Whither Modernism?

Donald Kennedy in last week's editorial in the journal Science bemoaned the twilight of the Enlightenment, a.k.a. modernism.

For much of their existence over the past two centuries, Europe and the United States have been societies of questioners: nations in which skepticism has been accepted and even welcomed, and where the culture has been characterized by confidence in science and in rational methods of thought. We owe this tradition in part to the birth of the Scottish Enlightenment of the early 18th century, when the practice of executing religious heretics ended, to be gradually replaced by a developing conviction that substituted faith in experiment for reliance on inherited dogma.

That new tradition, prominently represented by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, supplied important roots for the growth of modernity, and it has served U.S. society well, as it has Europe's. The results of serious, careful experimentation and analysis became a standard for the entry of a discovery or theory into the common culture of citizens and the policies of their governments. Thus, scientific determinations of the age of Earth and the theories of gravity, biological evolution, and the conservation of matter and energy became meaningful scientific anchors of our common understanding.

Kennedy claims too much here. Darwin was not the atheist Hume was. Frank Burch Brown in The Evolution of Darwin's Religious Views (as quoted by Alistair McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism, p. 104) stated:

His beliefs concerning the possible existence of some sort of God never entirely ceased to ebb and flow, nor did his evaluation of the merit of such beliefs. At low tide, so to speak, he was essentially an undogmatic atheist; at high tide he was a tentative theist; the rest of the time he was basically agnostic -- in sympathy with theism but unable or unwilling to commit himself on such imponderable questions. Overall his thought regarding theological matters could best be described as being in what he himself termed a "muddle."

Isaac Newton was a Christian. Kennedy goes on to complain:

Finally, certain kinds of science are now proscribed on what amount to religious grounds. Stem cell research is said by its opponents to pose a "moral dilemma." Yet this well-advertised dilemma does not arise from a confrontation between science and ethical universals. Instead, the objections arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others. Some researchers, eager to resolve the problem, seek to derive stem cells by techniques that might finesse the controversy. But the claim that the stem cell "dilemma" rests on universal values is a false claim, and for society to accept it to obtain transitory political relief would bring church and state another step closer.

The present wave of evangelical Christianity, uniquely American in its level of participation, would be nothing to worry about were it a matter restricted to individual conviction and to the expressions of groups gathering to worship. It's all right that in the best-selling novels about the "rapture," the true believers ascend and the rest of us perish painfully. But U.S. society is now experiencing a convergence between religious conviction and partisan loyalty, readily detectable in the statistics of the 2004 election. Some of us who worry about the separation of church and state will accept tablets that display the Ten Commandments on state premises, because they fail to cross a threshold of urgency. But when the religious/political convergence leads to managing the nation's research agenda, its foreign assistance programs, or the high-school curriculum, that marks a really important change in our national life. Twilight for the Enlightenment? Not yet. But as its beneficiaries, we should also be its stewards.

The current political situation is the result of a huge false dichotomy. So, people are forced to chose based upon their deepest allegiance. For most people,including myself, that would be their religion. So, if Donald Kennedy wants more people to accept the theories of modern science he needs to drop -- what Steven Jay Gould said of Richard Dawkins -- his Darwinian Fundamentalism. For those of us who are interested in both science and Evangelical Christianity, the Fundamentalists are on both sides are making a mess of things.

Comments

[*** Dave]

Yet this well-advertised dilemma does not arise from a confrontation between science and ethical universals. Instead, the objections arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others. Some researchers, eager to resolve the problem, seek to derive stem cells by techniques that might finesse the controversy. But the claim that the stem cell "dilemma" rests on universal values is a false claim, and for society to accept it to obtain transitory political relief would bring church and state another step closer.

I'm sorry -- what is Kennedy considering to be an "ethical universal" here?

I may disagree with concerns over the origin of stem cells with some Christian groups (among, I suspect, others), but I don't think *I* would have the arrogance to say that *my* moral/ethical concerns are "universal" while others are just fringe beliefs.

