Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

[The Barbarian]

Except for antibiotic protocols, for example. But it really isn't something we have to deal with daily. Which is all the stranger, given the frenetic anger we see from some creationists about it. Public policy does occasionally require an understanding of how it works, in environmental issues and public health. We might never have to consider the orbit of Mercury in our daily lives, but a decent education provides students with an idea of how gravity and inertia makes the whole thing work. And that's important. Ignorance kills, as the pandemic demonstrated.

One can detect a sense of the ideological undertone in your words here

Pragmatism isn't an ideology. It's just practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. (Wordnik)

When a method provides useful answers, it's a good method. Your ideological fixation on the modern doctrines of creationism are keeping you from accepting the fact that science works.

Here's YE creationist Todd Wood explaining this:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives."

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Does that help?

The comical argument is that our institutions of learning would crumble to the ground without a general belief in evolution.

The comical straw man prepared by creationists, is what it is. Biology would take a huge hit, of course. When Stalin outlawed Darwinism in the Soviet Union, it crippled biology there, and they are still catching up. Crop failures and a loss of medical research were just two of the more salient issues. But the universities continued. You would do better if you were a little more realistic in your approach.

If the public is no longer taught that they evolved from slime

We actually evolved from other primates, which is what is taught in high schools and colleges. You're still having trouble realizing that evolution is not about the origin of life. And you seem to think that all of education depends on biology.

Even the most diehard atheists probably know that idea is a joke.

Most Christians would, too. We aren't laughing at you; we're trying to help you understand.

Creationists don't want the public to actually understand the theory of evolution... all that matters is that they internalize some silly cartoon image of a fish turning into a monkey into a human. Weird as it seems to most of us, creationists are still peddling that myth. Some because they don't know any better, but some to deliberately misled others.

History itself is viewed as a story of divinely guided progress

God's will is done, after all. You just don't approve of some of it. Why not just let God be God?

"Science", like "Democracy", is really just a magical word for preserving and advancing political power.

Which, I suppose, is why Stalin agreed with you on this. He didn't like democracy and evolution, either.

Evolution is important as a creation mythos because it places humanity on the cusp of this historical transition.

Lots of error to unpack there. First, as you keep having trouble remembering, it's not about the origin of life or the big bang, or other stuff like that. Second, it doesn't put humanity on the "cusp of this historical transition." All organisms today have come from the same length of evolutionary change.

It is no wonder that modern academic institutions keep "finding evidence" for the very thing that guarantees their political power, is it?

That's the funny thing about evidence. It doesn't care what you want it to be. There's an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change for the same reason there's no evidence whatever for special creation. Doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. It still is.

 

[lifepsyop]

Pragmatism isn't an ideology. It's just practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. (Wordnik)

Pragmatism can certainly be an ideology if you want to smuggle your metaphysics into the word Pragmatism. Why not? Evolution can refer to the entire history of the cosmos or just... "change"... The manipulation of language is truly laughable.

Forcing an interpretation of universal history through the lens of metaphysical naturalism abounds with ideological overtones, which is what you desire as part of state-enforced public education for all young people. You don't really care if Johnny develops a good handle on the nature of allele frequencies. What you really care about is that he believes the overarching creation story of man evolving from fish-like creatures over millions of years, because that is the mythos that maintains ideological power in society.

In the same way, you don't so much care if Johnny becomes an expert in astrophysics so much as you care that he internalize the story of how the scientific enlightenment crushed the superstitious dogma of the church and propelled society into the edenic paradise of modern liberal democracy. For lovers of modernity, advancing this cultural mythos is far more important than cultivating actual scientific knowledge.

The comical straw man prepared by creationists, is what it is. Biology would take a huge hit, of course. When Stalin outlawed Darwinism in the Soviet Union, it crippled biology there, and they are still catching up. Crop failures and a loss of medical research were just two of the more salient issues. But the universities continued. You would do better if you were a little more realistic in your approach.

That's a pretty bad example because the Soviet Union replaced Darwinism by enforcing the teaching of another version of Evolution of a more extreme Lamarckian variety. Talk about a strawman.

