« Teens, blogging, homeschooling and murder | Main | All trails lead to Camarillo »
November 17, 2005
ID Me
For weeks, I have been intending to pull together a good meaty post on Intelligent Design, especially given the Dover trial, the Kansas vote and the various statements and writings of the Pope and Cardinal Schonborn and others. But hasn't happened. I think, in the end, I have two questions, one of which I have posed here before and not, to my knowledge received a satisfactory answer to - at least satisfactory to my simple mind. I'll ask that one second.
1)I am far less interested in Intelligent Design than I am in simply asking questions about evolutionary theory. It seems to me one could be done with out the other, and, in fact, need to be. There is not one aspect of science which should go unquestioned, even by members of the unwashed such as me, and I am a little wear of questions about evolution - about evidence, in particular - being brushed off as the wishful thinking of creationists. They're not. It would be quite interesting for cultural permission to be given, as it were, for this particular dogma to be held up to scrutiny and for an honest discussion to be had about the explanatory power of evolutionary theory as well as its weaknesses, flaws and gaps - without anyone getting defensive. Impossible, but it's sort of what I'm looking for.
2)On the other hand, self-professed theists who are dismissive of Intelligent Design - are you saying that the traditional Argument from Design is baseless? That the hand of God is not evident in creation? That creation tells us nothing about God other than...God started it, I guess? These words from Benedict inspired much conversation on this point in various blogs:
One must have clear eyes to contemplate this divine revelation, recalling the warning of the Book of Wisdom, which invites us to know the Creator by analogy "from the greatness and beauty of created things" (Wisdom 13:5; cf. Romans 1:20). Prayerful praise then flows from contemplation of the "wonders" of God (cf. Psalm 135[136]:4), displayed in creation and is transformed in a joyful hymn of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord.
3. From created works one ascends, therefore, to the greatness of God, to his loving mercy. It is this that the Fathers of the Church teach us, in whose voice resounds the constant Christian Tradition.
Thus, St. Basil the Great in one of the initial pages of his first homily on the Hexameron, in which he comments on the story of creation according to the first chapter of Genesis, pauses to consider God's wise action, which leads him to recognize in divine goodness the propelling center of creation. Here are some of the expressions taken from the long reflection of the holy bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia:
It would seem to be one thing to say that such care and even design could be discerned through
God's use of an evolutionary process to create, even through such oft-discussed and easily misunderstood concepts such as "randomness" - (yes, we've discussed that before, and I get that part of it). But I suppose my question is this: How do Christian and Jewish proponents of evolutionary theory propose that we talk (even when we are just talking theology, not science) of God's traditionally conceived role as, not just the engine who got things started, but as the One whose creation speaks of Him, in whose (yes) design and process and beauty God is involved and cares for? This, I still am not grasping.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8346230aa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ID Me:
Comments
Amy,
Let me address your second point:
On the other hand, self-professed theists who are dismissive of Intelligent Design - are you saying that the traditional Argument from Design is baseless? That the hand of God is not evident in creation? That creation tells us nothing about God other than...God started it, I guess?
(a) The "traditional" argument does not employ the word "Design," so we really have a non-starter here. The "traditional" argument is that our Father is the Creator of the Universe. Most biologists and scientists would agree with you on that, but that statement is the beginning of the Credo, not a scientifically determined fact. It is not an argument in the logical or scientific sense.
(b) The "self-professed theist" opponent of ID does not claim that "That the hand of God is not evident in creation." Rather he or she states that the hypothesis "the hand of God is evident in creation" is not a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be disproven by any experiment: not because it is true, but because it is ill posed.
For instance, if I tell you that God created the world (as it is) merely five minutes ago, there is nothing you can do to disprove my "hypothesis." It is a nonscientific hypothesis because it can't be tested. Behe's hypothesis is similarly ill posed. Worse, it contains a critical logical error: "If A implies B and B is wrong then C is right." Since there is no relationship between A and C, this is a fallacy. It is, unfortunately, an ancient logical fallacy that persists in all sorts of junk science.
As to your last question ("That creation tells us nothing about God other than...God started it, I guess?"), science is not concerned with God. This dosn't mean that science is "anti-God" but rather, the scientific method does not lend any tools to the study of our Father, because it is impossible to run experiments on Him.
