"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
– Pope John Paul II
False absolutes and idolatries like scientism (science is the only valid way of knowing), evolutionism (‘it’s real science, I swear! As sure as gravity’), feticide (‘it’s just a blob of cells, and it is better to kill it than to allow it to suffer’), eugenics (‘we’re just helping Darwinism along, it’s for the good of the species’), slavery (‘of course they are less evolved!’), sexual permissiveness (‘people can’t be expected or encouraged to abstain, it’s against nature’ or ‘just because we can never produce progeny doesn’t mean that it’s unnatural’), etc.
Superstitions and errors like … [anti-religionists and thinkers (somewhat mutually exclusive groups), have a field day]
Great post!!! I have always wondered why scientists insist that they possess the only valid method for acquiring knowledge. It seems to me that they rig the game, a priori, by demanding evidence for a claim. Surely it has occurred to them that some claims do not require 'evidence' just personal experience.
Erasmus,
Listen – when you reach adulthood, you may discover that science has limits, and that the spiritual world and values have something to offer.
Until then, your humor will only serve to fuel low brow dissension. Try some intelligent conversation.
It's interesting to contrast the negatives cited by JPII (a declared supporter of modern evolutionary theory) with those you give. The comment about science purifying religion "from error and superstition" is unlikely to please creationists. The message is clearly that simplistic literalism that contradicts human reason (including science) is irreligious and unchristian. Your sarcasm about evolution being "As sure as gravity" puts your religion into the category JPII saw as needing to be 'purified' by science. Ironic, eh?
The "scientism" you refer to is a caricature. Have you ever seen anyone actually claim that 'science' "is the only valid way of knowing"? Any scientist I have encountered will tell you that methodological naturalism is the only useful way of exploring the natural world. But that leaves out "knowing" whether 2+2=4, whether I want to marry that person, what I see as the purpose of my life, and many other non-naturalistic things.
If you can be persuaded so easily that evolutionary biology tends to support eugenics and slavery, you must be so suggestible that you would probably support them yourself if I chose to make a half-baked pseudo-christian argument in favour of them. Those evils have always been used for political ends, and are dressed up with pseudo-religious justifications more often than they are with pseudo-scientific ones.
Concerning abortion and sexual permissiveness, the fact is that scientifically speaking, a foetus is a blob of cells (as indeed are you and I); similarly, it is natural to get jiggy with your Current Squeeze. That said, I have yet to meet anyone other than the dimmer type of creationist who says that evolution removes all or any consideration of morality from how we deal with each other. Has your experience been different? Please let us know who, when etc.
Anyone having a passing familiarity with Catholicism will understand "idolatry" and "false absolutes" to refer respectively to pantheism or materialsism, and to Catholic teaching on the nature of human life. Like JPII, I (and I'm sure, you) tend to have strong opinions on those things. You will probably find that all three of us disagree about the boundaries of those opinions. (As JPII is outside the jurisdiction, I'm slightly out on limb on this one, but the evidence is there). Have you considered that demanding the natural world to conform to your rather unusual perspective might be a "false absolute"?
The comment about science purifying religion “from error and superstition” is unlikely to please creationists.
I think you are wrong. As a creationist, when I hear such things, I do not think of them as attacking creationism, since I have full confidence that science supports it as well or better than, say, evolution.
When I hear the phrase ‘purify religion from error,’ I think of the normal role of reason and experience in properly understanding scripture (see The Wesleyan Quadrangle).
When I hear the phrase ‘purify religion from superstition,’ I think of such things as good luck charms, prayers to saints, vain repetition of phrases instead of heartfelt prayer, and the like.
Your sarcasm about evolution being “As sure as gravity” puts your religion into the category JPII saw as needing to be ‘purified’ by science. Ironic, eh?
Um, this is a comparison oft used by evolution supporters. It is more than sarcasm, since evolution is so untenable, so untestable, and so unobservable that such comparisons make me realize how out of touch with real science evolutionists are.
Have you ever seen anyone actually claim that ‘science’ “is the only valid way of knowing”?
Commonly called Scientism, this “exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences , and the humanities)” is increasingly being charged against modern scientists by religioninsts (including myself). I don’t have time to quote mine on it, but books such as Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark imply such.