Besides, you're not actually worried about evolutionary biology being outlawed. You're worried about the idea of a general public (most of whom won't even be interested in any advanced education the life sciences anyways) occupying the political sphere without having received a sufficient dose of ideological enlightenment that they evolved from sea creatures millions of years ago and should trust an academic priesthood in all aspects of social policy.

Though it is amusing to hear this evolutionist doomsday prophecy again... mass failure of crops and worldwide starvation if we put a halt to the mandatory teaching that everyone's great grandparents crawled out of the oceans millions of years ago. These are the fevered dreams that progressives have of what will happen to the world if their political supremacy is challenged.

 

[stevevw]

"Scientific materialism" is an oxymoron. Anyone who knew what those two words actually mean, would not use that term.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

Materialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But if we look at the meta-studies, if we ask, what is the benefit of studying the paranormal versus ignoring it? We find the curious phenomenon that the Enlightenment advanced precisely where it ignored the paranormal. Thus it would seem that studying the paranormal wasn’t merely a distraction, but a degradation of science.

Why science can’t study the supernatural – A physicist’s view | Uncommon Descent

It can't be a religion for the same reason creationism and ID can't be science.

Yes but it seems science has gone beyond what science is suppose to do nowadays and I am not sure that this can be helped as philosophy may be inherent in the science method (methodological naturalism). Science does reveal new aspects of reality such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Its just a small step from this to claiming science is revealing what reality is (ontology) i.e. matter, particles, fields etc..

Part of the problem also is that the line between what is real or not is blurred. Some things are pretty clear like the orbit of the moon falls into the natural and God the supernatural. But what about transcendent phenomena like color, truth, beauty or consciousness. What about mathematics, abstract entities, spiritual entities, and psychological phenomena.

I think when science is used to refute supernatural and transcendent phenomena it becomes more than science but rather a metaphysical belief about what reality is.

 

[stevevw]

Not so much a commitment to materialism. Atheism I think is a sort of red herring. These ideologues usually believe in a god, or a supreme being, or divine essence, behind all of nature, and they believe the will or providence of this divine essence manifests through human reason. This the mythos surrounding the "age of enlightenment" where men learned to set aside the superstitious dogma of scripture and seek true divinity through the power of their own reasoning. Thus the will of god is expressed in the creation of a new secular order ruled by an enlightened humanity.

History itself is viewed as a story of divinely guided progress of the mystical energy of the universe becoming conscious of itself in the enlightened mind of man. Today, Neil deGrasse Tyson preaches sermons about it. In the 19th century Hegel wrote a book about it "The Phenomenology of Spirit", about the world coming of age. When pundits and politicians today speak of being "on the right side of history" they are referencing this type of "new religion" of human progress.

Evolution is important as a creation mythos because it places humanity on the cusp of this historical transition. Enlightenment is raising them up out of the animalistic state of nature. Humanity is transcending with science and sacred democracy.

We are natural born believers in divine ideas. That belief void has to be filled with something even if that is the power of nature. I think we intuitively know that what we see in the world isn't just some accident. So to avoid implications that some divine Mind is behind things people give nature itself that power of creation.

I think as time has gone by people have become more dogmatic about the power of science due to its tremendous success. Science in physics has revealed deeper levels of reality down to the fundamental particles and fields. Add to this how science is leading the way in just about everything and people begin to think it will solve all our problems and is revealing what reality is and any ideas outside this are just unreal and leftovers from a superstitious past.

Now it seems the only reality is a material one because that is what science tells us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes but it seems science has gone beyond what science is suppose to do nowadays and I am not sure that this can be helped as philosophy may be inherent in the science method (methodological naturalism). Science does reveal new aspects of reality such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Its just a small step from this to claiming science is revealing what reality is (ontology) i.e. matter, particles, fields etc..

You're confusing the necessary epistemological and ontological necessities claimed by Philosophical Naturalists with those of Methodological Naturalists. We all need to stop doing that. It's not helping things, Steve. If you want to eschew both PN and MN in favor of ID, that's fine, but make sure to vet out the distinctions. All too often I see folks making the same conflation without realizing it and all that does is cause micro-polarizations in people's feelings when they feel misrepresented and impinged upon.