I would be happy to explain "randomness" to you over e-mail: in fact it is my area of research. It suffices to say that most people - including scientists - don't understand randomness and how it can spontaneously result in order in physical systems. I know that sounds counterintuitive but it is in fact true.
Posted by: Ian at Nov 17, 2005 11:13:56 AM
To me, the evidence (especially DNA sequence similarity across species) backing evolution is very much the easiest way to understand our history.
Natural selection and random genetic mutation and alteration is the easiest most straightforward and likely explanation to me.
But here's where it get's tricky (well, not tricky per se, but rather, tricky for the mainstream media and anti-faith zealots) - we know from Mother Church that we cannot possibly be the result of a cold, thoughtless or loveless creation process. We know God created us - He tells us so. How can we reconcile this with the science?
In essence, the athiests in general do not stop where the science stops. Science can only say with statistical figures that evolution is how we got to be how we are today and that random population and genetic events are the best model for explaining this. The athiest then procaims that random equates to God not being in the picture. That's an enormous metaphysical jump to take on the part of the athiests!
In reality, it is quite possible for God to be present in seemingly random and stochastic events - we must strive to remember that God isn't like us, constrained by space/time/energy. Just because we cannot see God's hand in them, we shouldn't believe that it is not. Nor should we be so scared that we're unable to face observable consequences.
To me, evolution is merely proof of the incredibleness of God, the unending extent to which he exends beyond our ability in this world to fully know and appreciate him, and his true power and love.
That's just me though.
Posted by: Chris at Nov 17, 2005 11:20:46 AM
Like many Catholics, I don't really feel compelled to put a dog in this fight, and I'm in line with what Amy wrote. I do notice a strong hint of glibness from a number of Catholic experts on this subject, especially those on university staffs.
The usual routine is for a reporter to write up a story about an extreme example of creationism, e.g., the Cincinnati museum which "demonstrates" how the earth is only 6,000 years old, and then fetch a contradictory quote from a Catholic professor (in the case of the story above, Xavier) who on cue tsks, tsks the fundamentalist bumpkins.
Regarding the latter, instead of using it as a teaching moment, an impression is created that either all views of evolution are equal or that the Church has no particular problem with the atheism which lurks behind some of those views.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 17, 2005 11:32:19 AM
Amy,
To answer your other question that I'd missed before (the last long sentence of your post), I say this: say what you want about our Father as long as you're not making things up about Him and and as long as you don't call your theories "science" when they are untestable.
There is no doubt in my mind that He is the "Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen."
There are many ways He may have done this: One might have been to set Plancks's constant, the masses and changes of protons, neutrons and electrons and the speed of light in a way that permits molecules to exist; molecules that can interact and spontaneously (and randomly) assemble under certain conditions to produce complex structures.
Who are you and who am I to say how He has created this world and how he takes care of it? I can posit my theory and you can posit yours, but neither of us can prove our theories because they get at "meaning" and "purpose" which the scientific method cannot address.
Posted by: Ian at Nov 17, 2005 11:32:55 AM
I was taught the classic "Argument from Design" in college apologetics. Maybe some people call it a "proof". I learned it as an argument and a good argument because design points in the direction of a Creator and makes it not unreasonable to believe in a Creator. The same was taught of the other arguments: first cause, unmoved mover, and ultimate end. None of them were proofs for the existence of God but rather proofs that it was not unreasonable to believe in the existence of God, and, to the contrary, that it was resonable to believe in the existence of God. Evolution does not prove that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God nor does it prove that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
Seems to me that the discussion needs to clearly distinguish between proof of there being a Creator and proof of the reasonableness of believing there is a Creator.
Posted by: Caroline at Nov 17, 2005 11:34:57 AM
I was taught the classic "Argument from Design" in college apologetics. Maybe some people call it a "proof". I learned it as an argument and a good argument because design points in the direction of a Creator and makes it not unreasonable to believe in a Creator. The same was taught of the other arguments: first cause, unmoved mover, and ultimate end. None of them were proofs for the existence of God but rather proofs that it was not unreasonable to believe in the existence of God, and, to the contrary, that it was resonable to believe in the existence of God. Evolution does not prove that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God nor does it prove that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
Seems to me that the discussion needs to clearly distinguish between proof of there being a Creator and proof of the reasonableness of believing there is a Creator.
