Morning Edition intelligent design
It was short, it wasn't very informative, but there were some bright spots about the creation/evolution debate on today's Morning Edition. A highlight was the brief interview with Owen Gingerich. Gingerich is a historian of science and a director of the astronomy center at Harvard. His claim has been that science and intelligent design (small case) are not incompatible, but that the Intelligent Design movement has put a specific spin on the theory that has made it more difficult to synthesize with evolutionary theory. Here's a portion of that interview.
OG: "...[Intelligent design] is a philosophical argument and there's no way to prove or disprove it. It's a matter of belief, of making a coherent view of everything, but it's not giving the kind of answers that you're getting from science."
NPR: "Is that how you use [Intelligent Design] in your own thinking?"
OG: "That, I feel, is like looking at a piece of music. If you see it on the page, you can analyze the notes in great detail but you can't hear the melody, you won't understand it's aesthetic appeal.
"Without a capital "I" and a capital "D", I am saying that I believe there is purpose and meaning in the universe, that it's not all just some macabre, mechanical joke."
posted by e at 1:21 PM
8 Comments:
E:
Thought I would post something from a book I have been reading. The book is The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. It is a resource to create learning organizations with the objective of understanding rather than acquiring facts.
One part discusses the gradual shift of words from their original meaning. Two words caught my attention: theory and method.
Theory: derives from Greek word Theoros (spectator). Same root as theatre. Conceptually, it meant a public space for the play of ideas that might help to understand our world better.
Method: derives from the Greek word methodos (persue particular objectives). Conceptually has evolved into a systematic procedure and technique for dealing with issues or problems.
Now the point of the post. I think it is sad that modern people have lost the original meaning of theory and consider it a synomyn with "science". When I did "science", applied methods and used "theories", it created alot of passion in me, forced me to use my imagination and be challenged to change my preconceived notions.
Just a small plug to keep this thread alive and to encourage you that your efforts have not gone un-noticed...
Matt
i notice gingerich governs the same binary logic you are fond of using in his last statement.
why is life and our universe considered a mere joke if there is (since there is) no god?
oh wait, i think i have an answer. its because believers are ultimately the most cynical miserable bastards that walk the planet.
yeah, thats it.
thanks for the springboard erik ;)
-r
Matt--thanks for commenting on that. I agree that the performance aspect is such a huge part of science, has been for centuries, and still gets short shrift: as if we're embarassed that science has to convince and at time manipulate in order to get things across. Actually, manipulation by science probably is a bad thing.... Anyway, thanks.
R--Funny, I what I took from that was the exact opposite: Gingerich wants to be anything by binary, unless you're referring to the binary correlation of purposelessness and meaninglessness. If that is the case, then I think the finger points directly at your men Dawkins and Dennett and Sagan (among others). They're comfortable with the dichotomy, substituting instead a lower-level "meaning." In other words, they want to say that meaning is no longer "what is my non-material purpose" but "what is my material purpose," to which we can answer: survive and breed. I'm not sure that most people, believer or not, would call that *real* purpose.
And as far as misery is concerned, that's not really an adjective that comes to mind when you describe people of active faith. John is the epitome of non-miserableness even though he is at this moment in a local of great hopelessness and misery (from a material standpoint). I can't see the correlation. Sorry that you do. Beyond that, as I'll talk about later, it was Darwin who got miserable about the implications of his own theory long before others did.
"I'm not sure that most people, believer or not, would call that *real* purpose."
Nor would Dawkins, Sagan, and Dennett. So I guess that argument is a straw man. Nice conjecture Erik. Your comment only strengthens my point.
"Beyond that, as I'll talk about later, it was Darwin who got miserable about the implications of his own theory long before others did."
Ok, lets see what you got...
Randy, you're going to have to attempt to explain your point more/better if you expect me to have real dialogue. As it stands now, I just have to guess.
My point in the last comment was that the dichotomy/binary which you accuse me of falling back into and into which you see Gingrich as demonstrating, if that dichotomy/binary is design=purpose=meaning versus undesigned=purposeless=meaningless, is actually posited by the uber-Darwinists first and feared by Darwin long before that. If you mean some other binary, then you'll need to spell it out. No one is claiming to take away from your point...we're just not sure what that point was....
My point was that when you and Gingrich use the phrase "if there is no ultimate cosmic meaning then this is all a joke" then you are incredibly cynical toward the meaning of life as far as we can understand it from a naturalist/humanistic standpoint. When you ascribe our existence to the mere exploits of an all powerful creator then I contend that you are cheapening and demeaning our true vitality.
Of course this can work vis a vis with the social darwinists such as Herbert Spencer (even though he coined the phrases 'survival of the fittest' and 'evolution' before Darwin)
So yeah, no wonder Darwin was perplexed. He was taking it up the ass from both sides...
-r
My point was that when you and Gingrich use the phrase "if there is no ultimate cosmic meaning then this is all a joke" then you are incredibly cynical toward the meaning of life as far as we can understand it from a naturalist/humanistic standpoint. When you ascribe our existence to the mere exploits of an all powerful creator then I contend that you are cheapening and demeaning our true vitality.Perhaps I am missing something obvious. But in the case that I am not: (a) Gingerich is not saying anything about an all-powerful creator (the quote indicates something quite different, in fact); (2) despite your interactions with other Christians, I likewise am not assigning our "vitality" to the capriciousness of some supernatural puppet-player; (3) if, as Dawkins at least indicates, our "goal" is to pass on our genes--that we are simple shells for proteins--what is this beautiful "vitality" that you speak of? Is it life itself? That's great. But unhelpful since I have all these feelings (and thoughts) about life--I evaluate it in reference to something more than itself (again, we're not talking about a divine watchmaker here). Is it reproduction? I like sex as much as the next guy, but I hardly think it would count as "The Point."
Consuming large amounts of alcohol and pizza whilst playing Axis & Allies might get closer to what I think of as "The Point." But it still seems to be much, much closer to what John is doing in Cambodia.
If there is a better reason offered by naturalism, please do tell.
..Atheists do often feel suffused with a passionate gratitude for their existence, and for the existence of natural beauty. And yet, unlike a religious person, atheists have to realize that such sentiment has no object. Thanks be... to nothing. Thanks, in this case, merely be. I have at times deeply felt that yearn for cosmic meaning while at the same time fully realizing that there is no conceivable state of affairs (much less an actual state of affairs) that would satisfy it. Tough shitski. Reality has its consolations, but it isn't always therapeutic.
"Consuming large amounts of alcohol and pizza whilst playing Axis & Allies might get closer to what I think of as "The Point.""
I doubt it. But it sure sounds like fun!
"But it still seems to be much, much closer to what John is doing in Cambodia."
That depends largely on what his true motivations are. Besides that, helping others is hardly a 'cosmic' concept.
-r
Post a Comment
<< Home