Darwinisme – wetenskap? Nee ... religieuse filosofie!

Kobus de Klerk 2012-03-13

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

"Wait a minute!" called the moderator, trying to take back the podium from the speaker at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Still looking at the audience, the speaker, Professor Michael Ruse, wryly commented, "Before you start applauding, she’s going to cut off all of my buttons, and drum me out of the society!"
Indeed, this renowned philosopher of science had stunned his listeners at the 1993 annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.

Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to "refute Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial." (Intervarsity Press, 1991.) Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence.

Assuring his audience, "I’m no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was," Ruse nevertheless explained that he had given fresh consideration to Johnson’s thesis that Ruse himself, as "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist. . . . I must confess, in the ten years since I . . . appeared in the Creationism Trial in Arkansas . . . I’ve been coming to this kind of position myself."

Ruse was referring to McLean v. Arkansas, in which Federal Judge William Overton ruled that Arkansas’ "Balanced Treatment Act" was unconstitutional. At the trial, Ruse had testified that creation-science is not science at all. Invoking the fact/faith dichotomy, Ruse claimed that Darwinism was scientific because establishing its validity required no philosophical assumptions. All other views, he claimed, required such assumptions and were therefore unscientific. His testimony became the centerpiece of Judge Overton’s ruling.

Ruse told the AAAS audience one reason he’s reconsidered his position was meeting Phillip Johnson face to face and participating in a 1992 symposium on Darwinism at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. At this symposium, co-sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries’ SMU chapter, the C.S. Lewis Fellowship of Clear-water, Florida, and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Dallas, an exciting encounter took place between five Darwinists and five intelligent design advocates, including Johnson.

Referring to intelligent design advocates, Ruse explained, "I find it a lot easier to hate them in print than I do in person, and in fact I found Phillip Johnson to be a very congenial person, with a fund of very funny stories about Supreme Court justices, some of which may even be true, unlike his scientific claims."

Ruse justified his change of heart by tracing a succession of leading Darwinist thinkers, including T. H. and Julian Huxley, who had viewed evolution as "something akin to a secular religion." At the end of his talk, Ruse opened the meeting for questions. Greeted by a moment of stunned silence, he leaned toward the microphone and asked, "State of shock?"

So uit die spreekwoordelike perd se bek! Geskok? Hoeveel keer het ek dit al vir julle gesê?

Julle outjies moet bykom, Thomas, Angus. Chris, Stephan en ander maatjies ... julle is bitter ver agter.

Groete!
Kobus de Klerk

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

Kommentaar

Chris Dippenaar

2012-03-13 at 17:07

Kobus, selfs al sou ek en al my maatjies na wie jy verwys 'n Darwin-Kerk op die bult bou waarna ons elke dag gaan om te aanbid en offerhandes doen aan ons god, Darwin, sou dit in geen opsig afbreek doen aan Darwinisme en evolusie as 'n wetenskaplike teorie nie. Al wat sal gebeur is dat ander wat nie 'glo' soos ons nie, sal dink ons is heeltemal gepik in die bol.

Vergelyk ons gedrag dan met die van kreasioniste wat absoluut geen wetenskaplike teorie kan aanbied nie, en jy kan nie anders as om tot die slotsom te kom dat hulle net so gepik in die bol is wanneer hulle die god van Adam aanbid as die ouens wat behoort aan die Darwin-Kerk.

Chris Dippenaar

2012-03-13 at 17:30

Kobus, jy dink ook vir een of ander rede dat die karakter van Darwin en ander iets te doen het met die teorie van evolusie self. Die feit is dat selfs al is almal wat die teorie van evolusie ondersteun morele monsters wat Hitler laat lyk na 'n laerskool onderwyser, sal dit geen verskil maak aan die wetenskaplike geldigheid van die teorie nie. Hierdie karakteraanval-vrot-papsnoek en die een hierbo kan jy die naweek gaarmaak vir die lidmate van jou huiskerkstelsel. Hier is dit totaal irrelevant.

Wouter

2012-03-13 at 18:36

Agge nee is "ons" almal toe verkeerd?

Een enkele brief reduseer die biologie en wetenskap opgesluit in evolusie tot gewone filosofie.

Soos die inleiding dit stel: Indeed, this renowned philosopher of science had stunned his listeners at the 1993 annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions...... (Hierdie aanhaling kom van 'n tipiese "intelligente ontwerp" webwerf en kan net soveel keer aangespreek word.