[Rich]

The problem is science in and of itself cannot answer ethics questions. Ethical considerations need to come from the outside, somehow. The real dilemma is how do you answer such things given the wide difference of opinions in this country? Unlike Donald Kennedy, I don't see it as a problem if scientists can sidestep this issue by producing stem cells that are not embryonic stem cells. Coming from the Protestant tradition I value not violating people's consciences. If you can achieve that goal and also save lives through medical technology, it is truly a good thing from everyone.

[Kevin]

Great post, Rich. Sounds to me that the "modernist skepticism" Kennedy fears for is really secularist hegemony.

Scientific epistemology came from Hume? Malarkey. Has this savant heard of Aquinas? Bacon? Calvin? Science is resorting to sheer propaganda here.

[Rich]

I don't want to overstate my point here. Thus, we must distinguish Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science, with the AAAS as a whole. AAAS has a project for interacting between science and faith. Here we have an opportunity to give our perspective on how they relate to one another. AAAS gave ID proponent, William Dembski, a forum to present his views. Dembski was responding to theistic evolutionist, Howard Van Till, who gave a critique of Dembski's No Free Lunch. Dembski at the outset identified ID's most implacable foe. Is it Donald Kennedy? Is it Richard Dawkins? No.

Howard Van Till’s review of my book No Free Lunch exemplifies perfectly why theistic evolution remains intelligent design’s most implacable foe.

*Sigh* Let's assume what Dembski says is true here. Why would that be the case? I can answer for myself. Because if any point of ID is disproven it plays into the hands of the likes of Kennedy. ID should be grateful for a friendly critique because they will not get it from the Darwinian Fundamentalists. Any and all flaws in the arguments will be mercilessly used to create more atheists and agnostics, and the editorial above is yet another example of it.

[Kevin]

I have no idea either why Dembski would say that, and not having read any of his stuff I couldn't even venture a guess. The statement plays into the hands of those who say that ID is YEC in disguise.

FWIW, I don't regard either ID or the denial of ID (Darwinism) as scientific because neither are testable. I do think that ID is a valid philosophical inference from the scientific data; at least more plausible than the opposite claim.

[Rich]

Kevin, there is an excluded middle here. You can be believe in creation and consequently you can believe in intelligent design because an undesigned creation is nonsensical. (One could also argue that intelligent design is tautological.) If you believe that Darwinistic mechanism is how species (not life itself) are intelligently designed why cannot it be all of the above: creation, intelligent design, and so-called Darwinism?

The reason why ID and Darwinism are not mutually exclusive is because of the principle of mathematical induction. In order to do an induction proof, you need to prove both the initial condition and the induction step. If Darwinism is true, only the induction step is proven. You still need to prove the initial condition, namely, abiogenesis. Since Darwinism is based upon reproduction it doesn't even speak to this issue. This becomes a faith issue. This is currently not scientifically testable and quite possibly unknowable from a scientific perspective.

What Howard Van Till was arguing against was not that Universe was not designed but rather that the arguments put forth are flawed (in this case the bacterial flagellum was not irreducibly complex). ID as a movement disagrees with both of us in that they do believe that design is scientifically testable. As an engineer, I see their tests for design as flawed. In some of my design computer programs I use random number generation. There are algorithms called genetic algorithms that model evolution. Randomness and design are not mutually exclusive categories. Contra both religious and Darwinian Fundamentalists, random does not mean causeless. Newtonian physics is not random but does that prove that the motion of large bodies was NOT designed by God? Isn't order a better test for design than non-determinism?

In order to truly determine if something is designed you need to know the purpose beforehand. Having found the purpose of things in Scripture, I arrive via post hoc reasoning that so-called intelligent design of the Universe by the God of the Bible is a reasonable inference. Honesty, nevertheless, compels me to conclude that this is a fundamentally a religious rather than scientific inference. My faith is reasonable but it is still faith.

[Rich]

I want to add a little more to my statement about random and causelessness. The reasons why there is so much heat is because both sides realize there is much at stake. If you strike at the root of causality you have killed God, the ultimate Root Cause. This is what motivates the Darwinian Fundamentalist. The religious Fundamentalist senses this also. So, they attempt to disprove Darwinism not realizing they bought into the flawed inference that random and causeless are somehow the same thing. In the end, proving or disproving Darwinism proves nothing. Or, as Shakespeare put it in MacBeth:

... a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.