Part of the problem also is that the line between what is real or not is blurred. Some things are pretty clear like the orbit of the moon falls into the natural and God the supernatural. But what about transcendent phenomena like color, truth, beauty or consciousness. What about mathematics, abstract entities, spiritual entities, and psychological phenomena.

I think when science is used to refute supernatural and transcendent phenomena it becomes more than science but rather a metaphysical belief about what reality is.

Yes. That's why we cite Philosophical Naturalism as a form of "scientism" but we don't do this with Methodological Naturalism. One, the former, easily lends itself to Transhumanism whereas the other, the latter of these, remains---or can and should remain--as a mere "method." But no, some folks just have to push the conceptual envelope.......................................or deny there is an envelope.

Just let it be. And if we want to bring in I.D. or whatever on a smaller scale for auxiliary contemplation and analysis for finer aspects that may exist within some specific scientific issue, then let's do so. I'm fine with that, philosophically speaking (and even Theologically speaking).

 

[stevevw]

You're confusing the necessary epistemological and ontological necessities claimed by Philosophical Naturalists with those of Methodological Naturalists. We all need to stop doing that. It's not helping things, Steve. If you want to eschew both PN and MN in favor of ID, that's fine, but make sure to vet out the distinctions. All too often I see folks making the same conflation without realizing it and all that does is cause micro-polarizations in people's feelings when they feel misrepresented and impinged upon.


Yes. That's why we cite Philosophical Naturalism as a form of "scientism" but we don't do this with Methodological Naturalism. One, the former, easily lends itself to Transhumanism whereas the other, the latter of these, remains---or can and should remain--as a mere "method." But no, some folks just have to push the conceptual envelope.......................................or deny there is an envelope.

Just let it be. And if we want to bring in I.D. or whatever on a smaller scale for auxiliary contemplation and analysis for finer aspects that may exist within some specific scientific issue, then let's do so. I'm fine with that, philosophically speaking (and even Theologically speaking).

I think the idea that methodological naturalism is completely neutral is only theoretical but in practice is doesn't work that way. If we look at the presuppositions of methodological naturalism we see that methodological naturalism excludes supernatural entities from scientific explanations as a priori. This is based on a strong version of the causal closure principle according to which supernatural entities have no causal role in the natural world, neither as a chain in the causal history of physical events, nor as a part of a necessary condition.

MN also implies evidentualism which obliges us to base the justification of our epistemic beliefs purely upon empirical evidence and since supernatural entities are causally isolated from the natural world, it is impossible for them to be reflected in the empirical evidence. So supernatural entities are excluded as a priori otherwise it would not be reasonable to totally exclude them. If the supernatural was included it would be impossible to do science as any evidence would be subject to possible supernatural influences that have not been included.

So someone who accepts methodological naturalism has to deny the existence of the supernatural and commit to metaphysical naturalism. There's a deep connection between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Without the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism methodological naturalism fails as a credible methodology.

Methodological naturalism assumes the causal closure of the natural world (causal closure principle) which isolates the natural from the supernatural and compels scientists to adopt a naturalistic methodology for discovering the world and discredits our belief about the supernatural. So methodological naturalism cannot escape philosophical naturalism, its inherent in the method.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-019-09464-8
https://www.metanexus.net/replacing-methodological-naturalism/

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the idea that methodological naturalism is completely neutral is only theoretical but in practice is doesn't work that way. If we look at the presuppositions of methodological naturalism we see that methodological naturalism excludes supernatural entities from scientific explanations as a priori. This is based on a strong version of the causal closure principle according to which supernatural entities have no

I see now. You guys think that Methodological Naturalism has to be bashed because it serves as a sort of "gateway drug" to Ontological Naturalism. That's why you're so stubborn on this point.

ok. I get it. I think it's wrong, but I get it.

 

[stevevw]

I see now. You guys think that Methodological Naturalism has to be bashed because it serves as a sort of "gateway drug" to Ontological Naturalism. That's why you're so stubborn on this point.

ok. I get it. I think it's wrong, but I get it.

Did you read the papers. I think this will explain things in more detail supporting the argument that MN is linked to metaphysical naturalism. Perhaps then we could argue whether what the paper claims is correct or not. The question is I think how we should know what is real or not. That is the starting point for any enquiry into reality and is more about philosophy rather than science.