Posted by: Caroline at Nov 17, 2005 11:36:04 AM
If by the traditional argument for design we are talking about St. THomas's fifth way, then ID and the traditional argument are not the same.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
Here St. Thomas is talking about how things without intelligence act for a purpose, and they therefore must be directed towards their purpose by something endowed with Intelligence. This is the same thing that endows them with their nature, and is God.
"Rather he or she states that the hypothesis "the hand of God is evident in creation" is not a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be disproven by any experiment."
Scientific reasoning does not necessarily involve hypotheses, and a hypothesis does not necessarily need to be disprovable in order to be a valid hypothesis. Both assertions involve specific understandings of science that are contestable. If science = reasoning from naturally knowable premises, then science is much more (or less restrictive) than the hypothetical-deductive method (with falsifiability thrown in) or the accounts of science provided by other contemporary models.
"Behe's hypothesis is similarly ill posed. Worse, it contains a critical logical error: "If A implies B and B is wrong then C is right." Since there is no relationship between A and C, this is a fallacy."
Behe's basic argument does not fall under this--rather it is framed as an a posteriori demonstration, reasoning from the nature of the effects. The nature of the effects excludes neo-Darwinistic mechanisms as a cause, because that mechanism is insufficient to yield the effect. Only a designer can account for the effect. Now it may be the case that Behe needs to separate and distinguish between formal and efficient causality, and show how one is dependent upon the other, but if the argument is problematic, it is not because it is a simple fallacy.
"Science is not concerned with God." If this is taken simply to mean that God is not the direct subject of science, this is true, whether it be natural science or even of natural 'theology'/metaphysics (according to the teachings of St. Thomas). However, if this is taken to mean that the existence of God cannot be proven through science (~reasoning by unaided reason alone) then it is wrong, and we have Vatican I as support.
Posted by: T. Chan at Nov 17, 2005 11:36:53 AM
Caroline:
The five ways of St. Thomas are strict demonstrations/proofs (according to the canons of Aristotelian logic), not merely arguments to show that belief in God is reasonable. Not sure if your course was trying to be tactful or if it was influenced by some modern epistemological theory.
Posted by: T. Chan at Nov 17, 2005 11:39:58 AM
erm, "charges" not "changes"
Posted by: Ian at Nov 17, 2005 11:40:03 AM
Yes, Ian, is correct here, IMHO.
I received a traditional Catholic parochial school education back in the late forties and early fifties. Being a precocious little snot, in fourth grade I asked Sister if it was true that "people came from monkeys". "Well, Tommy, it may have been true that God prepared the bodies of our first parents from living lower animal forms, but then he created their souls out of nothing." Never once in sixteen years of Catholic education and then in graduate theological studies did I ever have a teacher who suggested that their was incompatibility between evolution and Catholic doctrine.
I received the old fashioned kind of Thomistic education in a Jesuit and Benedictine college. We always distinguished WHICH discipline was responsible for answering which kind of questions. Questions about when, where, and how hominids first appeared are scientific questions. Questions about whether the evident awesome order, beauty, and design are clues to a Cause outside of the visible universe that is infinite in intelligence are philosophical questions. Questions about how to interpret the first three chapters of Genesis or whether the First Cause has revealed Himself not only though nature, but also through history are theological questions. It is wrong for science to deal with God issues because its methodologies are not adequate for the task. It is not wrong for scientists to be concerned with God issues. It IS wrong for scientists to use the prestige associated with their education to pontificate on non-scientific issues like whether the arguments from reason alone for the existence of God are valid or invalid. If they present their atheism or agnosticism as in some way connected with science, then they are out of their field, in the same way as the fundamentalist strays from theology and exegesis when he reads into (eisogesis) Genesis answers to modern scientific questions.
