I think we understand each other well enough for this to happen, if you’re interested.
This is how I would like to describe the situation: it seems to me that you see normativity — the logical rules that govern thought, the ethical rules that govern action — as standing in need of some “authentication” or “presupposition.” I find this really very interesting! And I want to proceed with some care and delicacy. For I’m not yet sure what questions I want to ask of you!
But to proceed, blindly as it were, not knowing how to ask, I will ask, “what is this, this thought of yours, that normativity must be authenticated?” What sort of authentication does normativity require? Why does normativity require any authentication at all? What is missing from our picture of human life if normativity is not authenticated, or not authenticated properly? And how do we know what authentication, or proper authentication, looks like?
I hope you don’t feel I’m being disingenuous in asking these questions; I’m not. Of course I’m sufficiently well versed in the Judeo-Christian tradition to know, at an intellectual level, the shape of the thought here: that our normative practices lose something of their authority, or all of their authority, if that authority is not grounded in something other than, perhaps ‘deeper than’, ourselves. That in the absence of such grounding, there is not merely relativism or subjectivism, but something worse: nihilism.
But, to slow down — I suppose I’d first want to know if this picture is one in which you can find something of yourself — the picture being that if normativity is not grounded in something deeper or other than ourselves — that is, if it is not authorized by God’s wisdom and purposes — then there’s nothing which stands between us and “nihilism”. And secondly, I’d want to know more about what it is to feel so intensely this anxiety (or nausea? contempt?) about nihilism.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Carl, I don’t know if this answers any of your questions, but it’s all I can come up with at the moment:
Consider that within the range of Normative human thought and action, there will always be a Horizontal and a Vertical axis.
The Horizontal axis represents man’s relation to man. Maybe on one end (the left?) we have liberalism and on the other (right) we have conservatism. Or revolution vs. establishment, or atheism vs. theism, or any number of philosophical, political, social or religious “worldly stuff” that people get mixed up in.
The Vertical axis represents man’s relation to God, and unlike the Horizontal, it only exists on an individual level, never in terms of group entities (like “relativists” or “conservatives” or “nihilists”). On one end (the top, I guess
we have God’s character, on the other (bottom) we have man’s (my) character. However, my words, thoughts and deeds can never possibly approach God’s character, so God sends Jesus as a mediator to meet me wherever it is on that axis I happen to be (no matter how low!) . Thus I am “normalized” or “reconciled” with God via Jesus.
The key then is what mediates the Horizontal? I as a Christian, taking a lesson from the Vertical, have been shown to meet my neighbor where he is – no matter how left or right (or what “-isms” he subscribes to) he may be on that Horizontal. Thus, the relationship between my neighbor and me can be “normalized” or “reconciled” (assuming my neighbor allows me to enter, of course).
So Mike tries to meet Carl where Carl is, and point out a few observations, and vice-versa. There is lots of “worldly stuff” we don’t agree on. But what God is looking at is if the relationship is “normalized/reconciled” or not, – not who is correct on any of the “worldly stuff”, but what each participant has done in mediating the relationship.
Thus we get back to the point: The Horizontal is mediated by applying norms (or more specifically, means) of the Vertical (or more specifically, of Jesus Christ). I come to my neighbor out of Love, Compassion, Forgiveness etc.. (the normative means of Jesus), rather than Self-Righteousness, Accusation, Power etc.. (the normative means of men).
So, as a Christian, I look to what God in Jesus Christ has done. That gives me the normative means by which to mediate my relationship between myself and others. I say that those means can be called Good, because they reflect God’s character. They are “authenticated” by Jesus (who Himself was authenticated by His resurrection).
April 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Mike,
Thank you for responding in the spirit I’d hoped for! You make two distinctions here, one of which seems to be dependent on the other, and I suppose my response is to wonder how far these distinctions may be distinguished.
I came to this distinction by way of Martin Buber, who puts it in terms of two different kinds of relationship: the I-You relationship (love, compassion, forgiveness, reciprocity) and the I-It relationship (egotism, domination, manipulation, etc.) And I’m completely willing to agree with you that ethical life is the life of the I-You.
It makes sense to me that, given the presupposition of theism, the I-You/I-It distinction is based on a distinction between the vertical and the horizontal. In fact, I think that this is a very good way of articulating what it means to presuppose theism! (Perhaps ‘theism’ is not the best term — since ‘theism’ is a philosophical term of art, and it might not capture the sense of a personal relation with God mediated through the person of Jesus Christ.)
What I was trying to express earlier was my thought that, from my perspective, the I-You and the I-It are both aspects of the merely human condition — that they are both “horizontal,” if you will. And I was wondering if it is part of your thought that an I-You that is merely horizontal, without anything vertical to it, is not an I-You relation that’s worth having.
I should add that I’m quite aware that, given the presuppositions of Christianity, it is our fallen state which stands in the way of our overcoming egotism (I-it) under our own power. I recognize that from a Christian perspective, it is a symptom of arrogance, of hubris, for one to believe that one can overcome one’s natural (fallen) egotism all by oneself. (So that even to believe that one can overcome egotism all by oneself is itself a symptom of egotism?)
April 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Carl, I think I would understand better if you restrained from bringing even more terminology into the discussion, and perhaps phrased things in terms of what’s been said
But, as far as I can answer: Yes, of course all the ethics (I-You & I-It) are part of the human condition. (”Merely” is a term I will stay away from, because of what I previously said about certain ethics/means being reflective of God’s character – ie: if God is Love, then Love is not ‘merely’ human!).
But what you are missing is that there is a direction implied by the judging and application of these means/ethics. That direction is toward the Kingdom of God! That is why you hear so many theologians speak of the “Here and Not Yet”, or the “Present but Hidden”. So, the whole of humanity is also on the vertical axis, because man is unable to perfectly apply the “God-sanctioned” I-You means/ethics. That is his problem (as you note below). So we have faith that all will be made right in the end, that’s all. Now, it can be argued theologically that the whole differs significantly from the individual on the vertical axis in terms of the normative means God uses to reconcile us! For instance: wrath, punishment, judgment etc… play a bigger role here perhaps. These are part of God’s character too. But who knows… I really don’t care much for eschatology these days anymore to tell you the truth. It’s all interesting and fascinating for sure, but I don’t dare to think I have any answers on that. And some of my strongest held “suspicions” are probably minority views amongst most Christians.
I tend to leave that stuff up to theologians, who like to say such elegant things about the spirit that nobody can actually figure out how they really work, let alone apply!