the problem of levels

[rmwilliamsll]

this is from the protected YECists subforum at:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31096654&postcount=7

It has been a source of considerable of fascination for me personally that genetics contradicts Darwinian philosophies at every turn.

i would have replied with:

genetics is a science, Darwinian philosophies are not, they live in the realm of metaphysics. either the science that someone claims to be underlying this "Darwinian philosophy" conflicts with genetics or someone's metaphysics that they have claimed to be deriving from genetics conflicts with "Darwinian philosophy".

like speaks to like.

genetics and "darwinian philosophy" can not conflict being as they exist at distinctly different intellectual levels, they don't have the same domain, nor use the same tools, nor really even talk the same language.

so how can they really conflict?

but, unable to do that i started this thread.


this is, i think, the crucial problem with YECism. it doesn't make the distinction between science and metaphysics and as a result confuses the issues and the problems.

 

[Numenor]

Science can exclude a particular philosophy's truth claim(s) though can it not?

 

[laptoppop]

One difficulty is separating the TOE from its effects in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and yes, even religious studies. It has become the interpretational paradigm used as a filter to organize many different disciplines.

 

[Deamiter]

Science can exclude a particular philosophy's truth claim(s) though can it not?

Rarely if ever. I'd say this could happen only if the philosophic truth claims are framed scientifically -- for example if a particular philosophy claimed that because we exist and can reason, aliens will come next year to Florida.

In general, I don't think ANY metaphysical statement (and I think most philosophical statements are carefully framed so as to be not-disprovable) can be disproven by science. They can be used to support scientific statements that can be disproven, but just as philosophy cannot disprove science, science cannot disprove philosophy.

The issue is a bit muddied by people like Dawkins who makes the non-scientific claim that there is no God and we need no religion but science... Though he frames it to appear to be a scientific conclusion, it is unfalsifiable and thus quite unscientific.

 

[shernren]

This ethicization of science is quite an important hurdle to teaching evolution. When you have groups like AiG proudly proclaiming on site mastheads that "evolution is the source of prejudice, violence, hate, and nude beaches" (ok, kidding about that last one), and saying that evolution should be objected to on those grounds, that strikes me as a very strange and esoteric way to fight evolution.

Surely a scientific theory cannot be judged on its ethical merits? If a theory describes reality, then it works; if it doesn't, then it doesn't, regardless of how many noise-makers try to use it to support their pet theories.

I think there's a double-edged ethicization problem here. Evolution is seen as the origin of atheism and immorality; at the same time, since creationism is presumed to come explicitly from the Bible, which is at the same time the source of morality, there is a connection between creationism and morality: "If the Bible is not right about creation, then how can it be right about our morals?" Ethicization leads both to unjustified dislike of evolution and unjustified veneration of creationism.

 

[Assyrian]

Personally I wouldn't want Christianity and the bible judged on the basis of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the KKK.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In general, I don't think ANY metaphysical statement (and I think most philosophical statements are carefully framed so as to be not-disprovable) can be disproven by science. They can be used to support scientific statements that can be disproven, but just as philosophy cannot disprove science, science cannot disprove philosophy.


If this distinction between the levels of a discussion is useful, one of the things that makes it useful is to look at the differences the levels have in what tools they use.

Unlike science, metaphysics doesn't seem to rely on facts and details to prove itself. It seems more to rely on the persuasiveness and coherence of the whole system to retain people's loyalty. I think that is why you really don't challenge and change someone's metaphysics a little piece at a time, change appears to happen when people just switch to another metaphysics.

