Wednesday, December 21, 2011

How Science Committed Suicide

    In his book Why Evolution Is True, Professor Jerry A. Coyne begins by discussing a court case that involved the teaching of evolution in a public school. The school board of the Dover (PA) Area School District had adopted a simple statement to be read by high school biology teachers to their classes which said, in effect, that evolution is a theory and that Intelligent Design is an alternative explanation as to how life began. Some parents protested, and the matter eventually went to a federal court. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious belief and therefore could not be presented in a public school classroom.

    Professor Coyne's comment on the case is that the decision was "a splendid victory for American schoolchildren, for evolution, and, indeed, for science itself" (p. xiii). He then goes on to say that the battle for evolution "is a part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition. What is at stake is nothing less than science itself and all the benefits it offers society."

    But was the court's decision really a triumph for rationality? Frankly, it is hard to see how squelching debate and withholding information from students furthers the spirit of free inquiry. But beyond that, it can be shown that, ironically, the theory of evolution itself leads ultimately to irrationalism.

    To understand why, one must go back to the situation that existed before 1859, when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. It was widely believed then that the world was created by God and that therefore it had a rational structure and order. This viewpoint was ably stated by an English theologian and philosopher named William Paley, who argued that the marvelous adaptation of living things to their environment was evidence that they were designed by an Intelligent Being. Nature obviously has a Designer.

    According to Prof. Coyne, it was Darwin's great achievement to demolish Paley's argument by showing that the appearance of design in nature was really the result of natural selection. ". . .the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science" (p. 3).

    To understand the impact that Darwinism has had on Western culture it must be noted that not only had Darwin gotten rid of the Designer, he had gotten rid of the design itself. But then what kind of world do we live in? Prof. Coyne tells us: "The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time" (p. 224).

    But if that is the literal truth of who we are and how we got here, doesn't that mean that our lives are essentially meaningless and purposeless? Prof. Coyne does not exactly deny this, but does make what is apparently intended to be a helpful suggestion: "And although evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way, that doesn't mean that our lives have no purpose. Whether through religious or secular thought, we make our own purposes, meaning, and morality" (p. 231).

    This last statement is worth weighing carefully, for it gives us the key to understanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in Western culture over the past century and a half. In Prof. Coyne's view, purpose, meaning, and morality have no basis in objective reality. Rather, they are artificial and man-made. To put it crudely, we make them up as we go along. And therein lies the whole problem. For if they are essentially artificial and man-made, then they carry no real weight or authority, and frankly, people are free to ignore them as they please. To a militant secularist like Prof. Coyne this may seem tremendously liberating. But it means that there are no absolute standards of right or wrong, and consequently no such thing as justice or human rights. All we are left with, in effect, is the law of the jungle, a world full of organisms competing for scarce resources, governed by the blind forces of nature, and locked in a struggle for survival.

    But what then becomes of science? If there is no such thing as Intelligent Design, if the only intelligence is human intelligence, then rationality exists only in the human mind. When the scientist seeks to interpret the facts and make generalizations, he is imposing structure and meaning on a reality that does not possess these qualities in itself. Even the very concept of a "species" becomes suspect in a world where everything is changing and in a state of transition. How then can any generalization, any theory, be valid? Prof. Coyne (and his master Charles Darwin) have left the door open for Post-Modernism's radical critique of science.

    Nor is this scenario the idle speculation of a desperate creationist. This has been the actual course of Western philosophy since the time of Darwin. Virtually the whole story of philosophy since that time has been the attempt to do exactly as Prof. Coyne has suggested: make our own purpose, meaning, and morality. Post-Modernism has simply taken his suggestion to its logical conclusion: all truth and rationality are artificial. The theory of evolution itself is just one more "metanarrative," and deserves no more respect than any other.

    In the final analysis there is no objective rationality apart from God. Science can function only because it works in a structured cosmos created by an Intelligent Being, and because scientists themselves were created in God's image and therefore have the ability to think and reason. To reject God is to commit intellectual suicide. Ironically, Darwin the scientist destroyed the basis for science.

