As I suspected, our recent issue on the theme of “Science versus Scientism” has caused an element of controversy. Most particularly, Hugh Owen’s article, “Darwin Revisited: The Negative Impact of the Evolutionary Hypothesis on Scientific Research”, has met with some objections. Here’s my response to a recent correspondent on this subject:
I’m not, and have never been, a literalist creationist. I accept that the cosmos is billions of years old and that life on earth predates humanity by millions of years. Logically speaking, this does not necessitate the evolution of one species into another. The Creator could simply have introduced new species in accordance with his own design, each biblical “day” representing millions of years. In this analogical relationship we need to remember that one day of twenty-four hours is as infinitesimal as twenty-four million years in relation to the eternity in which ultimate reality abides. And as for the genome project, the hierarchy to be detected in the comparison of DNA can be explained by Aristotle’s De Anima as logically as by any modern scientific theories. In any event, and to reiterate, I would not have published Hugh Owen’s article if he had been arguing for a fundamentalist creationism. Regardless of whether he makes such arguments elsewhere, the article that I published simply pointed out that dogmatic Darwinism leads to prejudiced perspectives, blinding Darwinians to the reality of the science they are observing.
I’m not a scientist. (I think this first disclaimer sentence allows anyone who IS a scientist to disregard anything I might say on this subject with impunity.)
Actually, I’m quite the opposite: philosophy, literature–that sort of thing, you know, which allows anyone who is into science to disregard…etc. Disregard away.
As an English major, I have some acquaintance with what is called in liberal arts “rhetoric.” Rhetorical modes are written or spoken (verbalized) patterns of thought. There are several patterns, all of which are grounded in logic: Narration, classification/division, cause/effect, argumentation, etc. A particular mode is determined by the purposes of the speaker/writer. For example, narration is the mode of a storyteller, classification/division is very broad, common to all forms of organization (of any sort of material), suitable for exposition, information, management, etc. Scientific inquiry has only one mode of expression: cause/effect.
When a storyteller departs from narration, he is stepping out of his genre; i..e., he ceases to be a storyteller and becomes something else–an essayist, for example, or debater.
When a scientist departs from analyzing causes and effects, he ceases to be a scientist and becomes something else. Speculation, it should be noted, is the province of imagination, unacceptable to the scientific method of inquiry. Indeed, science exists in order to avoid unfounded speculation. Scientific knowledge is based on proof, never speculation.
The theory of evolution is speculation, as Darwin himself admitted.
Since modern man has deified scientists, scientists themselves can hardly be blamed for believing in their own divinity. Superhuman resistance, born of humility (another concept alien to modern man), would be required of a scientist to resist such a self-concept. (If you say to someone ‘you are god’ long enough, they will believe you eventually.)
However, science is CONFINED (by its own definition of itself) to only one rhetorical mode. One. Nothing–literally nothing–not proven in cause and effect analysis is “scientific.”
Evolution is a speculation (“theory”) with no scientific cause and analysis proof. It is NOT scientific–by the definition of scientists themselves.
The speculative ground of Intelligent Design is at least as “convincing” as evolution, but it is also speculative.
The situation is the same as that in about 3,000 BC(?), when Moses said, “Choose.” But if you choose evolution, you have no stronger basis than those who say intelligent design–and vice-versa. If you choose evolution because scientists say so, congratulations–you know who your god is.
As always, Darwinism and “evolution” are used interchangeably here. Because there are other ways of looking at evolution, and because Darwinism has so many strikes against it, this is worth knowing, and I particularly recommend the work of Leo Berb, author of Nomogenesis, Irene Manton who discovered that chromosomes, not genes, determine species, and John Davison, who says evolution is opposed by sex and is over.
Of course God can do anything, but the Biblical “days” are not just too short, but the events are out of order as well, such as the grass before the sun. Even to bring this up is very odd for someone who is not a creationist. Genesis is just not that kind of an account.
Mary,
Yes, man was already totally man (not something else) when God revealed himself (to Abraham) .
I’ve never had any trouble accepting the Biblical version of creation as mythic, according to the definition of ‘myth’ in Tolkien’s explanation of mythopoeia. Of course, it’s one of many creation myths, but it’s the oldest one surviving, not just because it sires three of the world’s major religions but because it’s so superior to other creation myths, both ethically and intellectually.
Whether one accounts for it in interpreting eons as days makes no difference–neither does it make any difference if you take “days” literally as creationists do. Either way, it’s a mythopoeic myth which means its essence is true, though its “story” may not be factual. E.g., what is man’s fatal flaw? Hubris. The belief he is divine.
Even for an atheist, history has proven the truth of the myth many times over. But for those who still aspire to divinity despite history, it’s only a “myth”. There will always be those, and they will always talk fact (and never Truth).