The argument boils down to MN isolating naturalism from supernaturalism before any measure by the criteria is uses for measurement. In isolating the natural world it already excludes other possibilities which may have a causal influence on reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you read the papers. I think this will explain things in more detail supporting the argument that MN is linked to metaphysical naturalism. Perhaps then we could argue whether what the paper claims is correct or not. The question is I think how we should know what is real or not. That is the starting point for any enquiry into reality and is more about philosophy rather than science.

The argument boils down to MN isolating naturalism from supernaturalism before any measure by the criteria is uses for measurement. In isolating the natural world it already excludes other possibilities which may have a causal influence on reality.

Steve, I've already given my arguments on this issue over the years here on CF and I've read papers (and books) like yours already, more than once, and I'm kind of done with advocating for it or fighting against it ... more.

If anything, I just don't care all that much about this issue, nor do I think it's central to the whole Christian project, especially if the Biblical writers expressed their own indications to those of us who read them that human epistemology and/or philosophy of science isn't what enables a person to have faith in Jesus.

Sure, topics like Cosmology and Earth Sciences and Biology and Physics, and all of the rest of the sciences both hard and soft are all super interesting in their own, respective domains, but I don't think that even the most robust act of sifting through them will either prove or provide the linchpin that necessarly enables a person to have faith ---or to not have faith--- in Jesus Christ. No, at best, even if you're right, even if those who advocate for Intelligent Design can be shown to have been grossly ignored in much of what they've asserted, all your position does is get people to first base so they can find the further motivation to then ask: Is there some kind of Designer? Maybe? Maybe, Yes? But then, they still have to face the Dragon: because when they get to asking about "A" Grand Designer, they still have 999 other conceptual and experiential hurdles that have to be jumped in order to "believe."

So, with whatever seeming exacting points in the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science need to be engaged, that is, on those points where Methodological Naturalism clashes with Ontological Naturalism or, conversely, with Intelligent Design, or especially with varieties of Biblical Creationists' thought, I just don't really think these poinsts will in full constitute the actual problems and the actual cognitive issues that are at stake on the whole where the locus of subtantiating the Christian faith is concerned.

And obviously, these are not the only things to consider, but for me, I've always seen and felt the weight of faith lying elsewhere than upon these issues, and it would also probably be too little for me to also say that I don't care that much about the issue of whether or not Methodological Naturalism is a real conceptual problem for all kinds of reasons, reasons that are only "briefly" summed up or even touched upon in the books which you can see I've selected and listed in my "about" section here on CF, all of which just represent the tip of the iceberg for me where Christian faith is subject to our Subjective deliberations and by which, one way or another, we must Wager if and when we are in doubt.

With that said, here's my olive brand in all this MN vs. ON vs. ID brouhaha: If there's any caveat in my position that leans in your favor, just take it seriously when I say that, at the very least, I still nurse some Pascalian type inclinations [but in a more expansive, up-to-date kind of way] by which to ponder the Anthropic Principle, but where I do so, it is only on tissue paper thin, whispy cognitions about the necessities of recognizing the evidence of "Creation." And by this, I existentially hold at bay the kinds of things that someone like Leonard Susskind firmly asserts in his book, The Cosmic Landscape, or that someone like Jerry Coyne caustically overasserts in his book, Why Evolution Is True.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, I've already given my arguments on this issue over the years here on CF and I've read papers (and books) like yours already, more than once, and I'm kind of done with advocating for it or fighting against it ... more.

If anything, I just don't care all that much about this issue, nor do I think it's central to the whole Christian project, especially if the Biblical writers expressed their own indications to those of us who read them that human epistemology and/or philosophy of science isn't what enables a person to have faith in Jesus.

Sure, topics like Cosmology and Earth Sciences and Biology and Physics, and all of the rest of the sciences both hard and soft are all super interesting in their own, respective domains, but I don't think that even the most robust act of sifting through them will either prove or provide the linchpin that necessarly enables a person to have faith ---or to not have faith--- in Jesus Christ. No, at best, even if you're right, even if those who advocate for Intelligent Design can be shown to have been grossly ignored in much of what they've asserted, all your position does is get people to first base so they can find the further motivation to then ask: Is there some kind of Designer? Maybe? Maybe, Yes? But then, they still have to face the Dragon: because when they get to asking about "A" Grand Designer, they still have 999 other conceptual and experiential hurdles that have to be jumped in order to "believe."