Catholics have much to learn from fundamentalists and evangelicals in the area of how to share faith with others, but the proper exegesis of the first and last books of the Bible is not the strong suit of many in this tradition.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 17, 2005 11:51:54 AM
Hello, T. Chan,
You use the word "science" in the older scholastic sense of knowledge through causes. Vatican I insisted that God's existence could be established through reflection on the universe, not through modern empirical scientific methodology.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 17, 2005 12:01:03 PM
Re the touchiness of Biologists and other Darwinists:
If you think that this little dustup over evolution is bad, just take a look at the history of Archeology. As one archeologist pointed out, when someone digs up a human bone, something in them just goes crazy. There have been many famous feuds in that field that have descended to breath-taking pettiness on both sides. I think that it can be stated as a general rule that the closer a scientists work comes to the meaning of what it is to be human, the less likely that the openness to new ideas that ones sees in Physics or Chemistry, for instance, will be evident.
Thus, Darwinism takes on some of the trappings of a religion for many of its adherents because it fulfills some of the functions of a religion in that it tells a story of where people came from and why they are the way they are.
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Nov 17, 2005 12:08:31 PM
I think Tom's point is excellent. Among other Cardinals of that period, John Henry Newman was particularly unimpressed by William Paley's argument from design.
Amy, if you want to read a not long but excellent overiew of evolutionary theory, than the late Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is is a great place to start.
Posted by: John Farrell at Nov 17, 2005 12:09:44 PM
I'll point out that contemporary ID has a school of thought that actually tries to quantify design. So some IDers are actually trying to quantify something essentially qualitative. This strikes me as very odd, and indeed logically impossible. Since modern science prides itself on being quantitative, it is necessarily blind to design.
Yes, trying to bring qualitative concerns back into our incredibly utilitarian public philosophy is a good thing, but ID is an awkward way of doing it. ID makes far too many concessions to scientism by trying to pass off what is essentially natural philosophy(and a nineteenth century school of natural philosophy, at that) as science.
Also, I'll point out that Edward T. Oakes, SJ sees a vast difference between Paley's ID theory and Aquinas' teleological argument: click here
I've been thinking that perhaps more of this effort would be better spent fighting amoral sex ed, which I think causes far more damage, but then I realized that amoral sex ed is based on a Darwinian anthropology--namely that man isn't qualitatively different from other mammals, and thus humanity is irresistably driven to spread his genes. Darwinism has a very thin conception of culture and indeed human agency. Both are epiphenomenal manifestations of genetics and natural selection at work. Hence from Darwinism itself arises the banal cliche that the kids "are gonna do it anyway." So people try and keep these natural nigh-irresistable desires from doing too much damage not through cultural constraints or self-discipline but through technology. So I have to grudgingly agree that Darwinism, or at least its widely-held libertine interpretation, needs a strong counter.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Nov 17, 2005 12:10:54 PM
"You use the word "science" in the older scholastic sense of knowledge through causes. Vatican I insisted that God's existence could be established through reflection on the universe, not through modern empirical scientific methodology."
Yes, I am. Is modern empirical scientific methodology intrinsically hampered from attaining the First Cause? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, if researchers were willing to admit that they were relying primarily on quantification or measurement in their reasoning, ignoring certain causes (final and formal), and failing to distinguish between efficient and material causes, AND that their methodology isn't the only valid means for attaining knowledge of the natural world, then we wouldn't have a problem.
The problem is that scientists don't understand what science should be about and are hampered by self-imposed restrictions, either because of bad philosophy or bad training or both.
Posted by: T. Chan at Nov 17, 2005 12:13:33 PM
IMHO, statements by Benedict XVI and recent (corrected) statements by Cardinal Schoenbrun about order and beauty in the universe as clues for a transcendent Creator belong to the genre of intelligent appeals to Western intelligentsia to reexamine their facile rejection of traditional theism that they picked up along with knowledge of modern science. They are not magisterial interventions on the the subject of evolution and theology. Benedict XVI has never had much interest in the details and internal squabbles of Thomistic natural theology (he much prefers the Augustinian tradition). He's a very strong proponent of ongoing discussions between theologians and philosophers and scientists about issues of mutual concern. And he's given every indication that he believes that theologians and philosophers need to learn science from the scientists.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 17, 2005 12:18:35 PM
Hello again, T. Chan,
Indeed, there is a serious problem with the lack of philosophical education among many scientists. Many of them have never been exposed to the kind of science of the sciences (scholastic critique of the modern empirical and behavioral sciences) that abounded in most Catholic colleges in the forties and fifties. This is why many scientists leave these international meetings in Rome with renewed respect for the capacity of the Catholic tradition to examine issues from a rich profusion of perspectives with respect for many different slants.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 17, 2005 12:26:00 PM
Re Touchy's comment, scientists are people too.
