Strefa dla członków PTKr
Fritz Ward, Jr., "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
Zapomniałeś hasła?
Kody genetyczne wyższego rzędu
Fritz Ward, Jr., "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary
> <strong>Review by Fritz Ward, Jr. Ph.D. UC-Riverside
> <br> I have no wish to cover the same ground as other reviewers. Dr. Robertson and Dr. Smith have provided an excellent synopsis of the book in their reviews. In brief, the book describes how design inferences are slowly undermining the naturalist assumptions of modern science. O'Leary is very careful to delineate most of the positions in this debate, but she ultimately finds naturalist proponents like Richard Dawkins to be just as religiously motivated as young earth creationists. The hatred, intimidation, and resort to the courts used by Darwinists to defend their dominant position in academe is not the result of "science" per se, but rather represents an attack from one religious position on another. However, as O'Leary notes, scientific advances in other fields, notably physics, are rapidly undermining naturalism. Flaws in the received story of evolution, particularly with regard to the origin of life, will ultimately cause a re-evaluation of Darwinism.
> <br> I think O'Leary's unique contribution to this debate is to place the whole argument of design v. naturalism in the broader context of the history of science. Popular understanding of science often presumes that "scientists" have some sort of monopoly on the search for truth in the physical world. In fact, this understanding is flawed and no historian of the last 40 years would accept such a definition. In reality, scientists operate within the bounds of a set of assumptions. These assumptions cannot be proven but they do guide research and offer explanations of some (but by no means all) phenomena that scientists observe. These assumptions are known as "paradigms" and when enough "contradictions" or anomalies develop (i.e.., phenomena the paradigm cannot explain) a "scientific revolution" takes place and the older paradigm is replaced by a newer one. This process was delineated in Thomas Kuhn's seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions published in 1962. O'Leary's contention is that Darwinism is an older paradigm which is in the process of being replaced as evidence accumulates against it.
> <br> In order to fully appreciate O'Leary's case, it is important to understand that by "Darwinism" she does not mean evolution. As she correctly notes, Darwin himself was reticent to use the term. Evolution implied directionality to many of Darwin's contemporaries (as indeed it does today to many advocates of "evolution" who don't know any better. Still others assume evolution merely means "change" within a species, a fact which few advocates of design would deny.) The key to Darwinism, however, is the claim that evolution operates solely by chance or "natural selection" and that all life arose from non-life without any guidance or design from outside. As such, Darwinism is at least as much an ideology as it is a scientific theory. Unlike other 19th century ideologies that claimed to be scientific, notably Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism is still dominant in academe and continues to garner world wide respect.
> <br> Increasingly, however, Darwinism is on the defensive and rather than respond to critics in scientific terms it has tried to use legal maneuvers to shut them out of the debate. Michael Behe has demonstrated that cells are irreducibly complex and cannot evolve from simpler forms. Mathematician William Dembski has demonstrated the extreme unlikelyhood of evolution purely by chance by following the work of D.S. Ulam. Of course these and other writers are ignored, but other problems remain. Biologists have yet to credibly demonstrate how life can arise from non-life and the more that is learned about the subject, the less likely progress seems. Darwinism is, in short, a paradigm awaiting a shift.
> <br> But one can fairly ask, "How will such a shift come about?" Advocates of older paradigms are rarely "converted" to the new ones. And since a paradigm is by definition the "structure" which informs scientific inquiry, there is no "scientific" means of judging between competing visions. O'Leary to her credit is open about this. She notes that design theorists and followers of naturalism simply have no common ground for dialogue. The only relevant scientific question then is which will better promote further research. Darwinists are quick to claim that design is a "science stopper." But the reality, as O'Leary shows, is that design simply redirects research: from life origins to information theory and understanding the "programming" that the "designer" gave to life. Already the latter field is more productive than the former, and this bodes well for the future of the design revolution.
> <br> What O'Leary does not reveal, however, is that potential for new scientific research is not the only criteria for a paradigm change. Were it so, Darwinism would likely have already collapsed. The fact of the matter is that science, like religion and philosophy is also subject to cultural influence. To be blunt, politics and world views had at least as much to do with the triumph of Darwinism (despite its flaws which were well known even in the 19th century) as its success as a scientific theory. (For more on this topic, see Gertrude Himmelfarb's Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 1996. Himmelfarb is the pre-eminent Victorian England historian and her work delineates the precise cultural influences that elevated Darwinism to its present status.) Similarly, politics still have much to do with maintaining Darwinism. Powerful groups as diverse as "The People for the American Way" and the ACLU have a strong interest in maintaining a secular society, as do individuals who feel threatened by the political influence of organized Christianity. On the other hand, a variety of cultural trends favor design. These range from the rise of traditional value voters on the one hand, and new age theorists on the other, both of whom reject naturalism out of hand. It remains to be seen precisely what form of design will replace Darwinism. It is by no means clear, as O'Leary correctly notes, that design will take a Christian form.