So, with whatever seeming exacting points in the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science need to be engaged, that is, on those points where Methodological Naturalism clashes with Ontological Naturalism or, conversely, with Intelligent Design, or especially with varieties of Biblical Creationists' thought, I just don't really think these poinsts will in full constitute the actual problems and the actual cognitive issues that are at stake on the whole where the locus of subtantiating the Christian faith is concerned.

And obviously, these are not the only things to consider, but for me, I've always seen and felt the weight of faith lying elsewhere than upon these issues, and it would also probably be too little for me to also say that I don't care that much about the issue of whether or not Methodological Naturalism is a real conceptual problem for all kinds of reasons, reasons that are only "briefly" summed up or even touched upon in the books which you can see I've selected and listed in my "about" section here on CF, all of which just represent the tip of the iceberg for me where Christian faith is subject to our Subjective deliberations and by which, one way or another, we must Wager if and when we are in doubt.

I completely agree. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. So no amount of evidence in the conventional sense is going to sway someone. But I think your under the assumption that I engage in debate on these topics to purely prove faith in God. I don't. I enjoy and am interested in the meta view of human behavior. How we believe, why we believe, why we behave the way we do. That is my area of study. By the way I am not an IDst or creationist.

With that said, here's my olive brand in all this MN vs. ON vs. ID brouhaha: If there's any caveat in my position that leans in your favor, just take it seriously when I say that, at the very least, I still nurse some Pascalian type inclinations [but in a more expansive, up-to-date kind of way] by which to ponder the Anthropic Principle, but where I do so, it is only on tissue paper thin, whispy cognitions about the necessities of recognizing the evidence of "Creation." And by this, I existentially hold at bay the kinds of things that someone like Leonard Susskind firmly asserts in his book, The Cosmic Landscape, or that someone like Jerry Coyne caustically overasserts in his book, Why Evolution Is True.

So do I. I think its an important part of understanding the world and reality. I see it as a step in the process but not the complete step to understanding. But there are other ways we can gain knowledge about the world and reality that play a part and I think even science is realizing this.

But I am more fascinated by the debate itself. How we cannot help but bring philosophy into science. Generally people immediately think about what does a scientific discovery about reality mean in the greater context of things. I think this is a consequence of science itself especially QM which seems to bring the conscious subject into the equation in how they see and measure the world which is what this thread is about. How we create and choose these stories/concepts about the world and how they influence things.

I think if we are to move forward in science we need to include the subject/observer if we are to understand reality in its completeness or as some say 'a theory of everything'.

 

[lifepsyop]

I see now. You guys think that Methodological Naturalism has to be bashed because it serves as a sort of "gateway drug" to Ontological Naturalism. That's why you're so stubborn on this point.

ok. I get it. I think it's wrong, but I get it.

Methodological Naturalism is basically a compartmentalized version of Philosophical/Ontological/Metaphysical Naturalism. One creates a little micro-universe where all of reality is reduced to the cause and effect of natural processes.

As soon as you begin hearing yourself chant mystical mantras like "the present is the key to the past" then that boundary between method and philosophy has been erased, and you begin projecting methodological naturalism into all of reality and the history of the entire cosmos itself. A kind of metaphysical circularity is established where you *know* something is true because the explanation is bounded in naturalism.

And yes, one becomes "hooked"... they can no longer view reality in any other way, like a permanent psychedelic experience.

I kind of like the gateway drug analogy. There is something deeply intoxicating about the cultural mythos of the Enlightenment... the feeling that one has gained a special insight into hidden forces and energies of nature to dispel some great illusion that captured humanity for so many millennia.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I completely agree. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. So no amount of evidence in the conventional sense is going to sway someone. But I think your under the assumption that I engage in debate on these topics to purely prove faith in God. I don't. I enjoy and am interested in the meta view of human behavior. How we believe, why we believe, why we behave the way we do. That is my area of study. By the way I am not an IDst or creationist.