So i really agree, you don't disprove metaphysics a fact or detail at a time. You challenge the whole thing at once by presenting a complete alternative. For example, people don't stop being Christians because a single principle has been falsified in their system, they switch to another metaphysics, they just don't seem to swap low level principles or details from one metaphysics to another.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As far as the science and religion problem in this step in time. Evolution has gone off the emperical foundations of the scientific method. It has a strong materialist foundation in which is no longer scientific but philosophical. Evolution itself for me is a well structured system that no athiest can explain how it came to being. If evolution is true (which I don't believe) it was structured somehow and if you have enough faith to believed it came by chance you have more faith than I do. I'm hopeful that the scientific community will come to reason soon and accept the Intelligent Design argument which I think is both more philosophically and scientific stable.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31152734&postcount=20

this is a good example of the reasoning that confuses the levels.

ask the question: what is it in the philosophy of materialism that has modified the science of evolutionary biology so that it is no longer science but philosophy?

then ask the question from the end, what is it about ID that he wishes to "push" into biology? the answer is teleology. but teleology belongs in philosophy, it has been almost eliminated in biology.

he is essentially criticising materialists for doing what he wants to do, philosophizing biology. (forgive the neologism)

notes:
posted:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31153090&postcount=21
to alert author of these words that i had quoted them into another thread.

 

[ReformedChapin]

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31152734&postcount=20

this is a good example of the reasoning that confuses the levels.

ask the question: what is it in the philosophy of materialism that has modified the science of evolutionary biology so that it is no longer science but philosophy?

Incorrect statement sir. My reasoning is simple, according to materialist there must be an explained natural cause for reaction in the universe. Hence evolution, all the evolutionary icons are not only not emperically satisfactory but also carry many pressupositions. That's besides it's history of falsifing evidence.

then ask the question from the end, what is it about ID that he wishes to "push" into biology? the answer is teleology. but teleology belongs in philosophy, it has been almost eliminated in biology.

he is essentially criticising materialists for doing what he wants to do, philosophizing biology. (forgive the neologism)

notes:
posted:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31153090&postcount=21
to alert author of these words that i had quoted them into another thread.

It's impossible to look at any reaction without some cause behind. That's what science is, the search for causes. I strongly agree with the ID movement when they show that the only logical cause that form such well structured universe must be an intelligent designer. How at all is that "religiously" motivated?

BTW all forms of science carry some form pressuposed philosophical background. My argument is that we should look at the most logical one with all possibilities not just a materialist or theist world view. Go where the evidence goes.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My reasoning is simple, according to materialist there must be an explained natural cause for reaction in the universe. Hence evolution, all the evolutionary icons are not only not emperically satisfactory but also carry many pressupositions. That's besides it's history of falsifing evidence.

but science doesn't assume that an "explained natural cause" exists, it simply goes looking for it. there is no guarantee that these explanations actually exist. To assume that they exist is a philosophical position not a scientific one.

what exactly are "but also carry many pressupositions" or "BTW all forms of science carry some form pressuposed philosophical background. "?

in more concrete terms outline what one or two of these presuppositions are.

It's impossible to look at any reaction without some cause behind.
actually there is no necessary connection between those things we term cause and effect, the connection appears to exist primarily in our minds. but to this point, i have no problem at all imagining all kinds of things without looking for their causes. The other issue is exactly what kind of cause you are talking about here, Aristotle listed 4 kinds of causes, science only looks at one-efficient. having progressively freed itself from Aristotelian philosophy over the centuries. ID is simply a return to his final or teleological cause. see: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

 

[shernren]

what exactly are "but also carry many pressupositions" or "BTW all forms of science carry some form pressuposed philosophical background. "?http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

Nothing more than rehashed AiG presuppositionalism.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
what exactly are "but also carry many pressupositions" or "BTW all forms of science carry some form pressuposed philosophical background. "?

Nothing more than rehashed AiG presuppositionalism.

i will remain forever hopeful that someone using the terms presuppositionalism actually knows something specific rather than AiG's 'garbage'. Presuppositionalism is an important element in modern reformed theology and i'm hoping that it is actually getting into the evangelical churches. but thus far, no evidence *grin* that it is. I've seen one person quote S. Jaki here so i know someone is actually doing their homework.

but i will continue to ask, everytime i see the assertation.