> <br> If O'Leary's book has a flaw, it is that she does not give full consideration to all the forms a post Darwinist paradigm in biology could take. She writes extensively about creationism, particularly the young earth variety championed by Henry Morris and Dr. Smith, but she correctly notes science will not go in this direction. The most obvious reason is that the young earth position is simply untenable. The claim that earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and probably less, is contradicted by the dendrochronology record alone, which goes back over 13,000 years. Evidence from the red shift in light as it travels through the universe points to an age of 15-20 billion years. It is true that young earth scientists can "explain" this phenomena as merely the "appearance" of age, but this claim undermines all knowledge: after all, a skeptic could conceivably claim that the Bible has only the "appearance" of divine origin. Once you allow for claims of appearance you allow someone to dismiss any evidence on a priori grounds and science, for better or for worse, is not going to long accept a priori arguments in the face of evidence. Indeed, the main argument against Darwinism is that it a priori accepts natural selection even when the evidence (the human eye, the structure of information in DNA, or the flagellum of common bacteria) points elsewhere.
> <br> But if the new paradigm will not be young earth creationism, what form will it be? O'Leary seems to think it will look a lot like the work of Dembski, Behe, Patrick Glynn and Philip Johnson. I'm not so convinced. All of these gentlemen have undermined Darwinism, but none have really provided an overarching paradigm of biology (or math for that matter) that will move research forward. Although they are critics of Darwinism, they are still operating within that paradigm. I think O'Leary overlooks two other alternatives which receive only brief mention in her book. The first is old earth creationism as championed by astrophysicist Hugh Ross. Ross is a Christian apologist, make no mistake about it. His website is entitled Reasons to Believe and can be found at the following: http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
> <br> Ross argues persuasively for an old earth and creation following the day age theory. His work is quite convincing and has the added benefit of being in accord with the majority of Christian views throughout history. Shocking though it may be to some modern Protestants, virtually none of the early Christians accepted a young earth or the idea that the days described in the creation account were literal 24 hour days. The third century theologian Origen pointed noted that it is hard to have a 24 hour day prior to the creation of the sun. Moreover, as Mortimer J. Adler has pointed out, Augustine's account of creation is entirely compatible with natural history as it is now taught. These major church fathers were hardly alone in their views. Indeed, in my own personal research, I have never run across an advocate of a young earth prior to arise of Protestantism. It is only after the first early Protestant movements of the 14th century (Wycliff and Huss) that you see people start to read the Genesis account as literal. If Ross is correct, science and Christianity will be harmonized again in a way design theorists do not even bother.
> <strong>Review by Fritz Ward, Jr. Ph.D. UC-Riverside
> <br> I have no wish to cover the same ground as other reviewers. Dr. Robertson and Dr. Smith have provided an excellent synopsis of the book in their reviews. In brief, the book describes how design inferences are slowly undermining the naturalist assumptions of modern science. O'Leary is very careful to delineate most of the positions in this debate, but she ultimately finds naturalist proponents like Richard Dawkins to be just as religiously motivated as young earth creationists. The hatred, intimidation, and resort to the courts used by Darwinists to defend their dominant position in academe is not the result of "science" per se, but rather represents an attack from one religious position on another. However, as O'Leary notes, scientific advances in other fields, notably physics, are rapidly undermining naturalism. Flaws in the received story of evolution, particularly with regard to the origin of life, will ultimately cause a re-evaluation of Darwinism.
> <br> I think O'Leary's unique contribution to this debate is to place the whole argument of design v. naturalism in the broader context of the history of science. Popular understanding of science often presumes that "scientists" have some sort of monopoly on the search for truth in the physical world. In fact, this understanding is flawed and no historian of the last 40 years would accept such a definition. In reality, scientists operate within the bounds of a set of assumptions. These assumptions cannot be proven but they do guide research and offer explanations of some (but by no means all) phenomena that scientists observe. These assumptions are known as "paradigms" and when enough "contradictions" or anomalies develop (i.e.., phenomena the paradigm cannot explain) a "scientific revolution" takes place and the older paradigm is replaced by a newer one. This process was delineated in Thomas Kuhn's seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions published in 1962. O'Leary's contention is that Darwinism is an older paradigm which is in the process of being replaced as evidence accumulates against it.
> <br> In order to fully appreciate O'Leary's case, it is important to understand that by "Darwinism" she does not mean evolution. As she correctly notes, Darwin himself was reticent to use the term. Evolution implied directionality to many of Darwin's contemporaries (as indeed it does today to many advocates of "evolution" who don't know any better. Still others assume evolution merely means "change" within a species, a fact which few advocates of design would deny.) The key to Darwinism, however, is the claim that evolution operates solely by chance or "natural selection" and that all life arose from non-life without any guidance or design from outside. As such, Darwinism is at least as much an ideology as it is a scientific theory. Unlike other 19th century ideologies that claimed to be scientific, notably Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism is still dominant in academe and continues to garner world wide respect.
