Science: Prez as Christian science-layman: Bush lets his Christian-scientific values be known, wants free speech in science
BUSH ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN [#1]
Jonathan Witt on media and science-laity who are now considering ID as a story to write about.
President George W. Bush has been known for some time to be a self-acknowledged Christian, but more recently he also let it be known that he holds to Christian-scientific values, as well (not all Christians do, of course, as many of us live in split-level worldviews and have little understanding of the specificity of the various societal spheres and their universalizing inter-linkages, but I'll put a hold on the big-word mayonnaise!).
After goading from The Washington Post (Press Baits Bush on Intelligent Design, Then Fuels Debate over his Response) as to his view of Intelligent Design theory, he forthrightly answered his affirmative regard for that scientific view - a view indeed held by a minority of scientists to date, but held by scientists, as one wag put it, "no fools." The majority of science-laity apparently follow theories like neo-Darwinism which they take on faith and trust in the scientists who advocate such, and are not able to replicate the findings of the scientists any more than the science-laity of the other view can. Thus, only a few scientists even approach having scientific authority to hold either view, or sketch an overview. Science is vitally important, but it has its limitations, which neo-Darwinists don't like to acknowledge. But let's move on.
Thus, Bush has stated publically and for the record that he thinks the theory of Intelligent Design should be accessible to all - for consideration as possibly true, valuable, and fruitful for further scientific knowledge, begining in the education of our youth, who now are exposed one-sidedly only to atheistic neo-Darwinism as the religious-philosophical presupposition of their science studies, especially in biology courses. The latter is what makes the matter a "hot-button issue."
In allowing his Christian-scientific values be known in this way, Bush does not stamp the theory of ID as an exclusively Christian theory to be obtained directly from the/a Church's dogma. It is scientific in a very broad sense, as it does not require explicitly Christian concepts of God, nor even of a God or gods. It requires only some idea, however vague, of a designing intelligencing force. Anthony Flew, a prominent anti-Christian and atheist philosopher has recently concluded that neo-Darwinian evolutionism is fundamentally mistaken in assigning the origins of the universe to chance and natural selection. Instead, he has opted for his own version of Intelligent Design, and is writing on the subject, in what we may assume will appear as both a fierce defense of the so-called "neutrality" of science and a driving arguement against the existence of any God or gods (the latter being what Calvin Seerveld calls "no-gods").
So, Bush the Christian science-layman and the whole ID intellectual movement is in philosophically mixed company as to its central theory. It has been claimed, falsely, that ID is the child of Creationism (literalist fundamentalist interpretation of Gensesis 1-3 which is both bad science and bad interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation that has its own questionable assumptions about what the Bible can and cannot mean, and how, in those key chapters).
Genesis 1-3 are vital to all of us at refWrite, both spiritually and intellectually, but speaking for myself, I adhere to the great Reformed and neo-reformational tradition of theistic evolutionary thawt. We do not think Darwin was simplly a twit, but a great biological scholar who got some things right but also key things wrong. Our view in its modern version begins with the theory of theistic evolutionary concepts that were prepared in a best-selling study the first edition of which appeared in 1859, The Method of Divine Government by James McCosh (later longtime President of Princeton College), a book written some years before Darwin's The Origin of Species, and which Darwin probably read. Darwin himself was not an atheist, as his neo-Darwinian distortionists simplistically try to make him out to be.
While the interdisciplinary scholarship of Dr McCosh led him to subscribe to a doctrinally-rich scientio-philosophical theory of theistic evolution in which scientific concerns played an integral part, he was not at all alone in this Christian-scientific development. Many professors at both Princeton College and Princeton Theological Seminary (which remained a Presbyterian institution) as well as in his native Scotland, in Northern Ireland where he was the first President of Queen's University, Belfast (leaving his philosophy professorship at Edinburgh to do so), and thru-out England and North America - all before the USA's Civil War.
McCosh also held to and argued in North Anmerican philosophical journals on behalf of the theory of Intelligent Design, on a non-doctrinal basis that rooted itself in empirical observation only, and limited the scope of the theory to that field as its proper scope.