Any scientist I have encountered will tell you that methodological naturalism is the only useful way of exploring the natural world.
I agree, but exploring (gathering data) and interpreting are two different animals, and interpretation is done based on assumptions. This is where other forms of knowing must be allowed in.
If you can be persuaded so easily that evolutionary biology tends to support eugenics and slavery, you must be so suggestible that you would probably support them yourself if I chose to make a half-baked pseudo-christian argument in favour of them. Those evils have always been used for political ends, and are dressed up with pseudo-religious justifications more often than they are with pseudo-scientific ones.
You’ve missed the point. I was not pursuaded easily, and you are so unpursuadable because, I would bet, you are too married to the evolutionary ideas to even consider their critical role and links to slavery, racism, and eugenics in history. It is a secret hidden in plain sight for those who aren’t defending evolution like zealots.
Concerning abortion and sexual permissiveness, the fact is that scientifically speaking, a foetus is a blob of cells (as indeed are you and I)
You are playing semantics to miss the point. But let’s go there, just to show how specious your reasoning is. Here’s where your reasoning goes.
1. A fetus is a mere clump of cells
2. We can destroy a mere clump of cells without being unethical
3. Human adults are a clump of cells too
4. We can therefore destroy adult humans without being unethical.
Congratulations! You and every historical despot have something in common!
When a clump of *undifferentiated* human cells becomes sufficiently differentiated, we then should have a moral quandry on our hands.
it is natural to get jiggy with your Current Squeeze.
Again, use of the word ‘natural’ is problmatic, since it can mean ‘occurring in nature’ or ‘according to the intended design.’ It is natural to want to brain someone when they piss you off too, but I would not use ‘it’s natural’ to justify such actions.
I have yet to meet anyone other than the dimmer type of creationist who says that evolution removes all or any consideration of morality from how we deal with each other.
The problem is, we all sense that there is some kind of morality needed, and no one wants to go without it, even if their philosophy leads them in that direction. This is why you don’t meet many evolutionists who will say such things. But it’s not because evolutionary thinking doesn’t lead there, but because people are unwilling to see it.
Only the truly honest materialist evolutionists will admit that evolutionary thinking leads to moral relativity and eventually to the justification of cruelty. And many have, though again, I don’t have time to quote mine.
Anyone having a passing familiarity with Catholicism will understand “idolatry” and “false absolutes” to refer respectively to pantheism or materialsism, and to Catholic teaching on the nature of human life.
And how does science lead to those things without Christian faith? I don’t think you are correct, though you may be. Again, the things I mentioned seem to be the idolatries and absolutes that scientism leads to, not the simple doctrinal issues you think Catholics focus on.
Have you considered that demanding the natural world to conform to your rather unusual perspective might be a “false absolute”?
I’m sorry, which unusual perspective is that? I suppose that you could apply this to creationism or evolutionism ;)
You misunderstand my point, which is that the reduction ad absurdum you cite requires an absence of morality from considerations of human life. Change in the genetics of populations over time does not require or even imply such an absence. To infer one is to make a political or moral judgement that has nothing to do with science…. Maintaining that we have a common ancestry with animals doesn’t imply that we should or may behave like animals. To say so requires entirely arbitrary inferences.
OK, I understand, but I believe that evolution as a theory of origins (which is what Darwin himself titled the book – ORIGIN of the species) – does have some obvious and real moral implications.
The arguments that leap from it effortlessly (whether or not you think such things are intended or misapplications) are:
– Some beings/races are more evolved than others
– Since nature itself kills off the less fit (less evolved?) for the preservation of the species, those people or races who are obviously less fit (mentally or physicall deformed or ill, or perhaps more ‘apelike’ as Darwin described aborigines),absent any other morality, *might* be killed as a moral good.
– Since humans are now not really ‘made in God’s image,’ but just a higher animal, killing humans is really no different than killing animals.
Now, while these things are not presribed, they are implied and easily derived from Darwinian theory – and have been. These are not arbitrary associations, but logical extensions of the theory – not only that, the theory describes NO priniciples by which such applications are INCORRECT.
So I do think that evolution has moral implications – it is not inert, nor is it totally ‘innocent’ of such conclusions. It must show how it does or does not integrate with existing ethical and moral systems.
