"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Billion and billions of demons, The New York Review, p.31, January 9, 1997.
2007-06-01 13:38:04 · 11 answers · asked by M&S 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It just proves that Evolution indeed is a materialistic presupposition & Evolutionary scientists are willing to ignore convincing evidence that contradicts it. Not only that, many of them are predisposed to use this same a priori attitude in their science for self gain. You tell me Evolution doesn't pollute science!
2007-06-01 13:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by Sakurachan 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well, that is the philosophy of rational empiricism. Every philosophy makes basic assumptions that cannot be proven. What most people don't know is that this is true for "science" as well. Science has empiricism at the philosophical root. Thanks to Mr. Lewontin for discussing this so honestly.
Graciela above seems to be a dualist, she does not understand her own worldview...but that is the way most uneducated persons (or educated by the public school system, LOL) think currently. An excellent treatment of this school of thought can be found in Nancy Pearcey's book, "Total Truth"
2007-06-01 20:44:38 · answer #2 · answered by greengo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That profession is an act of faith to and ,as a philosophy, of blind faith in Materialism. However, for analytical procedure/process in the physical sciences,one can only use what can be measured and registered by the senses
.Agnosticism in the sense of not making philosophical,ideological and unverifiable statements about the aesthetic,spiritual and nonchemical in the area of the physical sciences is sensible,but militant materialism that dogmatically teaches that all is Creatorless chance has no more a place in the laboratory than defense of the Olympic Gods does. Such things are for philosophy classes,comparative religion classes,cultural anthropology classes, the history of biology maybe ,but not in biology, chemistry,physics and their related physical sciences and their classes and projects.
2007-06-01 20:54:31 · answer #3 · answered by James O 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All he's saying is you can't mix your causal supernatural things with nature. If you can't explain it in nature, you can't explain it - scientifically. If you want unscientific or religious explanations for the cause of something you can go to religion, just don't pretend it's a scientific explanation.
Put another way...if you're a scientist and you get to the beginnings of the universe and say "well, there must be a god that set all that in motion"...you've just left science and entered religion. It seems "weak" to say science cannot answer questions but it simply cannot answer everything. Lack of knowledge scares some.
2007-06-01 20:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator.
He attacks a straw man of evolution, something you should be intimately familiar with. By the way, if you think he advocates 'god did it' you are nuts. He has done a lot of work in population genetics and has his own ideas of how evolution happens. None of them involve a god.
2007-06-01 20:52:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1) Sorry you can't live forever. But thanks to science, you're alive right now. 100 years ago, you would have a 50/50 chance of being dead right now.
2) Just-so stories? Like what?
3) Materialism as in reality? Yeah. That's what science can investigate.
4) Yeah. If there's no evidence of something, all science can say is 'there's no evidence for that'.
5) Yep. There's no evidence for god.
2007-06-01 20:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by eri 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A supernatural claim can't be made in science because it can't be scientifically supported. It's fine to believe in God but it shouldn't be used as the answer to every unanswered question. Science has its own place, and religion has its own place. They should coexist separately and not mix. It's fine that Richard Lewontin is both a geneticist that believes in evolution and a Christian. However, he should respect that they are to be kept separate.
2007-06-01 20:43:50 · answer #7 · answered by Graciela, RIRS 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lewontin has a lot of political motivations to most of what he says. He argues that a lot of human traits are not inherited but are socially formed. He is pretty alone in a lot of that and is lashing out a little.
2007-06-01 20:48:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that if it was accurately quoted in context, then Mr. Lewontin has it completely backwards.
2007-06-01 20:49:50 · answer #9 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the foundational problem with evolutionary thought.
2007-06-01 20:47:12 · answer #10 · answered by johnnywalker 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