> <br> Increasingly, however, Darwinism is on the defensive and rather than respond to critics in scientific terms it has tried to use legal maneuvers to shut them out of the debate. Michael Behe has demonstrated that cells are irreducibly complex and cannot evolve from simpler forms. Mathematician William Dembski has demonstrated the extreme unlikelyhood of evolution purely by chance by following the work of D.S. Ulam. Of course these and other writers are ignored, but other problems remain. Biologists have yet to credibly demonstrate how life can arise from non-life and the more that is learned about the subject, the less likely progress seems. Darwinism is, in short, a paradigm awaiting a shift.
> <br> But one can fairly ask, "How will such a shift come about?" Advocates of older paradigms are rarely "converted" to the new ones. And since a paradigm is by definition the "structure" which informs scientific inquiry, there is no "scientific" means of judging between competing visions. O'Leary to her credit is open about this. She notes that design theorists and followers of naturalism simply have no common ground for dialogue. The only relevant scientific question then is which will better promote further research. Darwinists are quick to claim that design is a "science stopper." But the reality, as O'Leary shows, is that design simply redirects research: from life origins to information theory and understanding the "programming" that the "designer" gave to life. Already the latter field is more productive than the former, and this bodes well for the future of the design revolution.
> <br> What O'Leary does not reveal, however, is that potential for new scientific research is not the only criteria for a paradigm change. Were it so, Darwinism would likely have already collapsed. The fact of the matter is that science, like religion and philosophy is also subject to cultural influence. To be blunt, politics and world views had at least as much to do with the triumph of Darwinism (despite its flaws which were well known even in the 19th century) as its success as a scientific theory. (For more on this topic, see Gertrude Himmelfarb's Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 1996. Himmelfarb is the pre-eminent Victorian England historian and her work delineates the precise cultural influences that elevated Darwinism to its present status.) Similarly, politics still have much to do with maintaining Darwinism. Powerful groups as diverse as "The People for the American Way" and the ACLU have a strong interest in maintaining a secular society, as do individuals who feel threatened by the political influence of organized Christianity. On the other hand, a variety of cultural trends favor design. These range from the rise of traditional value voters on the one hand, and new age theorists on the other, both of whom reject naturalism out of hand. It remains to be seen precisely what form of design will replace Darwinism. It is by no means clear, as O'Leary correctly notes, that design will take a Christian form.
> <br> If O'Leary's book has a flaw, it is that she does not give full consideration to all the forms a post Darwinist paradigm in biology could take. She writes extensively about creationism, particularly the young earth variety championed by Henry Morris and Dr. Smith, but she correctly notes science will not go in this direction. The most obvious reason is that the young earth position is simply untenable. The claim that earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and probably less, is contradicted by the dendrochronology record alone, which goes back over 13,000 years. Evidence from the red shift in light as it travels through the universe points to an age of 15-20 billion years. It is true that young earth scientists can "explain" this phenomena as merely the "appearance" of age, but this claim undermines all knowledge: after all, a skeptic could conceivably claim that the Bible has only the "appearance" of divine origin. Once you allow for claims of appearance you allow someone to dismiss any evidence on a priori grounds and science, for better or for worse, is not going to long accept a priori arguments in the face of evidence. Indeed, the main argument against Darwinism is that it a priori accepts natural selection even when the evidence (the human eye, the structure of information in DNA, or the flagellum of common bacteria) points elsewhere.
> <br> But if the new paradigm will not be young earth creationism, what form will it be? O'Leary seems to think it will look a lot like the work of Dembski, Behe, Patrick Glynn and Philip Johnson. I'm not so convinced. All of these gentlemen have undermined Darwinism, but none have really provided an overarching paradigm of biology (or math for that matter) that will move research forward. Although they are critics of Darwinism, they are still operating within that paradigm. I think O'Leary overlooks two other alternatives which receive only brief mention in her book. The first is old earth creationism as championed by astrophysicist Hugh Ross. Ross is a Christian apologist, make no mistake about it. His website is entitled Reasons to Believe and can be found at the following: http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
> <br> Ross argues persuasively for an old earth and creation following the day age theory. His work is quite convincing and has the added benefit of being in accord with the majority of Christian views throughout history. Shocking though it may be to some modern Protestants, virtually none of the early Christians accepted a young earth or the idea that the days described in the creation account were literal 24 hour days. The third century theologian Origen pointed noted that it is hard to have a 24 hour day prior to the creation of the sun. Moreover, as Mortimer J. Adler has pointed out, Augustine's account of creation is entirely compatible with natural history as it is now taught. These major church fathers were hardly alone in their views. Indeed, in my own personal research, I have never run across an advocate of a young earth prior to arise of Protestantism. It is only after the first early Protestant movements of the 14th century (Wycliff and Huss) that you see people start to read the Genesis account as literal. If Ross is correct, science and Christianity will be harmonized again in a way design theorists do not even bother.