Die volledige lesing is egter beskikbaar en word die volgende uitgelig om Ruse se argument vorm te gee en die konteks daarvan te bied en is Michael Ruse nou aan die woord. Met De Klerk se aanhalings is dit nou al duidelik dat 99% van die inligting uitgelaat word:

Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.

Die volledige lesing kan hier gevind word.

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

Ruse antwoord die volgende op hierdie vraag:

Manier: Well, congratulations. I mean, you took less time than Bill Clinton. I think -- maybe not quite. But you made a remark about Stephen Gould. I earlier made a remark about Stephen Gould. I think there is perhaps some sense in which you and Stephen disagree, either scientifically or metaphysically. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Ruse: That we agree or disagree?

Manier: That you disagree. I'm always more interested in disagreement.

Ruse: Certainly I think that Steve Gould and I, we certainly disagree about the nature of evolution, there's no question about that. At some level, I'm a hard-line Darwinian. That means, you know, I'm somewhere to the right of Archdeacon Paley when it comes to design.

So, I mean, yeah -- whereas I think that Gould falls very much into the other, much more Germanic Naturphilosophie tradition, which stresses form over function. I don't think there's any question about that.

And at a certain level, I'd be inclined to say that these are, if you like, metaphysical assumptions, paradigms, or something like that, a priori constraints that we're putting on the ways that we're looking at the world and all those sorts of things. Certainly, at that level, we do differ.

Where else do we differ?

Gould says that he thinks that science is simply, you know, disinterested reflection of reality, then again we differ also.

But of course the thing is that Gould, although he denies being a Marxist or anything like this, certainly if you look at Gould's work, for instance, when he's praising stuff, even apart from when he's criticizing stuff, I think that Gould -- as much as anybody, more than most -- has long been sensitive to the fact that science involves a kind of metaphysical assumption. I use the word "metaphysical" because I don't look on the word "metaphysical" as a dirty word. Like I don't look upon "teleology" as a dirty word. He may, you know, he may very ardently say don't call me a metaphysician, but I suspect that we agree, whatever we call the terms. I mean, the trouble is, metaphysics, you know, people think of metaphysics and Scottish idealists and Hegelians and all those sorts of things. So he may not want to use my language. But I suspect that about the nature of science -- I suspect, but ask him -- I suspect that we don't differ there. But we do differ about how we want to cash it out in the actual evolutionary realm.

Eugenie Scott, moderator bring die volgende kwessie na vore:

He's not done yet. I'm going to take my chairman's prerogative, to ask a question, if I may. I wonder whether it might be useful to distinguish between the naturalism or materialism that is necessary to perform science as we do it in the twentieth century, as opposed to the Baconian approach, etc., and distinguish that from philosophical attitudes that we as individuals may or may not have regarding materialism or naturalism. And perhaps some of this confusion that we find at the practical level, at the school board level, and in dealing with people with Johnson, is that Johnson, for example, does confuse these two things. He assumes that if you are a scientist then you therefore are a philosophical materialist, in addition to being a practical materialist, in the operation of your work.

Ruse: Oh yes, I think that point is well taken. I think to sort of redress some of the rather flip comments I made, I think that's absolutely true. Let me end certainly by saying that although I got on quite well with Johnson at the personal level, I still think that his book is a slippery piece of work. And you're absolutely right that he, like any lawyer, is out to win. That's the name of the game in law. And certainly he can get points by shifting back and forth on meanings of naturalism, or if he can get a report on what Ed Manier and I were doing, and then sort of take it out of context, I've no reason to think that he wouldn't do that sort of thing.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying, I'm not denying the power or the importance of the sort of thing he's doing, or the importance of combating that sort of thing.

What I am saying, nevertheless, and I will sit down now, is I don't think that we're going -- well, I don't know whether we're going to serve -- I mean, the easy thing is we're not going to serve our purpose by -- let me just simply say that I as a philosopher of science am worried about what I think were fairly crude neo-positivistic attitudes that I had about science, even as much as ten years ago, when I was fighting in Arkansas.

This doesn't mean to say that I don't want to stand up for evolution, I certainly do. But I do think that philosophy of science, history of science, moves on, and I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are. But I don't think that the solution is just by simply ignoring them.

Scott: Now you can applaud, he's done.

Hierdie bring die onderwerp pens en pooitjies tot die vraag van die filosofie van wetenskap en hoe dit bespreek word en weereens nie soos dit deur die De Klerk groepering aangebied word nie.

Die filosofie van wetenskap is 'n geldige onderwerp en werd om in detail ondersoek te word.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-03-14 at 12:04

Dankie vir die bevestiging, Wouter!