Amy's concern about God only "starting it" touches an idea I keep struggling with but which I find explains (or at least makes acceptable) much. God is not constrained by time. God created time.
Being a creationist (I believe God did it) who finds evolution science (as opposed to evolution philosophy) compelling, I have difficulty with Creationists who claim that if God did it, they know how. Conversely, I have the same trouble with Evolutionists who claim that they know how, so no God could have done it.
I am still thinking about the idea of Intelligent Design as embodied in the Discovery Institute and have yet to make up my mind. It seems that the adamantly anti-ID scientists object to the phrase "Intelligent Design" and only that phrase. What gets lost is the problems (limits?) of evolution which "ID" points out. On the other hand, I wonder what the same scientists think about SETI. What if the Intelligence in ID is not divine? Does that make the idea more palatable?
All that being said, I don't think I could believe in a God who could be scientifically proved. Such a God would be much too small for my liking.
Posted by: Mike Melendez at Nov 17, 2005 12:37:54 PM
Kevin, thanks so much for the link to Father Oakes' brilliant refutation of ID.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 17, 2005 12:49:56 PM
Do scientists behave like human beings? Yes. The scientific debate on evolution ended decades ago. If scientists seem huffy about revisiting evolution, consider how bent out of shape people get about core Christian issues like the divinity of Jesus or the Immaculate Conception.
Proponents of evolutionary theory went through the ringer in the 19th and early 20th centuries. So evolution is pretty well established as a model and all the other challengers have fallen to the wayside. I don't blame scientists for treating ID with grave suspicion, especially given the political clmiate, the popularity of practices such as astrology, and other trends hostile to science.
A lot of things complement science education. And scientists would certainly benefit (and some have) from studies in philosophy, religion, and other disciplines. But that's a separate issue.
Getting back to the theology thing, if I'm relaxing at home and a fundamentalist rings my doorbell, I might be inclined to get into a discussion on the Eucharist or Mary. If I'm on the "job," and teaching a class or something and some individual wants to debate me off topic on the Real Presence or something, then yes, I might not allow the session to get derailed.
ID people don't have a scientific leg to stand on. Which isn't to say the philosophical and religious questions shouldn't be asked and scientists and ID folks sit together to have that discussion. But I can't blame scientists for being impatient or even a bit testy about intrusions and assumptions and even attempts to alter the definition of science itself.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 17, 2005 12:51:04 PM
Amy,
I'll go ahead and take a shot at 1) I guess...
Whether or not evolution is "questioned" tends to have a lot to do with what you mean by "evolution". It's true that within the science community there's really not much of any serious question of the basic concept of biological common descent with modification. This is for much the same reason people don't spend a lot of time questioning gravity or the expanding universe. Discarding the entire concept of common descent would be a huge change within biology, and so it would take some really, really incredible new evidence to suggest to people this was well worth considering.
However, there is a lot of debate that goes on in the scientific community about how exactly all this takes place. The gradualists and punctuated equalibrium supporters constantly go back and forth and sometimes even get down to personal insults and claims that the other side is "unscientific".
Although I don't know as much about genetic and cellular biology (and I'm not any sort of scientist, just a reading laymen with a particular interest in evolution and anthropology), from what I've read there's also all sorts of lively debate about what sorts of factors produce variation in the first place and how they work.
Now, as to the openness to questioning by laymen, it's true that scientists often get snippy with people who confront them wanting answers to all the "evidence against evolution" or the "holes in the evidence". A lot of this, I think, is just that they get really tired of fielding the same questions all the time, sometimes from people who don't seem to care much about the answers. I used to volunteer at the planetarium where my dad worked, and one of the things you got to dread after a while was all the people who would show up with their own "theories" they'd want to tell you about and have you take seriously. Seeing as we dealt with astronomy at the planetarium, of these were UFO/X-Files types, with the occasional unshaved fellow who claimed to have disproved relativity and discovered a whole new physics. It got really, really old -- especially because no matter how much you explained they would reply, "Yes, that's what they tell you. But don't you ever wonder if they're lying?" (Kind of the astronomical equivalent of Dan Brown fans...)