    Christianity was the basis of a civilization. It held that there is a rational order to the cosmos, put there by an intelligent Supreme Being. Morality originates in the mind of God and is binding on all human beings. Justice and human rights are real qualities and are worth pursuing and protecting. Christianity motivated a multitude of social reformers to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal; making the world a better place in which to live. It inspired some of the greatest works of art and literature in human history – the music of Bach and Handel, the paintings of Rembrandt, the poetry of Milton. And what does atheism have to offer? A meaningless existence followed by the cold grave.

13 comments:

  1. I see you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

    This post is so full of intentional and gross misrepresentations and nonsense that it is hard to even begin to comment. For example, in your first paragraph you make several. The 'simple statement' you mention was no such thing; it was a four paragraph inaccurate description of evolution that presented ID - and the text book Of Pandas and People (a textbook that demonstrably altered its original 'creation proponents' to 'Intelligent Design proponents') - to be considered an equivalent 'scientific theory'. Through the course of the Dover trial, the evidence was presented showing that ID is not a) science, b) a scientific theory, and c) creationist theology. In case you missed the memo, it is actually illegal in the US (and Pennsylvania) to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.) Intelligent Design is as legitimate an alternative explanation to evolutionary theory as stork delivery is for human reproduction. But I don't see proponents of Stork Theory trying to insert it into the biology textbooks because - like ID - they have no 'science' to back it up. That's why Judge Jones - a conservative judge appointed by Bush - found no evidence to support its inclusion nor any scientific justification AT ALL to allow it to be included in a theological preamble or creationist textbook for a science class.

    Why is is so arduous for you to present information without such theologically militant bias?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, c) should read that ID IS in every comparable sense to science creationist theology.

    And I mention the word militant because it's a common and completely unjustified smear against the character of gnu atheists who dare criticize religious belief in the public domain. In every other sense of the word, militant suggests combat as in warfare. This word is completely inappropriate to use to describe someone like Coyne willing (and demonstrably so) to engage in calm and reasoned debate. That you neither like nor grasp the power of his argument to explain why evolution is true does not mean that he is militant; if anything it reveals how you characterize those with whom you disagree. And I don't think this tendency to smear is very flattering to someone representing the point of view that their morality comes from a divine source.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the final analysis there is no objective rationality apart from Krishna. Science can function only because it works in a structured cosmos created by an Intelligent Being, and because scientists themselves were created in Krishna's image and therefore have the ability to think and reason. To reject Krishna is to commit intellectual suicide. Ironically, Darwin the scientist destroyed the basis for science.

    Hinduism was the basis of a civilization. It held that there is a rational order to the cosmos, put there by an intelligent Supreme Being. Morality originates in the mind of Vishnu and Brahma and is binding on all human beings. Justice and human rights are real qualities and are worth pursuing and protecting. Hinduism motivated a multitude of social reformers to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal; making the world a better place in which to live. It inspired some of the greatest works of art and literature in human history – the music of Kirtan Bhajan, the paintings of alekhya and viseshakacchedya, the poetry of Bhagavad Gita. And what does atheism have to offer? A meaningless existence followed by the cold grave.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You apparently don't know much about Hinduism. Hinduism is polytheistic. In a polytheistic worldview there is no one god who is the ultimate reality, and thus there is no basis for rationality. That is why modern science did not originate in India. Your comment illustrates the whole point exactly. What is true of Christianity is manifestly not true of Hinduism. When you change the labels suddenly the statement makes no sense. Thank you for your demonstration of the point!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is the full text of the Dover statement:

    "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
    "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
    "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involved.
    "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
    (Memorandum Opinion, pp 1,2)
    The explanation of a "scientific theory" in the second paragraph is substantially the same as Jerry Coyne's on pages 15-17 of Why Evolution Is True.
    Nowhere does the statement describe ID as a "scientific theory," it does not say that ID is necessarily true, and it does not require anyone to read about it if they don't care to.
    The basic thrust of Judge Jones' opinion, then, is that the mere existence of dissent to Darwinism cannot be mentioned in a public school classroom, because most dissent is religiously based. I hardly call that education! (It is a major reason I never sent my children to a public school).

