Evolution and Science 'so called'-

[ScottyDouglas]

My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.
I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?
Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'
Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.
This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws’ to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

 

[gluadys]

My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.

I am finding it a little difficult to follow your train of thought, but I will endeavour to make a response.

The root of the term "science" is 'scientia' the Latin term for "knowledge" and it was certainly used in that sense until early modern times. In the Middle Ages, for example, theology was called the Queen of the Sciences.

But you are right that in modern times, the term has been restricted. It is not normally used anymore to include philosophy (and metaphysics is a field of philosophy, like aesthetics, ethics and epistemology.)

However, while you group biology with philosophy, both scientists and philosophers group biology with physics, chemistry, astronomy and the other sciences. The study of biology is a study of "physicals". [sic]

Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.

I don't know to whom the bolded pronouns refer. It seems you are making some sort of accusation, but I don't know who you are accusing.

It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.

Ditto. You are alleging some malfeasance, but who is the alleged culprit?

I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.

How does comparative anatomy run into ideas and conceptions of metaphysics?

Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?

No one. For that matter, no one gives authority within the sciences either. The only final authority in science is evidence.

Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'

I really don't follow who or what you are speaking of here.

Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation,

Oh, you don't need to wait for "ultimately". It is part of the scientific process to constantly re-examine and re-investigate earlier conclusions.

and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.

Other than the evidence, of course.

We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.

I think we are just as entitled to ask questions of science and scientists as of philosophers.

We may not be entitled to provide answers though. The right to provide answers has to be earned through study and understanding of the issues.

This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.

Well, yes they are. They have committed a good portion of their lives to hands-on study of the information available. They are the experts in their field just as a doctor is an expert in the field of medicine and an engineer is an expert in his field.

That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.

True enough. But if we don't actually do the work, we don't have the expertise to dispute the conclusions of those who have.

And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'

Lost again as to who you are talking about.

I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.

I think it is true the general public may sometimes be so intimidated. It doesn't help when advertising companies dress up people in lab coats to sell toothpaste as if saying "This is backed by science so you know its true."

However, I don't know what to make of anything else in this paragraph. It's a bit of a word salad whose intentions are unclear.

Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.

What evolutionist? What logical difficulties? And as far as I know, evolution as it applies to biology doesn't deal with the metaphysical relations between mind and matter.

That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.

That is not a scientific conclusion. It is not a conclusion of evolutionary studies either. I am not sure what the thought is doing here.

In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws’ to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

It is all too true that sometimes science is hijacked in favour of various doctrines, but I am unclear as to what you think is "doctrine" . You say "this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts" But you don't say what "this" is.

 

[Pseudonimm]

The questions you're asking fall under the head of philosophy of science - a speculative investigation of the ontological status of scientific postulates and theories. It is an interesting area of philosophy because historically many of the best philosophers of science were actual scientists.
However, science and christian theology do overlap. They answer some of the same questions, just in different ways. Christian theology has metaphysical answers grounded in an internal dogma. Science has its own kind of answers called theories, which are theoretical artifacts constructed to fit the available evidence and subjected to tests and revisions to develop better working models.
Both are trying to answer the same question - how did we get here?
There is no direct observation we can make to determine this, so we have to use another kind of answer.
Christian dogma has a metaphysical answer that must be accepted on faith.
A biologist uses the scientific method. He constructs a hypothesis which fits the evidence and devises a test to look for new facts. If those novel facts fit with the hypothesis it is corroborated. If they contradict it in whole or in part the hypothesis must be revised and tested again.
"Theory" is a scientific term of art used to denote a long standing hypothesis. Theories must still be revised constantly, but are accepted by the larger community as a good working description of the state of affairs which holds. They are still sometimes overturned - their status can never be truth. A theory is inductive reasoning that brings us as close as possible to answering questions about the facts we don't know based on the facts we do know.
The fact that a biologist answers the question of how we got here using an inductive model based on facts does not mean he is doing metaphysics. There is a factual answer to that question. He is using one method to discover it, the Christian has another method.
This doesn't imply that both methods are equally valid. There is a reason we use the scientific method; sometimes what seems like an obvious observation turns out to be false. We used to believe in a different kind of abiogenesis for instance. When people left their grain in the field in great piles and it disappeared and was replaced by mice people used to conclude that their grain had turned into mice and scurried off. More obviously the Earth isn't flat and the objects in the sky don't actually spin around us as they seem to.
The biologist would only be overstepping his bounds if he should turn from answering how we got here and instead try to answer why we are here. This is outside the realm of science.
However, if you are committed to the view that factually God created man out of dust and it turns out to be factually the case that Man came to be some other way then your beliefs about God are at least in part wrong. If you are committed to the view that God is infallible and every word in the bible is literally and necessarily true and God turns out not to be the thing that made man and further he lied to you about it then your viewpoint is fundamentally wrong.
This would mean that the biologist showed that something about why we are here cannot be the case. This is fine - it is not a positive statement about why we are here. It is simply saying that an answer to why we are here relies on facts that are shown to be false in a way that satisfies the burden of proof of science. Science is still confining itself to facts, which is its proper place. Whatever metaphysical weight those facts have isn't of any concern to a scientist, that's for philosophers and theologians.
Look...I want to be blunt here. There is lots of good stuff in the Bible. Western law and ethics would be fundamentally worse without it. But none of the valuable and important stuff comes from reading the Bible as a history text. If you are not committed to the literal truth of the bible as a brief history of the universe then the christian and the scientist can both answer the question of how we got here based on facts instead of dogma and they can both answer the question of why we're here however they should wish.