Julle skippie is onherstelbaar beskadig. Die darwinistiese kadawer druk julle vas en dit stink.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-03-14 at 14:43

Jy sal moet leer onderskei, Wouter, dat die 99% kaf, nie afbreuk doen aan die 1% substans, nie. Daarom lig mens die substans uit, en raak ontslae van die kaf. Ons stel werklik nie belang in Ruse se eierdans van waarom hy die vermetelheid had om sy eweknieë so in die gesig te vat in hulle eie tempel nie, maar uiteindelik bly by wat ek aangehaal het, nie - en hy sluit af met die ongehoorde (in die geselskap waarin hy hom bevind het) - dat daar aandag gegee moet word aan die aansprake van gelowige wetenskaplikes - soos hy tot konsternasie van sy eweknieë, self reeds gedoen het met goeie, insigvolle gevolge vir hom.

Maar dit is mos jou probleem, waarom jou ook ouens soos MacCullum bybring, want hulle bring die kaf by, "to complicate matters" sodat hulle nie sleg voel omdat hulle dit nie kan verstaan, nie - nou kan hulle die "complicated" kaf daarvoor blameer.

Gelowiges het nie sulke probleme nie. Ons kan die kaf van die korrels met gemak skei danksy ons Goddelike gawes - daarom is ons gelowiges en julle agnostici - wat voortdurend snak na julle asem tussen al die kaf waarin julle gedurig spartel.

Jou poging het net nog meer luister verskaf aan wat ek reeds uitgewys het met my plasing maar jy het dit nie besef nie, hmmm?

Groete,
Kobus de Klerk

Wouter

2012-03-14 at 17:23

Die twee plasings van De Klerk verwys. Soos gesien kan word is daar geen opvolg op die filosofie van wetenskap nie, maar slegs die gewone retoriek wat van De Klerk se hand die norm. Die uitlating van 99% van die inligting wat benodig word om ingeligte ontleding is nou transmuteer tot 99% kaf en die 1% wat kwansuis nou die substansie bied.

Vir die wat nie kan onthou nie, die 99% verwys na die Gould en Mayr waar minuskale aanhalings geplunder word en dit dan transmuteer word tot dit wat volgens De Klerk se aanbieding daarvan die essensie van Gould en Mayr se werk uitbeeld.

Dit is dan wonderbaarlik dat bogenoemde wetenskaplikes dan ontpop as ondersteuners van De Klerk se bewerings hier.

Wanneer die 99% inligting wat uitgelaat is, weer terug gebring word, dan val die ondersteuning weg.

Dit word herhaal met klokslag en is tekenend van die intellektuele armoede waaronder De Klerk en sy soort funksioneer.

Ruse word aangehaal en bied 'n inleiding tot die filosofie van wetenskap, en dan val verdere bespreking doodgewoon plat.

Dit sou 'n insigvolle gesprek kon gewees het indien De Klerk genoegsame kennis oor die onderwerp kon saamvlans, maar quote mining laat dit nie toe nie.

Dalk sal dit tot ge-google word.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-03-15 at 17:02

Wouter, kom ek voed jou en Chris op aan die hand van jul eie stalperd, Michael Ruse... en ek gebruik jou eie aanhaling waarvoor ek jou bedank, maar jy self, nie die ingrypende implikasie van besef nie

Ruse, die stalperd, verwys openlik na die hangende probleem vir darwinisme - en die soort van ding wat ons hier sien, daardie kenmerkende kop-in-die-sand- sindroom wat julle algar hier demonstreer, wat julle ondergang is en wat julle so irrelevant maak - "This doesn't mean to say that I don't want to stand up for evolution, I certainly do. But I do think that philosophy of science, history of science, moves on, and I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are. But I don't think that the solution is just by simply ignoring them."

Sien? Hy het die perfekte geleentheid gehad om te sê, let's ignore it, because it's all stupid, nonsense... as hy dit so self so geglo het, maar nee, ten spyte van die gevaar van persoonlike kastyding deur die talle sibbe daar in die tempel van darwinisme teenwoordig, waar alle ander verbied word, sê daardie stalperd, daardie huurling wat deur die sibbe aangesê en aangestel is om as 'n soort van akademiese sluipskutter die kreasionistiese aansprake ten einde laaste die hoof te bied

"I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are"

Julle weet, mens voel vuil en teleurgesteld in die medemens, as mens 'n sarsie met julle deur is... julle is so ontstellend leeg en doods...