    ReplyDelete
  6. As for Hinduism and social reform, it was a Christian missionary, William Carey, who pushed for the abolition of suttee, and Gandhi openly acknowledged his indebtedness to both the New Testament and the writings of Tolstoy. Once again, the statement was basically true in its original form, and basically false in its inverted form. That tells you that there is a critical difference between Christianity and Hinduism,unless you are prepared to say that widow-burning and the caste system are matters of indifference.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The explanation of a "scientific theory" in the second paragraph is substantially the same as Jerry Coyne's on pages 15-17 of Why Evolution Is True.

    Bob, there you go again, misrepresenting Coyne. Please check your source:

    "We can say, then, that evolution was a theory (albeit a strongly supported one) when first proposed by Darwin, and since 1859 has graduated to "facthood" as more and more supporting evidence has piled up. Evolution is still called a "theory," just like the theory of gravity, but it's a theory that is also a fact."

    What we witnessed in Dover - and continues to be done throughout public education - is what is called stealth creationism, meaning representing ID in the science classroom as some form of legitimate and alternative science. It's not. Intelligent Design is god-soaked religious belief without any evidence from reality to back it up. It is not testable or falsifiable. It is not predictive. It is simply and only a theological position that god created stuff based on absolutely nothing from reality that shows us this is a reasonable opinion. It's not reasonable at all in the face of mountains of evidence showing change by natural selection. There is nothing about Intelligent Design that should be included in a SCIENCE classroom for it is completely bereft of any scientific validity. This is why Jones ruled against this statement being delivered in a SCIENCE classroom when it is clearly not science but religious belief. It's equivalent to atheists insisting that a warning sticker be placed on every bible that the content is open to debate, while a statement must be read to every church gathering that what you're about to hear is not necessarily true, that it is unreasonable, irrational, delusional poppycock and to keep in mind that alternative philosophical works are available in the church library paid for by the congregation. Now let us pray.... It's just silly.

    Darwin's theory has been subject to dissent from the get go. That's why it's a scientific theory: it has successfully met every single challenge to it over more than 150 years. If any religious person wants to argue the merit of that evidence, then by all means: challenge the evidence and get to work. But don't try to evade this task by sneaking religious belief into the SCIENCE classroom and call it "an explanation of the origin of life." Godidit may work as an explanation for you, but it ain't no science and offers us zero explanation in scientific terminology! Pretending it does is lying.

    And would please stop calling a science classroom a "public school classroom." There are lots of discussions in public school classrooms about all kinds of religious beliefs and dissents. The Dover case was about including ID in the SCIENCE classroom, as you well know.

    It's okay to be honest and tell the truth; you don't need to scurry around the edges of what's true and try to misrepresent others and historical situations to show religious belief in a more favourable light. Then again, maybe you feel you must... and this should tell you something rather important about the truth value of what you actually believe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In a polytheistic worldview there is no one god who is the ultimate reality, and thus there is no basis for rationality.

    (shrug)

    In a monotheistic worldview there is only one god who is the ultimate reality, and thus there is no basis for rationality.

    As for Hinduism and social reform...

    Never mentioned it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's funny. Years ago, when I took high school biology, I could have sworn I was sitting in a public school building, owned and operated I believe by the East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District. If the science classroom is not a part of the public school, does that mean I don't have to pay for it anymore with my taxes? Maybe you atheists could take up a collection to help out the biology teacher?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Boy, I must really be losing it. And all this time I thought Cedric had said "Hinduism motivated a multitude of social reformers to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal . . " I guess that just shows how your mind can play tricks on you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Boy, I must really be losing it. And all this time I thought Cedric had said "Hinduism motivated a multitude...

    Ah.
    I did say "Hinduism motivated a multitude of social reformers to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal; making the world a better place in which to live."

    I forgot about it. Apologies.

    There no doubt were and are many social reformers.