So do I. I think its an important part of understanding the world and reality. I see it as a step in the process but not the complete step to understanding. But there are other ways we can gain knowledge about the world and reality that play a part and I think even science is realizing this.

But I am more fascinated by the debate itself. How we cannot help but bring philosophy into science. Generally people immediately think about what does a scientific discovery about reality mean in the greater context of things. I think this is a consequence of science itself especially QM which seems to bring the conscious subject into the equation in how they see and measure the world which is what this thread is about. How we create and choose these stories/concepts about the world and how they influence things.

I think if we are to move forward in science we need to include the subject/observer if we are to understand reality in its completeness or as some say 'a theory of everything'.

Yes, I agree that the Subject/Observer aspect should be included in any discussion of the nature of human investigation, even if it's a part of a corporately organized and connected attempt at 'objective' study of various strata of reality. Scientists need to more consistently acknowledge this. However, in doing so, we'll have immediately referred to a different kind of 'subjectivity' than the usual colloquial use which that term typically brings to mind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the idea that methodological naturalism is completely neutral is only theoretical but in practice is doesn't work that way. If we look at the presuppositions of methodological naturalism we see that methodological naturalism excludes supernatural entities from scientific explanations as a priori. This is based on a strong version of the causal closure principle according to which supernatural entities have no causal role in the natural world, neither as a chain in the causal history of physical events, nor as a part of a necessary condition.

MN also implies evidentualism which obliges us to base the justification of our epistemic beliefs purely upon empirical evidence and since supernatural entities are causally isolated from the natural world, it is impossible for them to be reflected in the empirical evidence. So supernatural entities are excluded as a priori otherwise it would not be reasonable to totally exclude them. If the supernatural was included it would be impossible to do science as any evidence would be subject to possible supernatural influences that have not been included.

So someone who accepts methodological naturalism has to deny the existence of the supernatural and commit to metaphysical naturalism. There's a deep connection between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Without the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism methodological naturalism fails as a credible methodology.

Methodological naturalism assumes the causal closure of the natural world (causal closure principle) which isolates the natural from the supernatural and compels scientists to adopt a naturalistic methodology for discovering the world and discredits our belief about the supernatural. So methodological naturalism cannot escape philosophical naturalism, its inherent in the method.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-019-09464-8
https://www.metanexus.net/replacing-methodological-naturalism/

I read the second link with the article from Robert Delfino. It was interesting, but I think there are some subjective limitations (i.e. "vagueness") in his approach that can't really be overcome where epistemology is concerned. In fact, I don't think anyone can overcome the epistemological limits involved in just about all positions in science.

 

[Diamond72]

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue.

There is room to debate and a place to debate. In a court of law.

Twenty years ago, on June 19, 1987, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that dramatically reshaped the debate over teaching evolution in public schools. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court struck down a Louisiana law requiring that schools teach creation science whenever students learn about evolution.

 

[stevevw]

I read the second link with the article from Robert Delfino. It was interesting, but I think there are some subjective limitations (i.e. "vagueness") in his approach that can't really be overcome where epistemology is concerned. In fact, I don't think anyone can overcome the epistemological limits involved in just about all positions in science.

Fair enough, I am still trying to understand the role of epistemology in seeking the truth. Its a big complex subject. But in simplistic terms I think any way of coming to know the truth or what is real about anything that limits possible ways of knowing cannot do justice to claims about any truths for what is reality. We have to be open to different ways of knowing and understanding otherwise there will always be that ? about whether this is the truth.

I think epistemology (ways of knowing) can be seen in how it plays out in society and has real effect on us, on how we order our lives and society, and the outcomes of that. How some knowledge is restricted and other knowledge is promoted. How dominant ways of knowing deny peoples rights to their culture and beliefs. So in some ways epistemologies testing ground is society and the truth of its merits are lived out and proven or disproven.

For example for centuries dominant Western cultures which are premised on scientific thinking denied Indigenous knowledge. But now we are beginning to see the benefits and insights of Indigenous Spirituality and knowledge of nature and the environment which have been in play for 1,000s of years. How they have managed to live in harmony with each other and nature while western nations destroy it.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I agree that the Subject/Observer aspect should be included in any discussion of the nature of human investigation, even if it's a part of a corporately organized and connected attempt at 'objective' study of various strata of reality. Scientists need to more consistently acknowledge this. However, in doing so, we'll have immediately referred to a different kind of 'subjectivity' than the usual colloquial use which that term typically brings to mind.