Certainly, some people are willing to blast any questions about evolution as fundamentalist idiocy, but I would say that the majority of evolution proponents (both full time and recreational) are willing to answer questions politely assuming that the questioner seems to be interested in the answer rather than simply establishing well defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. I think what does tend to cause a lot of frustration is when someone tosses out a comment like "I don't think evolution has account for the second law of thermodynamics" or "There are no transitional forms" but has no particular interest in learning more about the field in order to understand the answers to those questions -- which sometimes seem to be a stand-in for "I really don't want to think about evolution, and I've heard these are standard excuses for ignoring it."
Sorry to run so long...
On question two, Marriage as a Vocation had a really good post on this the other day. (The author is a Catholic geology PhD married to a paleontology grad student. Bearing blog had another. And (tooting own horn) DarwinCatholic did as well.
Posted by: DarwinCatholic at Nov 17, 2005 1:03:25 PM
Man oh man, I finally found the gold mine. I am a Catholic who is a scientist, and have been wondering why people either have to support evolution OR ID. I think religion needs science and science needs religion. THAT is the only way which can lead us to truth. To me eveolution is a solid "scientific" theory, which makes no attempt to explain "purpose".
THose evolutionist you talk to who present their evidence for natural selection and then go further and claim that this happened without a God are not being true to themselves. Like Ian says, its not testable, therefor its not a valid "scientific theory".
Those ID proponants who at the same time present their evidence for design and then go further and claim this could not have happened by chance and that a God was involved, are doing the same.
Although I would love for the existance of God to be proven "scientifically", I think we need to make sure and understand that we're trying to merged two fields that can't be merged, however compliment each other perfectly when used in the right context.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 17, 2005 1:06:34 PM
I guess many of the above will not put much value in what I believe but here goes. First of all, God did creat the universe and everything in it. Why would He go through an evolutionary process to creat us. Certainly He could creat us in a matter of seconds if He wanted to.
I look at evolution in a practical sense.Why do we see the man evolving from the ape and never anything from where the ape came from? The obvious reason is no one knows. If we evolved,what was the order of parts that we have, come into being. It seems to me we need almost all our parts to begin with.You cannot live without a liver or kidneys,etc. The best I could get from people defending evolution to this question is that the parts evolved at the same time. That sounds like creation to me.
Posted by: george at Nov 17, 2005 1:07:04 PM
I'm with Amy here:
"I am far less interested in Intelligent Design than I am in simply asking questions about evolutionary theory. It seems to me one could be done with out the other, and, in fact, need to be."
To this layman, there seem to be a number of unanswered, difficult questions with evolutionary theory. Insofar as ID helps to pose challenges to the status quo, I'm all for it. Is ID itself the answer? I don't know and, at this point, I don't much care one way or the other.
And I think Tom's post above is right on the money -- particulatly this part:
"Catholics have much to learn from fundamentalists and evangelicals in the area of how to share faith with others, but the proper exegesis of the first and last books of the Bible is not the strong suit of many in this tradition."
Amen. Part of the genius of Catholicism is that it does not fall prey to 'Pat Robertson' syndrome.
Posted by: Joe at Nov 17, 2005 1:12:22 PM
I studied physics at the feet of the great men of that field, but decided to leave when I realized that they were preaching a heresy against right reason. I wanted to do a thesis questioning the two fundamental theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics. I realized that these two theories are mutually contradictory, and wanted to do a critique, and propose some alternatives. But I was told that if I pursued this line of thought, I would never get a job in academia. Now I understand why they support these theories: relativity supports the idea of subjectivity, while quantum mechanics supports the idea of a pure, ontological randomness. In other words, these two theories say that objective truth and Divine Providence are not possible; however, these theories are most likely wrong. This is relevant to the evolution controversy since obviously God can direct genetic mutation as well as everything else in the Universe; but the evolutionists have to back up their theory with an appeal to pure randomness.
Posted by: Mark at Nov 17, 2005 1:31:07 PM