But again, this alone does not mean it is false, but it means it is suspect. To ignore such historical data and logical arguments is, I believe, deceit, if not self-deceit. Sure, it is ‘not science,’ and sure, pure science does not imply morality.
But Darwinism is not pure science, it’s PHILOSOPHY of science, and as such, does imply morality.
I imagine you rate ‘evolution’ as important in this regard. Can you say why? Did it outweigh the other justifications in their minds?
Again, I provided a lot of links to documentation on this issue – I think that Social Darwinism played a significant role in the eugenics of the day in ALL of the west, including the sterilizations here in the US.
You impute that level of morality to me and everyone who disagrees with your skewed understanding of science. Why?
Can you define how you think my undestanding of science is skewed?
I am not imputing morality to you, but if you are saying any of the following, I’d say you are lying to yourself and others:
– that Darwinism has had little or no influence in the eugenics and racism of the 20th century
– that Darwinism does not have clear moral implications, whether or not you think such extensions of the theory are ‘valid’
What I am saying, in addition to contradicting the above two points, is that, the fact that Darwinism integrates so well with eugenics and racism is evidence that it may be false, because all epistemelogic disciplines, including ethics and morality, are integratable at some level.
Again, that data point alone is not sufficient to dismiss evolution, but only to accuse it. When one observes the evidence (geologic, phylogenetic, molecular, etc.), it fairs poorly as well as SCIENCE. That’s the point.
. For example, you are probably aware of justifications of slavery predicated on interpretations of the Bible, but you surely reject them as erroneous.
That is a good point. But then I would go to the next level – is there another interpretation or implication of the scriptures quoted? Absolutely. Can their application to the pro-slavery argument be shown to be spurious? I think so.
While for Darwinism, you might say “it does not apply to social theory,” there is virtually no other possible application to social theory, is there?
Also, Christianity is the only ideology in history to actually dismantle chattel slavery – how do you square that with the pro-slavery interpretation of scripture? Evolution has liberated no one that I know of, except perhaps atheists who had no other theory of origins ;)
CONCLUSION
Again, I am not saying that Darwinists are amoral or immoral, or that Darwinism prescribes certain moralities. All I am saying is that it was a clear and powerful influence in the racism and eugenics of the 20th century, that it clearly implies such things even if it does not condone them, and that such easy integration with bankrupt ethical and moral systems does reflect on it as a philosophy.
Now, you may say that it is NOT a philosophy of science, but a science. Fine. Tell me again how you could do the following for ‘common descent’:
– observe it
– experiment to show it is possible
– falsify it
Another long reply, hope that’s OK.
Seems we have two points in issue:
1. The scientific validity of common descent
2. The moral implications of evolutionary theory
1. I have to put my hands up and say that I’m not a scientist. I’m tolerably literate about some of it, but only at the popular science level. As I understand it, common descent is premised on convergent evidence from genetics, geology, embryology, palaeontology, physiology, etc. Because convergent evidence relies on multiple disciplines, I doubt that a single experiment has or can be devised to test common descent. However, it seems clear that each of the individual strands of evidence has been, and continues to be, subjected to experimental testing. If any of those strands shows a verifiable pattern inconsistent with common descent, I haven’t heard of it. Naturally, there are anomalous results, and details of the model are changed to reflect new data, but that’s science.
Is common descent a scientifically valid interpretation of that evidence? As a layman, it seems reasonable to me, though I have to admit that my education and upbringing could predispose me to think so. The scientific standard is much higher, of course. The questions a scientist asks are along the lines “Is this observation valid?”; “How could this species have come to have this feature?”; “How does this fit in with developmental, fossil, genetic etc evidence?” As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of scientists, encompassing all shades of ideological, religious, and political perspectives, support the view that all species have a common ancestry. I defer to them in the same way I defer to their scientific explanations of the structure of atoms or why glue sticks. And if they change their mind and come up with a different explanation, so be it. Group-think is possible, but I doubt that all the conditions it requires could be maintained for so long. A conspiracy is ludicrous.