I'd say including subject/observer into science would bring about a complete paradigm shift which may open up new frontiers for science where it can overcome the difficulties faced by a purely materialist paradigm. Its not really a rejection of the empirical science but an expansion built upon science which can open up new lines of inquiry.

I remember a quote from Nikola Tesla which mentioned “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough, I am still trying to understand the role of epistemology in seeking the truth. Its a big complex subject. But in simplistic terms I think any way of coming to know the truth or what is real about anything that limits possible ways of knowing cannot do justice to claims about any truths for what is reality. We have to be open to different ways of knowing and understanding otherwise there will always be that ? about whether this is the truth.

I think epistemology (ways of knowing) can be seen in how it plays out in society and has real effect on us, on how we order our lives and society, and the outcomes of that. How some knowledge is restricted and other knowledge is promoted. How dominant ways of knowing deny peoples rights to their culture and beliefs. So in some ways epistemologies testing ground is society and the truth of its merits are lived out and proven or disproven.

For example for centuries dominant Western cultures which are premised on scientific thinking denied Indigenous knowledge. But now we are beginning to see the benefits and insights of Indigenous Spirituality and knowledge of nature and the environment which have been in play for 1,000s of years. How they have managed to live in harmony with each other and nature while western nations destroy it.

Sure. I agree and I've been fully aware of the implications and contours of what you're saying for quite some time. It's good to hear it echoed from your keyboard.

 

[expos4ever]

The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.

I see this is a "nice-try" with elements of truth, but I suggest it is quite clear evolution is a solid theory that is massively supported with empirical evidence. I suspect you are right - that we are now in a place where the rationalism and empiricism are viewed uncritically as the "order of the day", as you say. In this setting, yes, people will tend to dismiss the creationist perspective out of hand without examining the evidence.

But, and this is important, the fact that most people adopt this herd mindset is entirely irrelevant to both of the following:

(a) whether an empirical / rationalist viewpoint is, in fact, a fundamentally a better way to get at truth than is a dogmatic mindset
(b) whether evolution is a solid theory, supported with evidence.

Even if all you say is true, you will have a hard time accounting for the spectacular agreement between the predictions of the theory of evolution and the empirical facts.

In other words, it seems hard to imagine how the fact that people nowadays generally favour a rational / empirical way of looking at the world by default is prejudicial enough to challenge evolution. Yes, we need to critically examine our default worldview, but that does very little, if any work in undermining a scientific theory that is robustly supported by evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

Consider this analogy. We could have a serious data-driven debate about whether or not homosexuality should be allowed to be promoted in public to children or not. But we both know that, regardless of the data, the ruling ideology of our society is not going to allow that question to be on the table. We even have discrimination laws against proposing such questions.

But this is a questionable analogy. Evolution is a solid theory, supported by tons of evidence. Creation in its normal form, by contrast, is a dreadful theory - it is refuted by lots of evidence. Thus, it is quite reasonable to keep creation out of the public classroom.

By contrast, the case that homosexuality is unhealthy or morally wrong is weak at best - unlike the situation with evolution where the case is overwhelming. Plus there is another variable at play in the sexuality debate that is not at all present in the case of evolution vs creation - the long history of demonizing homosexuals. Even if homosexuality is fundamentally a "bad" lifestyle / behavior, the way homosexuals have been treated has been unethical. To quash the presentation of homosexuality as a "legitimate" way of being would only re-enforce such demonization, even it turns out that, as it may well could, that the evidence shows that homosexuality is unhealthy.

 

[expos4ever]

"Science", like "Democracy", is really just a magical word for preserving and advancing political power.

This is a really implausible position. As others have pointed out, science works, and obviously so. Even if, repeat even if, it can be established that people use the success of the scientific method to exert power over others, science has contributed massively to the advancement of the human condition. Bridges do not fall down, high-tech medical technology works, communications technology have dramatically improved our lives, and on and on.