"...science comes up with a theory, which he calls a paradigm, develops tests based on those paradigms to discover the facts to prove the paradigms. When the tests, however, come up with facts that dispute the paradigms, anomalies as he calls them, the paradigm begins to break down, and a "“paradigm shift"” occurs. Some in academics cling desperately to the old paradigm, but soon, all science begins to reject the old paradigm, and a new “theory” of science replaces the old.
"Evolution is reaching the point of a paradigm shift. As scientific and technical knowledge advances, new tests based on evolution are being developed, except these new tests are developing facts that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. The response of the defenders of evolution in some cases is to attack those who question the theory, rather than seek to develop facts to prove their critics wrong. Evolution, in some quarters, is accepted as an article of faith, and those who donÂ’t accept the faith are figuratively burned at the stake as "“scientific"” heretics."
Evolutions do not refute the claims of Creationism, they simply define the supernatural out of the debate. The underlying paradigm they assert is based on philosophical naturalism:
Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo He is founder and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the ParanormalCSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, the Center for Inquiry and Prometheus Book. He defines philosophical naturalism as such:
"Naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. 1. The reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. 2. The inadmissiof they ofthe supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme"
Obviously to accept the supernatural would be a deviation from naturalistic explanations. However, this definition of science does not legitimately refute the claims of intelligent design.
MONDAY MORNING MEMORANDUM
By Assemblyman Ray Haynes
October 10, 2005
Intelligent Design?
A new debate has begun over the question of the origin of the species, and our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'’Connell, has weighed in on the subject. Last week he announced that California schools would never teach the theory of "“intelligent design."” No mater what the science says, he proclaimed, California would always teach evolution.I can understand how anyone who has spent most of his life in government, like O'’Connell, would come to the conclusion that creation is an act of pure random chance, since most government action is purely random, and largely unsuccessful. Most government programs spend eternity crashing into peoples'’ lives, occasionally ruining them, mostly annoying them, and generally costing them money unnecessarily. There is certainly no intelligent design in government.
Science, however, is beginning to question the origin of the species. The problem with evolution is that, although it purports to be a complete theory about how we came about, it cannot explain some of the things that science is discovering about how we work. Evolution says more complex biological systems "“evolved"” from less complex systems, so, as we study the more complex systems, we should be able to figure out from which less complex systems the more complex systems evolved.
But we can'’t. In fact, some scientists have discovered the problem of "“irreducible complexity,"” which essentially means that no less complex system can be found from the complex system being studied.
In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn talks about how scientific theory is explained. Most of us are taught from high school that science develops tests to study the facts, comes up with a theory about how those facts relate to each other, and that is how knowledge is developed. Kuhn disputed this explanation. He claimed that science comes up with a theory, which he calls a paradigm, develops tests based on those paradigms to discover the facts to prove the paradigms. When the tests, however, come up with facts that dispute the paradigms, anomalies as he calls them, the paradigm begins to break down, and a "“paradigm shift"” occurs. Some in academics cling desperately to the old paradigm, but soon, all science begins to reject the old paradigm, and a new "“theory"” of science replaces the old.
Evolution is reaching the point of a paradigm shift. As scientific and technical knowledge advances, new tests based on evolution are being developed, except these new tests are developing facts that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. The response of the defenders of evolution in some cases is to attack those who question the theory, rather than seek to develop facts to prove their critics wrong. Evolution, in some quarters, is accepted as an article of faith, and those who donÂ’t accept the faith are figuratively burned at the stake as "“scientific"” heretics.
I thought we had moved beyond hemlock, prisons, and witch hunts in academia with the passing of Socrates, or the jailing of Galileo. Unfortunately, evolution has become a sacred belief, with Darwin'’s writings as the scripture, and those who question the church of evolution are treated as heathens. Shouldn'’t science be about discussing and testing alternative theories of nature and natural occurrences? Do we simply reject a fact of nature because it doesn'’t fit into our "“world view"” of how nature is, or should be, organized? Certainly Jack O'’Connell thinks so. No longer the Superintendent of Public Instruction, he has chosen to become the High Priest of Darwinian Evolution.
I thought our left wing friends were the chief proponent of an open-minded approach to education. This latest attack on the critics proves them to be exactly what they are, doctrinaire censors of open scientific discourse, true heirs of the collectivist ideology they promote and protect.
1 comment:
To start out with I will just post quotes from the memorandum written by California Republican Assymblyman Ray Haynes:
“Evolution is reaching the point of a paradigm shift.”
I would ask, where is the evidence?
“…new tests based on evolution are being developed, except these new tests are developing facts that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.”
Again where is the evidence?
“Evolution, in some quarters, is accepted as an article of faith, and those who don’t accept the faith are figuratively burned at the stake as "scientific" heretics.”
Yet again, where is the evidence?
It is my belief that when one is compossing a “memorandum” containing assertions such as the three listed above one would be compelled (in respone to a demand of legitamacy) to include a bibliography as a source of support. Assertions such as these should be followed with reinforcement with a bare minimum of one article of abutment.
I also find Ray Haynes usage of Thomas Kuhn’s brilliant philosophis of science to be inacurate and perfidious taken within Hayne’s context.
Ironically I stumbled across this blog searching for essays written by the brilliant Paul Kurts. In any givin essay written by Kurtz he has numerous footnotes and lengthy bibliographies so as the reader may find references and support for the body of writing. A bibliography allows one not only to view the actual support and research undertaken by the author but it also allows the reader to view the materials themselves and come to their own interpetations and conclusions.
The definition of theory seems to be very loose these days especially when concerning evolution so I took it upon myself to include a general explanation for what a scientific theory really consists of; Thomas Kuhn’s “philosophy of science” I believe was taken out of context and true meaning to back up a thesis that it would’ve naturally opposed, so here is a general defintion:
“In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified.
Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.
Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric theory or model of Ptolemy. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.” – wikipedia.org
Post a Comment