Until we are blessed with a time machine, common descent remains a matter of deduction. That’s logically valid so long as the evidence is consistent with it. It is the most parsimonious explanation because it requires no more than the mechanisms which are observed to cause inheritance and variation. Of course there are gaps and imperfections, but it’s the ‘least worst’ model able to take account of the multiple strands of evidence.
Is it falsifiable? Haldane’s rabbit would do the job, as would any naturally occurring life form that falls outside temporal or genetic boundaries such that evolution can’t account for it. Also, a verifiable discrepancy between one discipline (e.g. geology) and another (e.g. genetics) would call for a new explanation.
2. What, if any, are the moral implications of evolution? Morality looks to human actions, thoughts and intentions. Observing nature is in principle neither moral nor immoral, though how one does it is of course another matter.
People are able to rationalise any unjust action as serving a just cause. You can’t dismiss the enormous variety of justifications for atrocities just because a perversion of Darwin’s theory was one of the recent ones. Power, wealth, fear and vindictiveness are as old as mankind, and the current conception of ‘common sense’, whatever it may have been, has always been used to justify actions serving them. For example, science as we understand it had little cultural status in Europe before the 18th century. At various times, justifications of the mistreatment and enslavement of ‘different’ people focused on their status as “heathens” or “heretics” or “savages”. They did not dispute the humanity of the oppressed, just their ‘worthiness’ or their status in the eyes of God. Any justification that invokes a sufficiently exalted concept, be it the tribe, the nation, class, religion, progress, science, motherhood or apple pie, can and will be used to rationalise wrongdoing. This pattern can be observed across time and place.
The Nazis used mostly economic and political justifications for the early stages of their anti-semitic campaigns. In Mein Kampf, Hitler speaks about Jews in terms of ‘disease’ and their political etc attributes, not evolution. In fact, Darwin’s works had the honour of being burned by the Nazis as decadent pseudoscience. Subsequently, the Final Solution was expressed in terms of Rassenhygiene, the removal of a source of ‘evil’ so as to ‘purify’ Germany. Yes, the idea of the ‘inferior race’ was absolutely central to their atrocities, but it bore no relation to the idea that ‘Aryans’ shared a common ancestry with Jews, let alone other great apes, and little enough even to classic Social Darwinism. Nazi nationalism was strongly mystical, and saw the German ‘race’ as emerging from the mists of time, somehow independently of other ‘races’. It distrusted and oppressed rationalism, basic science, and scepticism.
As far as I can tell (there’s only so much of these people’s web sites I can stomach) the most virulent racists in the USA today tend to reject evolution altogether. There’s definitely a strain of Social Darwinism in some prejudices (e.g. The Bell Curve). However, most commonly held prejudices seem to reflect the classic stereotyping fear of The Other (“Some of my best friends are black, but those ones in the Projects are just criminals”) rather than being deterministic (“They’re animals born with tails” or “They aren’t able to learn like we do”). Racism in Europe and Asia tends to follow the same pattern. (“If only they’d live like we do, everything would be fine.”)
Does Social Darwinism spring fully formed from the brow of evolution? You’re right that Darwin’s work was expressly relied on by the Social Darwinists. But ideas like that carry weight only so far as their underlying premise – in this case, their “objective” status as “science” – commands moral and political authority. From its inception Social Darwinism was attacked as not just immoral but as misapplied science. I don’t dispute its influence but you shouldn’t overstate it either. Political developments such as social democracy, religious reaction to Modernism, universal suffrage, and Enlightenment positions on the rights of man all had powerful influence throughout Social Darwinism’s day. European imperialism continued to rely on older justifications such as religion or political grounds right up until the 1950s That the biological theory of evolution gained acceptance while Social Darwinism remained controversial is evidence that one does not inevitably follow from the other.
You point out the role that Christians played in abolishing slavery. It would be interesting to correlate opposition to segregation in the USA or apartheid in SA with acceptance of evolutionary theory. Your position suggests that ‘evolutionists’ would be more likely to support racist oppression. I doubt that would be the case.
As I understand it, common descent is premised on convergent evidence from genetics, geology, embryology, palaeontology, physiology, etc
This is where you are mistaken. In all of these disciplines, there is very *little* convergence, very *little* evidence, and much contradictory evidence regarding common descent.