En dit is waarom 'n mens maar aanhou, want ten minste is julle 'n les vir ander - 'n soort van medemenslike diens om julle leë, kletterende binneste aan ander te openbaar, hoe mens julle die mees ooglopende moet inwurg, en hoe selfs dit dikwels nie help nie, omdat julle net so bitter bot is, alles weens Goddeloosheid...

Kobus de Klerk.

Wouter

2012-03-15 at 20:27

Nog 'n dag, nog 'n dag geen gestruktueerde aanbieding van Ruse se volledige denke nie. Onthou om te put uit sy studie, "Philosophy after Darwin".

Let op na die betekenis "after", wat 'n dubbeldoor betekenis veronderstel.

Net soos met Sokrates en Freud, veral die spirituele van Sokrates, word daar gewag.

Jammer hier kan nie gemyn word vir aanhalings nie en parafrasering uit Wikipedia word so gou opgetel.

Dalk is daar 'n obskure webwerf.....

Wouter

2012-03-16 at 14:55

Doodgewoon net wat aan hom De Klerk op 'n skinkbord gegee is, niks van De Klerk waar Ruse in detail ondersoek word. So put De Klerk gedurig op dit wat die deelnemers bring, digresssie, digressie....

Ruse: Oh yes, I think that point is well taken. I think to sort of redress some of the rather flip comments I made, I think that's absolutely true. Let me end certainly by saying that although I got on quite well with Johnson at the personal level, I still think that his book is a slippery piece of work. And you're absolutely right that he, like any lawyer, is out to win. That's the name of the game in law. And certainly he can get points by shifting back and forth on meanings of naturalism, or if he can get a report on what Ed Manier and I were doing, and then sort of take it out of context, I've no reason to think that he wouldn't do that sort of thing.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying, I'm not denying the power or the importance of the sort of thing he's doing, or the importance of combating that sort of thing.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-03-16 at 16:09

Probeer maar gerus verstaan wat aangegaan het, Wouter. Al is Johnson 'n duisend maal uit om te wen (natuurlik, waarom nie?) - hy kan dit net met goeie argumente en feite doen, soos sy jarelange opleiding hom ingedril het.

En Johnson het gewen - Ruse het dit erken. Om te sê Johnson se werk is "slippery", is op sigself 'n "slippery thing". Daardie einste "slippery" het hom oortuig, nie vir die oomblik nie, maar blywend. Daar waar dit hom oortuig het, was hy nie in die plek van 'n groentjie nie - hy is 'n bedrewe akademikus en redenaar en is immers deur die sibbe as akademiese sluipskutter aangewend - al was dit 'n fiasko (nes Bileam van ouds... want God is betrokke). Hy het nie van Johnson se vergadertafel af opgestaan en dadelik sy sibbe toegespreek nie, o, nee, hy het genoeg tyd gehad om te besin, behoorlik te besin. Hy sê dit ook - gedagtig aan die Huxley's en so meer. Hy het ook genoeg tyd gehad om te besef hy gaan sy sibbe se argwaan op die hals haal, soos wat ook gebeur het. En hy het genoeg tyd gehad om te besin oor wat hy vir hulle gaan sê wanneer dit gebeur, en dit het ook gebeur.

Dus, hy het in daardie kort tydjie meer integriteit getoon as julle almal saam - dit is maar weereens julle desperasie wat die feite ongedaan wil maak, want julle staan geen kans teen bekwaamheid nie.

Soos ek sê, dit baat jou absoluut niks om op jou trant aan te gaan nie, want jou gespartel vererger dit vir julle. Jy is seker nog nie so onbeheersd en obsessief dat jy sommer net, soos Cornelius, verbale spuitmaag kry sonder oorsaak en sonder ophou nie - so, jou spuitmaag beteken gewoon jy besef die boot sink - jou desperate repeterende gesanik is mos getuienis daarvan.

Maak dus regtig nie saak wat jy sê nie (het nog nooit), die feite spreek vir sigself - Ruse is op pad na bekering. Hy het reeds die paradigmaskuif begin maak en op sy eie hofgetuienis (wat onder eed was), teruggegaan - dink jy vir 'n enkele oomblik hy het nie besef wat hy doen by Johnson en daarna by sy sibbe in hul tempel, nie? Probeer tog insien, die man is nie 'n politikus nie, en ook nie onnosel nie.

Kobus de Klerk

Litnet

Darwinisme – wetenskap? Nee ... religieuse filosofie!

Kommentaar

Reageer Cancel reply