    ...unless you are prepared to say that widow-burning and the caste system are matters of indifference.

    Certainly not.
    Widow burning and the caste system are very important. They were part of the reforming process, donchaknow? Right mess there was before Hindu society created the caste system and widow burning.

    (..awkward silence...)

    You are not getting this.

    That tells you that there is a critical difference between Christianity and Hinduism...

    No, no, no.
    Focus.

    Take Religion A and take Religion B.
    You will automatically find "critical differences" between them. You can talk about theological musings all day and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. Any religious person from any religion can do that.

    You have not dealt with the main problem you have.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bob, you are misrepresenting again.

    The Dover case was about a bunch of theocrats trying to insert their religious belief about creationism into the science classroom as if it were a legitimate and reasonable alternative to the teaching of evolution. The ruling was that it was not science and so it had no business being promoted as such.

    Now you are trying to tell your audience that discussions about various religious beliefs are disallowed or made illegal in public school. This is not true. This is a lie. It is deceitful.

    One cannot study history, for example, without understanding in context the religious influences in play. One cannot study art or architecture or music without understanding in context the various religious influences in play. One cannot study politics without understanding various religious influences in play. One cannot understand the gist of Shakespearean English without having some familiarity with all the biblical references in play. And the list goes on and on. Law, governance, conflicts, all rely on some understanding in context of what role religious belief, religions, and religious differences play as an influencing factor.

    Your repeated assertion that 'religion' is not allowed in public school classrooms I suspect is offered with the idea that religious adherence and religious respect and religious instruction is somehow the same thing. But you know the law is very clear about this: the state is not to be used as an instrument of religious promotion. You want it to be used this way. You are wrong to try to use it this way. And you are wrong to confuse children by trying (unsuccessfully in the Dover case) to equate wishful and magical thinking as an equivalent method to scientific inquiry.

    Shame, Bob. For shame.

    I'm sure your children received quite enough of that kind of education at home (perhaps in a church setting you favoured) without forcing my children to be subject to your illegal preferences in the 'public school classroom'. Very unreasonable of me, I know (irony).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am afraid, Tildeb, that American constitutional law is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion") may not endorse religion in any way. Technically it is possible to discuss the subjects you mentioned in a legally permissible way. A public school for instance, could teach a course on the Bible as literature. In practice, however, it rarely works that way. The American Civil Liberties Union often threatens school districts with litigation if there is anything that even looks suspicious. Since litigation can be quite expensive, most school superintendents will go out of their way to avid the appearance. Thus history is taught in such a way that you would never guess that religious motives have anything to do with it. As for literature, very little that was written before the 20th Century is taught. Most American high school graduates have never heard of Milton, Dryden or Pope, let alone Bunyan or Defoe, and you will find very few biblical references in Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger.
    I have no desire to force your children to be subject to my "illegal preferences." I am opposed to public schools, I do not believe that you can get an adequate education in them, and I never sent my children to one. I am also opposed to the attempt by Christians to try to force the Public Schools to become "Christian." The way the Dover school case was handled and the way it turned out is a dramatic demonstration of what happens when you try to make a non-Christian society try to act Christian.
    American public schools exist for only one purpose: to supply Corporate America with with a steady supply of workers. The public education system is so dismally ineffective that Black parents in the inner cities will often send their kids to Catholic parochial schools, and middle class parents elsewhere have to subscribe to private tutorial programs to make up what they are not getting at school.
    The proper way to handle education is some form of "school choice" such as tax credits or vouchers for those of us who wish to opt out of the public school system.
    I should also mention that in the States a "public school" is one that is run by the public authorities, is funded with tax dollars, and is under the direct supervision of state departments of education. In the Dover case the immediate issue in question was the Establishment clause. It was Judge Jones' decision to step beyond the narrow legal question and make it a test case about Intelligent Design. And let me reiterate, the School Board's statement did not teach I.D., and did not require anyone to learn about it, other than the bare fact that the idea existed. It is hard to see how this qualifies as an "Establishment of Religion."

    ReplyDelete