On Evolution
Phillip Johnson, in his essay The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism says:
The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked. Propagandists like Gould try to give the impression that nothing has changed, but essays like Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers on both sides are near agreement on a redefinition of the conflict. Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism.
He repeatedly asserts that the theory of evolution requires belief in scientific materialism. I found the essay to be quite a good read.
I couldn't however, help but notice a few interesting holes in his argument.
Firstly, he neglects to note that science, and the materialism it embraces, is in itself a self-correcting process. Were materialism to be wanting in any way, it would be (correctly) questioned. However, were materialism found to be infallible (and it has yet to be) and evolution shown to be mathematically provable,* I do not doubt that within microseconds the "theory" of evolution would be relabeled the "law" of evolution.
In my view, it is this fundamental characteristic of science -- that it is self-monitoring and self-correcting -- that makes it the best of current options. To paraphrase Dr. Sagan, it may be just a tool, but it's the best tool we have.
Secondly, whereas Johnson criticizes science for not allowing for the "divine foot in the door," he does not consider the consequence of the argument. Even if the self-correcting nature science is ignored, and his point (i.e., the a priori acceptance of materialism) embraced, what is then used to weigh the results? what tools remain? What, then, is to be used for the "philosophically neutral" assessment of the "evidence?" Any philosophically sound tool used therein, I believe, will be science -- the heritage of the greek thinkers assures it.
Johnson writes a wonderful essay, one that is simply interesting to read. I wish he were accessible, and open to discussion, possibly at a coffee shop on a Friday night. I think I would really enjoy his instruction.
*Personally, probabilistic mathematical arguments that currently exist for evolution are persuasive enough for me...
The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked. Propagandists like Gould try to give the impression that nothing has changed, but essays like Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers on both sides are near agreement on a redefinition of the conflict. Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism.
He repeatedly asserts that the theory of evolution requires belief in scientific materialism. I found the essay to be quite a good read.
I couldn't however, help but notice a few interesting holes in his argument.
Firstly, he neglects to note that science, and the materialism it embraces, is in itself a self-correcting process. Were materialism to be wanting in any way, it would be (correctly) questioned. However, were materialism found to be infallible (and it has yet to be) and evolution shown to be mathematically provable,* I do not doubt that within microseconds the "theory" of evolution would be relabeled the "law" of evolution.
In my view, it is this fundamental characteristic of science -- that it is self-monitoring and self-correcting -- that makes it the best of current options. To paraphrase Dr. Sagan, it may be just a tool, but it's the best tool we have.
Secondly, whereas Johnson criticizes science for not allowing for the "divine foot in the door," he does not consider the consequence of the argument. Even if the self-correcting nature science is ignored, and his point (i.e., the a priori acceptance of materialism) embraced, what is then used to weigh the results? what tools remain? What, then, is to be used for the "philosophically neutral" assessment of the "evidence?" Any philosophically sound tool used therein, I believe, will be science -- the heritage of the greek thinkers assures it.
Johnson writes a wonderful essay, one that is simply interesting to read. I wish he were accessible, and open to discussion, possibly at a coffee shop on a Friday night. I think I would really enjoy his instruction.
*Personally, probabilistic mathematical arguments that currently exist for evolution are persuasive enough for me...