A good place to start in sussing out all the hullabaloo artificially induced by the news-inducers at WaPo an excellent point of departure may be found at Tom Gilson's Thinking Christian blog which deflates Time mag's Charles Krauthammer on 'Creationism's modern stepchild' - the latter's assertion having just been shown by me (above) to be historical bunk and, worse, falsification of the historiography of American philosophy. - Owlb
But, hey!, if you're up for wallowing in the Hammeredbrain's bunk, here's his link while it lasts, Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both, August 1, 2005.
There's a response already from an ID leading scientist, William Dembski on his blog Uncommon Descent, Charles Krauthammer on ID.
You want a penetrating analysis of Krauthammer's rant? Read George Neurath's Darwin's Compast, American Thinker blog, August 4, 2005.
You want the original trickdicky WaPo set-up piece? Go here.
----------------
UPDATE: Today already I found a choice morsel of comment on one of Krauthammer's shakey points. Prosthesis on an false axiom of Krauthammer in WaPo
----------------
But please note that Krauthammer's fantasies are also based on historical falsification in the very metaphor of his title, if he intends to reference the famous Scopes Trial, in Dayton, Tennessee (July 10, 1925) based on a law passed three years earlier prohibiting, not the teaching of evolution, but that humanity exists only because we allegedly evolved from simpler forms of life (the "unity of life" hypothesis that reduces all life-forms on earth to one original simple form). And, often implied, that we did so without any Divine Guidance and Providence in the evolutionary course of the emergence of our human species.
The truth is, John Scopes never spent one second in jail. Violating the Butler Act was not a jailable offense. It was punishable only by fine, which Scopes never had to pay. In fact, John Scopes apparently never even taught evolution. Let me quote his autobiography, Center of the Storm: "To tell the truth, I wasn't sure I had taught evolution. ... Darrow had been afraid for me to go on the stand. Darrow realized that I was not a science teacher and he was afraid that if I were put on the stand I would be asked if I actually taught biology. ... If the boys had got their review of evolution from me, I was unaware of it. I didn't remember teaching it." ...
This trial was not instigated by Christian fundamentalists. It was instigated by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], which was trying to recruit a Tennessee teacher to challenge the Butler Act. Scopes agreed to say he taught evolution and be served with a warrant. Everything was done with his consent.
Krauthammer's metaphor refers to a movie-made falsification of a whole trial that itself was a scam by the ACLU, just as WaPo news-inducers invented an occasion to make a story on President Bush's Christian-scientific values which include consideration of Intelligent Design theory.
It matters what we think about Darwinism, especially in its contemporary neo-Darwinist form as exposited by Richard Dawkins who may or may not be aware of the societal implicaitons of his views. We must be aware of those implications, as they have already demonstrated their capacity for feeding monstrous policy;
n this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.
And, by the way, I chose my source for the Scope Trial matter above to bring out the relation of the public image of the Scopes Trial which is confabulated from three historically-falsifying movies, some of which still play on TV. But other more historiogrpahical sources on the Trial are available, to the consternation of ACLU. An intermediate website with more valuable info, also with a French DVD download available, may be found at The Scopes Trial: History Gone Wrong?.
For a little musical fun with solemn ideas, try: Hip-hop group FM108 goes for Intelligent Design theory
[T]he message on Darwinian Evolution is getting out to the young people. Check out this hip-hop band’s song called “Agency”. It is an all out attack on Macro-evolution, Chemical Evolution, Common Descent, even Scientific Naturalism, on the whole. The song also states that “ID is a more possible explanation” and is very friendly to the ID movement and general ID thesis. This rapper is genuinely angry about the rhetoric employed by Darwinists-basing most of their arguments against ID on ad-hominem attacks and “Creationist” labels, in their refutation of ID, rather than addressing the scientific merits of the theory .
If the pop-culture is starting to understand the gross inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism to explain the origins and the diversity of life in this universe, perhaps a paradigm shift is closer than we think.
The band is called FM108 and tackles issues of biological origins, in addition to issues of criminal justice, particularly wrongful convictions and a variety of other pressing world issues.
You can hear the song Agency recorded in February 2005 by FM108, altho it is not yet released - just click up the group's webpage here.
- Write-up by Owlb; links collected by Owlbie Scowlbie
No comments:
Post a Comment