What there is is *convergent opinion*, but not evidence. Hence my articles Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution and 13 Misconceptions About Evolution. Also, this is why I provided the comments above regarding the horrible LACK of palientological evidence, as the famous evolutionists quoted so honestly stated.
I doubt that a single experiment has or can be devised to test common descent.
Well, if you lack convergent evidence, and you also lack an experiment, or series of experiments to view common descent, than what do you have? An elegant theory that can not be falsified. Which is what I claim.
However, it seems clear that each of the individual strands of evidence has been, and continues to be, subjected to experimental testing. If any of those strands shows a verifiable pattern inconsistent with common descent, I haven?t heard of it.
That is not because of science, but because of the politics of science and an a priori comittment to evolution. You have not heard of it because people who doubt are silenced and persecuted, as the very decent movie Expelled tried to document.
Is common descent a scientifically valid interpretation of that evidence? As a layman, it seems reasonable to me, though I have to admit that my education and upbringing could predispose me to think so.
It may seem reasonable without the evidence, but that is what science is about. Relativity did not seem reasonable, but it was true. Your education, like mine, most certainly did sell you on evolution, but it didn’t teach you how to examine the evidence for yourself, nor how to consider altnerate theories.
As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of scientists, encompassing all shades of ideological, religious, and political perspectives, support the view that all species have a common ancestry.
As I said, consensus without evidence is merely ideology, or psychosis. In the 1920’s, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, including America, thought medical eugenics a good thing.
I defer to them in the same way I defer to their scientific explanations of the structure of atoms or why glue sticks.
As do many. However, in the case of evolution, you have been sold a philosophy of science, and an unsubstantiated theory as fact. It is my job to warn you that uncritical trust of scientific authorities, esp. today, is not as safe as you think. Ever heard of Vioxx?
Until we are blessed with a time machine, common descent remains a matter of deduction. That?s logically valid so long as the evidence is consistent with it.
While this may seem so to you, I object to those who claim that this is the ONLy way one may look at the data, denying either Intelligent Design or even Special Creationist explanations of origins. In light of the contradictory evidence regarding evolution, to shut out other explanations is hubris. And it’s not science. AND, you CAN do science from an ID or creationist perspective. While such science is being done, atheist, secularist materialists are engaged in a semantic battle to protect their idea of science (which was not held by the luminaries of science in the past who were greater than they).
Is it falsifiable? Haldane?s rabbit would do the job, as would any naturally occurring life form that falls outside temporal or genetic boundaries such that evolution can?t account for it. Also, a verifiable discrepancy between one discipline (e.g. geology) and another (e.g. genetics) would call for a new explanation.
So, if I provide, for instance, morphologically modern fossils that are supposedly from the beginning of the evoultionary timeline, would you admit that evolution was falsified? Why or why not?
How about the ‘Cambrian explosion’? Not good enough for you? I guarantee that any falsification I provide, you will probably weasle out of like most evolutionists do.
You can?t dismiss the enormous variety of justifications for atrocities just because a perversion of Darwin?s theory was one of the recent ones.
The critical distinction is that such applications are logical extensions of the theory. While this does not prove that Darwinism is wrong, I stand by the accusation that it makes it suspect, and I think that’s a reasonable approach.
If it can be proven that such an application is misunderstanding of the principles (rather than a misapplication), that might defend Darwinism. I do not think that you can dismiss all the implications of a theory just because you morally object, or people use any theory to justify cruelty.
The question is, is that a reasonable extension of the theory? I claim it is, and that means somethign about the theory.
The Nazis used mostly economic and political justifications for the early stages of their anti-semitic campaigns. In Mein Kampf, Hitler speaks about Jews in terms of ?disease? and their political etc attributes, not evolution.
If you read the books on the subject, you will see that Hitler used the language of Darwinism. ‘Disease’ is part of being ‘unfit.’ It is very clear to me that Darwin had a huge influence on Nazism, and history bears that out.
You point out the role that Christians played in abolishing slavery. It would be interesting to correlate opposition to segregation in the USA or apartheid in SA with acceptance of evolutionary theory. Your position suggests that ?evolutionists? would be more likely to support racist oppression. I doubt that would be the case
Perhaps you missed the clear link between racism and Darwinism in it’s infancy. See Darwinism’s history of racism