ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/21/85)
[]
I don't really have the time for this, but I can't resist.
In an otherwise excellent article ("News from the Frontline") naturalism
is presented as an axiomatic system. That is, one assumes that nature
adheres to a comprehensible set of rules. This is what comes of letting
a mathematician define science. What makes science interesting is that
nature *appears* to follow a comprehensible set of rules. Whether it
always does or not is not entirely relevant. What is relevant is that
it does so enough of the time that our search for patterns in nature has
been fruitful and interesting. Clearly there are conceivable events that
would lead even the most hardened skeptic to suspect that naturalism is
not a sufficient basis for understanding the entire universe. [Observing
angels with flaming swords poised above Manhattan comes to mind as an
example.] Reports of such miracles, as opposed to direct observations,
are much less interesting since it has been reasonably well documented that
a good deal of lively invention creeps in to most reports.
In his rebuttal Paul Dubois suggests that there is a version of creationism
which constitutes a scientific hypothesis i.e. the statement that all life
appeared on the Earth in much the same form we see it now, at some time in
the recent past. What caused this event becomes a matter of religious
speculation. I think this is a reasonable statement. I also think this
is a completely untenable hypothesis. Although Paul has written some
interesting articles pointing out deficiencies in our understanding of
evolution, none of them cast any reasonable doubt on the work done establishing
a large age for the universe, for the Earth, for life on the Earth, or for
the common descent of that life. Truth to say, I don't even think that it
casts much doubt on natural selection as the guiding force in evolution
although a complete understanding of how evolution proceeds is still beyond
us. [I have in mind here the fact that the relationship between the genetic
heritage of an organism and its characteristics is not understood in detail
for any reasonably complex organism. This would seem a necessary step in
making predictive statements about the future evolution of organisms in a
given ecosystem.]
Finally, both Ken and Paul make the case that the distinction between "how"
and "why" in science is an artificial one. I will agree that it is not
always a simple one. One reason is that what is meant by "why" depends
on the questioner. However, there is a real and legitimate distinction
between those hypotheses and theories which have predictive value and
those which are superfluous to any predictions. In spite of many attempts
to show otherwise it seems that most of the elements of religious thought
are nonpredictive. They are superfluous to science. They are obviously
not superfluous to the lives of believers like Ken and Paul, but this hardly
constitutes justification for considering them an intrinsic part of empirical
science. Ken may consider his religious views a "hypothesis" and pronounce
his willingness to abandon them in the face of contrary evidence, but if no
plausible evidence could be considered contrary than this is just
hairsplitting. It still was an act of faith, not of science, to choose
Christianity over Islam.
That being the case one might ask why both of them seek to have their religious
views labeled "science". In Paul's case the answer seems to be that his
religious views include a scientific hypothesis (see above) which is untenable
on scientific grounds. In Ken's case I can't really tell what his views on
the history of life on the Earth are so I can't tell whether he is in the
same quandary as Paul (although on the age of the Earth he seems not to be).
I might be tempted to speculate that Ken is simply anxious to see his religious
ideas accorded the same respect that science gets in educated circles.
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas