Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

How do you know they are "well- meaning"?

I am bemused by the willingness of some on the preceeding pages to unscientifically accept the authority of scientific writers and secular activists while scornfully rejecting the acceptance of authority in any form by others.

"Creationism" is a loosely used term. Do we use it only to refer to the notion of specific divine intervention in the creation of man? Or does it also refer to possibilities at the origin of the universe? I believe this is an important aspect of the problem.

The best that science can do for the origins of the universe and the explanation of the cosmos has features like dark matter which doesn't interact with anything, but makes up most of the mass of the universe; ubiquitous monopoles that defy everything in Maxwell's equations; and "inflation" which conveniently bridges unbridgeable gaps in space and time. Not exactly a firm footing for those who would hold all other possibilities in contempt.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I agree that creationism isn't worth teaching, but I don't see any good reason to exclude Spencer's writings from school curriculae.

Thomas,

I only studied Spencer briefly in an undergraduate political science class. I had a bad impression of Spencer's ideas because they implied "victory of the strongest" was necessary for social and political progress.

For me, the laws of evolution have no relevance for political science or social science. You may be familiar with an 1879 letter written by Charles Darwin to the German naturalist, Dr. Karl Scherzer. In that letter Darwin commented, "What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany on the connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural Selection."

I have no objection to the study of Spencer at the university level. However, it would be inappropriate to teach Spencer at the primary or secondary school level.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

How do you know they are "well- meaning"?

I am bemused by the willingness of some on the preceeding pages to unscientifically accept the authority of scientific writers and secular activists while scornfully rejecting the acceptance of authority in any form by others.

"Creationism" is a loosely used term. Do we use it only to refer to the notion of specific divine intervention in the creation of man? Or does it also refer to possibilities at the origin of the universe? I believe this is an important aspect of the problem.

The best that science can do for the origins of the universe and the explanation of the cosmos has features like dark matter which doesn't interact with anything, but makes up most of the mass of the universe; ubiquitous monopoles that defy everything in Maxwell's equations; and "inflation" which conveniently bridges unbridgeable gaps in space and time. Not exactly a firm footing for those who would hold all other possibilities in contempt.

Scientists don't have the right to have their work taken as automatically correct, but they do have the right to weigh in on scientific subjects. Non-scientists, and especially ones who do not use the scientific method, do not have any meaningful right to weigh in on scientific subjects, because they don't know what they're talking about. I have the theoretical freedom in this country to publicly give an opinion on medieval French literature, but not to be taken seriously, since I have no credentials whatever in the subject, nor even convincing proof of self-education.

Your idea that because people working in cosmology and quantum electrodynamics today haven't figured it all out yet they never will, is about as reasonable as it would have been for someone in 1800 to assert that Man will never fly.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I only studied Spencer briefly in an undergraduate political science class. I had a bad impression of Spencer's ideas because they implied "victory of the strongest" was necessary for social and political progress.

Do you remember where Spencer said this?

wandeljw wrote:

For me, the laws of evolution have no relevance for political science or social science.

Why not? Aren't new political institutions created as modifications of previous political and social institutions? Don't they survive, at least in part, as a result of their fitness to serve the needs of society? If so, why wouldn't this create evolutionary dynamics similar to the ones you observe in biology?

The analogy is even more obvious in business. For example, a social Darwinist might observe that when barbers start up new shops, they create them as clones of previous barber shops, and maybe add a few new twists. Each shop will survive if, and only if, the benefit to its customers from the barber's hair cuts exceeds the cost to the barber of cutting the customers' hair. Having observed this, the social Darwinist will predict that after a few thousand iterations of this, we will live in a world in which the typical barber shop provides a reasonably good living to the barber, and reasonably well-cut hair to the customers.

This looks like perfectly sound reasoning to me. In fact, it's mostly a re-statement of neoclassical economics, which I am also comfortable to have taught to fifth-grade highschoolers.

0 Replies

Thomas,

To be honest with you, my political science professor had us reading more essays in criticism of Spencer than Spencer's own essays.

I do remember that social darwinism was appealing to proponents of capitalism. In general, I consider social science and physical science to be very different from each other. Social science deals more with "intangibles" than physical science. I simply did not take Spencer seriously because I did not see how a theory of physical science could be applied to social science.

In my opinion, "far-out" economic theories can not be effectively taught at the high school level. It would be better for high school students to study more conventional economics.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

To be honest with you, my political science professor had us reading more essays in criticism of Spencer than Spencer's own essays.

That would explain a lot.

wandeljw wrote:

I do remember that social darwinism was appealing to proponents of capitalism.

That does not surprise me, since there was a methodological symbiosis between evolutionary biology and economics. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species owes a lot to Malthusian population economics, and Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene model makes evolution look a lot like neoclassical economics applied to genes instead of people. If economists are generally more laissez-faire than intellectuals with otherwise similar ideological preferences, it only makes sense that evolutionary biologists would feel the same way.

wandeljw wrote:

In general, I consider social science and physical science to be very different from each other. Social science deals more with "intangibles" than physical science. I simply did not take Spencer seriously because I did not see how a theory of physical science could be applied to social science.

Well, for one thing, "marsupial wolf" and "Galapagos fink" are designs. Unlike the hydrocarbon and water molecules making them up, these designs are just as intangible as the "barber shop" design or the "Federal Reserve Bank" design. Second, Darwinian evolution -- decent with modification, followed by selection -- is an algorithm. It doesn't matter what hardware this algorithm works on. All that matters is that you have competition for limited resourcesof some kind, together with features of some kind that reproducibly affect a competitor's chances of success. That makes evolution a very versatile concept.

wandeljw wrote:

In my opinion, "far-out" economic theories can not be effectively taught at the high school level. It would be better for high school students to study more conventional economics.

Fair enough, but neoclassical economics is not far out. It's the standard framework of economical theory, and social darwinism is just a different way of putting it. There is a good reason why Walter Bagehot, a Social Darwinist and 19th century English economist, is still held in high esteem, and why his book The English Constitution is still required reading in many British law faculties.

0 Replies

Fascinating info, Thomas! I had forgotten that Darwin was influenced by Malthus.

Anyway, I actually hated my political philosophy classes and therefore did not really benefit from them.

0 Replies

Fifth grade high schoolers is a rather idiotic expression. Fifth grade is a level in elementary school which students enter four years before entering high school. We are, therefore, left in doubt as to the age at which Thomas proposes the intellectual torture of our devoted youth.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Fifth grade high schoolers is a rather idiotic expression. Fifth grade is a level in elementary school which students enter four years before entering high school. We are, therefore, left in doubt as to the age at which Thomas proposes the intellectual torture of our devoted youth.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cartoon/1263.gif

Setanta, Thomas is referring to the German school system, where "5th grade" is the equivalent of our 10th grade.

Cheers!

0 Replies

Here is an example of usage of the term "survival of the fittest" by Herbert Spencer himself..

Quote:

Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society
becomes characterized by profound faith in the governing power,
joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters
whatever. And there must tend to be established among those who
speculate about political affairs in a militant society, a theory
giving form to the needful ideas and feelings; accompanied by
assertions that the law-giver if not divine in nature is divinely
directed, and that unlimited obedience to him is divinely
ordered.
("The Man versus the State" Postscript, 1884)

Of course, this cited portion of his writing does not imply that Herbert Spencer was an advocate of "the militant type of society."

0 Replies

xprmntr2 wrote:

(Smiley removed in the interest of good taste)Setanta, Thomas is referring to the German school system, where "5th grade" is the equivalent of our 10th grade.

In the first place, that is something which i did not need you to tell me. In the second place, Thomas and i have exchanged wry remarks here for a few years now. In the third place, whether or not it were a wry remark, the discussion takes place in a predominantly American venue, so that those making reference to other nations and institutions need to be careful to so stipulate. Finally, i'll ask you to have the courtesy not to address your remarks to me, as i've already pointed out to you in these fora that i have not a shred of respect for your opinions.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Finally, i'll ask you to have the courtesy not to address your remarks to me

OK, I know, I'm NOT

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/welcome.gif

Setanta wrote:

as i've already pointed out to you in these fora that i have not a shred of respect for your opinions.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/worthy.gif

Let's make it a mutual agreement, then.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/yes.gif

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Fifth grade high schoolers is a rather idiotic expression. Fifth grade is a level in elementary school which students enter four years before entering high school. We are, therefore, left in doubt as to the age at which Thomas proposes the intellectual torture of our devoted youth.

Thanks for improving my American English, Setanta. I was referring to pupils in their fifth year of school, at which time I took them to be in high school. If American students spend five years in elementary school before entering high school (as you appear to say in the beginning of your sentence) that would be their last year of elementary school. If they spend four years in elementary schools (as you appear to say at the end of your sentence), that would be their first year of high school. I hope that was more precise.

xprmntr2 wrote:

Setanta, Thomas is referring to the German school system, where "5th grade" is the equivalent of our 10th grade.

Indeed I was referring to the German school system, but your way of counting it has been obsoleted about a generation ago. Today, we count grades all the way from the first to the thirteenth. Since we have four years of elementary school, a fifth grader would (at least in Bavaria) be in his first year of high school. And, xprmntr2, you are definitely welcome here -- I don't see why not!

0 Replies

satt_fs wrote:

Of course, this cited portion of his writing does not imply that Herbert Spencer was an advocate of "the militant type of society."

On the contrary, he finds it regrettable. If you read the context of the quote, you can see that his full argument states this very clearly. Under some conditions, says Spencer, a society needs some militance to survive in an environment of international conflict. Public opinion has to sustain this militancy. This, says Spencer, impedes the mergence of the free society he had been arguing for throughout his whole book. Here are the first three paragraphs of the postscipt to put your quote in perspective.

In 'The Man vs. the State', Herbert Spencer wrote:

Do I expect this doctrine (Laissez Faire, T.

Source

0 Replies

Thomas..
It is an argument "by cases."

"nder one set of conditions...,
, under other contions..."

In any case, it is not clear how "survival of the fittest" applies to each case.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Thanks for improving my American English, Setanta. I was referring to pupils in their fifth year of school, at which time I took them to be in high school. If American students spend five years in elementary school before entering high school (as you appear to say in the beginning of your sentence) that would be their last year of elementary school. If they spend four years in elementary schools (as you appear to say at the end of your sentence), that would be their first year of high school. I hope that was more precise.

The usual manner of enumeration for the American public schools systems has thirteen years, beginning with "kindergarten," also known as "pre-school." Enumerated grades are one through eight, although it is not unknown for the four years of high school to be referred to "grades nine through twelve," it is not common. Grammar school has become an obsolete term, usually used only by older Americans. Some systems refer to the first eight years as elementary education, others refer to the first five years as elementary education. Some systems provide separate institutions for grades six, seven and eight and call these middle schools (a few places have grades five, six, seven and eight in the middle schools). There are always exceptions, of course--the town in which i live has several elementary schools, one school exclusively for grade six, two middle schools (for grades seven, eight and nine), and two three-year high schools. At all events, an American child in entering grade five will not enter high school for four more years (and in the town in which i reside, not for five more years). I hope that confuses the issue, and would be delighted to think it were annoying.

0 Replies

Spencers second punlished work was his :Developmental Hypothesis" which was his first attempt at synthesis in the biological sciences. Like his later works that were "scientific' this one falls short because it was not a "theory of evolution" as it was , some stamp collectors guide to processes he had spent very little time developing.

It was fairly non analytical in its methods, and it was fairly slapdash. ( Darwin analyzed and integrated disparate data sources to arrive at a methodological synthesis that stands as one of (if not THE) greatest derivations of the millenium.

It was the work of a rank amateur (not in the sense that he wrote for the "love" of the science) He truly felt (according to Coser and Gould writing separately) that he had something profound to say. HE didnt. (In fact, Gould's words were not very kind , in that he stated that Spencer suffered from a lifetime case of acute logorrhea {Gould SJ, 2002," the Structure of..."p 197})

Spencers biology was entirely and forever Lamarkian, and , in discussions with his patrons (even though Spencer was, reportedly, a developing recluse from a young age), he used the phrase that evolution (a term that Spencer coined in this application) was "merely the survival of the most fit".(cf, the Weissman/Spencer debates of 1893)

So he predated Darwin, but so did Darwins own grandfather , Erasmus. Erasmus had no mechanism either so he just kept notes and Robert was the benefactor.

Im not especially familiar with Spencers sociological, psychological and His other "principles texts". However, his dabble in evolution was a subject that fascinated him until his death. BUT , in the opinion of many,these works werent worth but a passing reference to the growing stack of his own works. WHen read in todays classroom (and his book was one used a a biological text for a few years), his work is quite naive and "type section" hackneyed.
Besides coining the misused " survival of... fittest" hes also given credit for "The struggle of life",; "The advance of evolution"; and "if man were to evolve into... he would need..." All these phrases, unfortunately have been toys of the post industrial growth of fundamentalist "science" .
But for the coincidental and referential merger of Darwin and Spencer , if not for the good fortune of having Huxley Lyell, and even Mills around to back up (if not wholly endorse), this referential mergerCOULD HAVE HAve caused Darwin to be cast on the heap of historys "bad ideas"

Spencers biggest bugaboo for Darwin was his statement that
"Evolution of society,far from being different from other evolutionary phenomena, is but a special case of a universally acceptable natural law"
Anything else he may have said that may presage various mechanisms of evolution are truly coincidental and are , not unlike Biblical passages that are often given credit for the patriarchs as having "seen" DNA. It just aint so. Now, I dont speak with any authority on this other than having read Spencers biology works and thus have concluded that , this "stuff is all vines and no taters". So Im not going to engage in any scholarly debates on Spencer as social scientist or economist because , I know, I will be totally unarmed. I am, I think, on pretty fair substrate about his biology and evolutionary thought.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Spencers biggest bugaboo for Darwin was his statement that "Evolution of society,far from being different from other evolutionary phenomena, is but a special case of a universally acceptable natural law"

This insistence on applying natural law to social science is the reason I never took Spencer seriously.

0 Replies

This still begs the question of what did Darwin do about this, and the answer seems to be at least publicly, nothing. Privately he may have grit his teeth but he did little to distance himself from Spencer Bowdlerization of his theory.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I hope that confuses the issue, and would be delighted to think it were annoying.

I hope it won't disappoint you too much, but no, it was actually helpful.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know