by Bernie Dehler
10-29-07
In my origin studies, I think I have come to see something. It is a situation of "science vs. philosophy." I'll give two examples.
Example 1: Darwin introduces evolution by means of natural selection. Apparently, Darwin didn't engage or debate with philosophers at all; nevertheless, it shook philosophers to their core! Here's an excerpt (emphasis mine) from the introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species (introduction by Ernst Mayr; click here to see the book):
No one resented Darwin's independence of thought more than the philosophers. How could anyone dare to change our concept of the universe and man's position in it without arguing for or against Plato, for or against Descartes, for or against Kant? Darwin had violated all the rules of the game by placing his argument entirely outside the traditional framework of classical philosophical concepts and terminologies. Perhaps this is the greatest difference between him and all of his predecessors, be they antievolutionists such as Linnaeus, Cuvier, and Louis Agassiz, or evolutionists such as Lamarck. No other work advertised to the world the emancipation of science from philosophy as blatantly as did Darwin's Origin. For this he has not been forgiven to this day by some traditional schools of philosophy. To them, Darwin is still incomprehensible, "unphilosophical," and a bete noire.
Example 2: The origins debate.
On one hand, there is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, as championed by The Discovery Institute (Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, etc.). Their premise is that evolution couldn't have happened, because of "specified complexity." William Dembski (also in the ID movement) has also attempted to prove this "philosophy" that "evolution is highly improbable" by way of mathematics, in his book "No Free Lunch" (click here to see the book; I didn't read it, but have discussed it with one who did).
My take: it seems to me that microbiological evolution has overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened, by way of biological pseudogenes (called "biological fossils"). Therefore, if someone has great philosophical reasons for rejecting evolution, I'd say "that's nice," but unfortunately irrelevant, as science has been able to demonstrate with overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with thinking that God designed the world by means of evolution. God is still just as majestic and awe-inspiring for using evolution for design, and in fact, I think it even makes God more majestic and awe-inspiring.
Comments