If you haven't heard, Ben Stein has a movie coming out that exposes the hypocrisy of the scientific community. (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php) The movie tells the tale of scientist who are persecuted for questioning Darwinism and suggesting that there might actually be an intelligence behind what we see in nature. This is the ultimate blasphemy in the scientific community and scientists are being punished for the position.
I think one of the issues is that scientists insist that science must remain untouched by any other aspect of life. You can't let science or scientific inquiry be influenced by anything in any other sphere of life. You can't for example let religion or philosophy enter the realm where test tubes and carbon dating exist. But this isolation of scientific thought leads to all manner of problems. It is in this context that experimentation has no restraint, and cannot be restrained for fear of interfering with knowledge. Therefore Naziesque practices such as experiments on the helpless in society are justified, rationalized and practiced without question.
All other areas of learning are informed and influenced by other spheres of life. Art cannot be understood without a knowledge of history and religion. Philosophy can have no value without a discussion of history and culture, religion and politics. But when we get to science, it somehow only functions in isolation. This sterile little world is so fragile that any introduction of the idea of an intelligent being brings the whole thing crashing down. Ethics and philosophy rapes the very core of scientific theory.
So the issues involved in the naturalistic evolution versus intelligent design debate stem from far back in the very root of what modern science claims to be. If true science is by definition naturalistic and secular, devoid of ethics and morality, religion and philosophy, then it cannot be questioned, and in turn it certainly has no value.
If scientist insist upon their field of study being isolated from real life, we should grant them their wish and relegate them to an absurd corner of academia where cobwebs grow and bats nest. In those halls meaningless experiments and conjecture lead to valueless assertions and circular reasoning. Hollow scientists pat each other on the back and pass between them journals that confirm and repeat the same rhetoric ad nauseum. They huddle together to maintain their status quo and cheer each other on as they twist every discovery and experiment to fit their view of the world.
Let us not disturb them. Or if we do, we must do it gently. This house of cards is trembling in the breeze.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I concur – much of the scientific community is naïve when it comes to understanding what they believe. To be fair, the same can be said for the religious community as well. Here are a few thoughts to consider. First, those scientists that presuppose Naturalism (or Materialism) are the ones who will flippantly suppress any other scientist that does not agree. What is odd about all of this is their dogmatic stance for Naturalism. For you see Naturalism is a metaphysic that was developed by the ancient Greek philosophers and was re-introduced into philosophy and science during the Renaissance and then Enlightenment. Naturalism is not something that a scientist can “discover.” It cannot be measured in a lab, smeared on a microscope slide, or viewed from a telescope. It is a presupposition of the scientist that remains untested as it were. Second, thus far I have not argued that Naturalism wrong or that Creationism is correct. But it must be pointed out that modern science is as much a philosophical and theological endeavor as it is a “scientific” endeavor. This idea that scientists only look at the “facts” while religious people look at “faith” is ridiculous. Both groups start out with presuppositions (like Naturalism or God exists) that they cannot prove within their own system.
Couldn't disagree more. Science need s to be based on something that can be proven and not faith based. Pre-suppositions (Theories) are fine but they aren't facts...just like Darwinism..it can't be PROVEN and thus is still a theory only...but a VERY strong one and the most provable one. But, as any good scientist will tell you, is still only a theory, but a VERY strong one.
Teledude....you say that Darwinism, since it is only a theory, can't be proven, but that it is the most provable one. How in the world can it be declared the "most provable" if it can't be proven???
Just caught my attention....
Post a Comment