Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and its Meaning (Mary Midgley)

I took a philosophy class called "Theories of Science and Technology" that was life-changing. Here are some of the papers I wrote. In addition to the 3 required books for "Theories of Science and Technology" we were to choose a 4th book to read and report on. We were given a list to choose from, and although we were allowed to go outside the list with instructors permission, I chose this book from the list.

I chose this book, Science as Salvation by Mary Midgley, because it deals with some of the issues I have tackled previously in this course. I have noticed that some scientific ideas, particularly evolution, have taken on a religious role for those who embrace them. I hadn’t quite thought of science as something that people believed would save them, until reading this book. It lines up well with our class discussion on the near-priesthood of scientists. Scientists are regarded as a little strange, not something most of us want to be, but yet as gurus to whom we look up for answers, much as priests once were.

Both science and religion make the mistake of seeing the other as a threat. Chapter five (page 51) discusses the idea that science and religion are competing for the same job. I believe that if each could overlook their biases, each would see that science and religion repeatedly validate each other. This seems to become truer as time goes on. In the past, when dissenters have asked me questions such as “how could God have always existed” I would have little choice but to say something like “God is outside our realm… he doesn’t have to obey the laws of physics he created for us.” Now that I have some basic knowledge of what modern physics is about, thanks to an exposure to it in engineering school, I no longer have to resort to this rather awkward explanation. Now, time and space are no longer fixed, and the idea of infinite time much more tangible. Einstein has shown that when particles reach the speed of light, time stops. The Bible says that God is light. I do not think that this is meant literally, as to say that the light from a light bulb or even from the sun actually is God, but the idea that God is something outside of what we know as time, and that He is unreachable by us except under his terms (just as matter, a far as we can tell so far, cannot attain light-speed) is now quite reasonable and not unscientific at all. Biology, too, consistently points to a designer rather than to chance (though as Bohr finally convinced Einstein, sometimes chance is designed in too, but he wasn’t talking about biology).

Chapter one also makes the important point that we are probably more interested in why we are here than how. I previously thought that evolution only tackled the “how”, but later chapters in this book make me think people have tried to use it to explain the “why” as well, especially where theories have been made that the universe is validated by the existence of an observer (an idea introduced on page 29, but referred to throughout the book), namely, the human race. The chapter also makes mention of how far out of our way we must go to avoid God, and the conceitedness required to think that people can run the universe.

Chapter two introduces us to the idea that seems widespread that mankind must continue on forever in order to have any purpose at all in the present time. I do not think this idea is nearly as common as Midgley would have us think, but nevertheless there are plenty of books written on the subject, and many are quoted in her book. Soon after this point I started longing to move on to other topics, perhaps evolution, perhaps fear of death. Death is mentioned very briefly on page 162. There is also a claim on page 63 worth considering that what people will seek and accept is based on their fear of spiritual disaster. I am a little disappointed that Midgley mainly clung to space travel and making mankind forever supreme. Are these ideas really so widespread as to require this much energy to refute? I think more people than not just want to avoid their own deaths. The book is quite successful, though, in reminding us how helpless we really are. I suppose taking things to the extreme -- what it would take for humans to be God -- illustrates this well. It seems that Midgley’s goal is to go to such extreme to leave us with no other choice but to turn to God for purpose. This she does well, but it seems that the absurdity of the ideas she is refuting is self-evident enough as to allow her to pack the thesis easily into three chapters, leaving room for other interesting discussions.

After all, we need look no further than the milfoil problem in Lake Champlain to realize that we are in no position to be in control of our universe. We cannot even cure cancer, the common cold, or HIV. How can we possibly suppose that we can transform the human body into something that can live forever, or replace it with something that can carry our legacy for eternity? Like the theory of evolution, theories about mankind conquering the universe explain away impossibilities by saying time will eventually allow every problem to be solved. The point is that scientists who otherwise claim to be looking “just at the facts” actually believe things far more ludicrous and at least as religious as believing a higher being designed everything. This point is well taken and thoroughly made.

Chapter ten makes some excellent points about belief in general. Midgley claims, rightly, that skepticism tends to be glorified as the superior bent. Belief shows weakness, and we should doubt everything until proven. She makes the very observant accusation that the habitual unbeliever is “chronically timid” (page 111) and afraid of taking a risk. Quite a bit of space is dedicated to showing how absurd it is to be a general disbeliever, and the analogy made of how impossible it would be to function socially with a completely untrusting attitude. Yet, some ideas that have come from scientists, as discussed in this book, require some very difficult beliefs. I would argue that most people, even scientists, despite their claims, are not aggressively skeptical in general. There are certain things they wish not to believe, and choose to be skeptics in those areas, claiming that skepticism shows good intellectualism or perhaps even good common sense. As for things that replace the ideas they don’t like, they are embraced with childlike faith by the same people that laud skepticism.

For example, belief that nature came to its present condition by chance is an amazing leap of faith. The low probability that it will not all fall catastrophically apart each day multiplies this faith manifold. It becomes, in fact, a faith that defies reason. Nature is not some work of art that developed and is now sitting there in a museum to be admired. It is a well-oiled machine in a continuous delicate balance. I think, therefore, the claim by atheists that they are skeptics is only a feeble excuse. The real problem is a desire to avoid God. Chapter eleven tackles the question, among others, of why people want to avoid God. It seems to boil down to wanting to run things for ourselves without someone over us telling us what we should or should not do. We do not want to hear that there is a right and wrong, because we would all be guilty and require a savior. This would be far too humbling for us.

Chapter twelve deals with questions of motivation and why people believe what they believe. Pages 134 and 135 attempt, successfully I think, to show that atheism is a quite irrational belief. This is followed by a discussion on feelings and whether they are permissible as evidence for or against a belief. Midgley argues that it is, and says scientists would say no. I agree that feeling does enter into reason, but I am not as sure that we should purposely bring feelings into it. For example, although I am far from successful, I prefer to attempt to base my theological beliefs on facts of the Bible. I realize of course that there are many assumptions underlying this, the first one being that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But even if we are to quibble over the accuracy of the Bible and the interpretation of it, it is a fact that it says certain things and does not say other things. The accuracy cannot be proven, but it weaves together well enough that it can be very convincing to the open mind. In any case, I think it would better to make a case that belief in God is reasonable, than to argue that feelings are a good guide after all. Feelings really are unreliable. I certainly agree though that total neutrality is impossible.

I once attended a debate at Dartmouth College on “Does God Exist”. At the time I thought it was a bit of a waste of time because you certainly cannot prove it either way. Later a Christian professor at Dartmouth explained to me that it was important to him to show intellectuals that Christianity can be a rational, intellectual thing. You do not have to throw reason out the window to believe in God; quite the opposite. Looking back on it, it is interesting to remember that the professor arguing against the existence of God, instead of making his case, really came at the debate with the point of view that the discussion was silly. The professor arguing for God’s existence made an excellent case, but technically lost the debate because he hadn’t been prepared to defend the validity of even having the discussion in the first place. It is interesting, then, that it was the atheist who consciously decided to throw reason out the window and go with feelings. His feeling and main argument was that evil exists, therefore God does not. He did not seem to have much else to offer. My question to him, of course, is without God, what could possibly be evil? Why shouldn’t we kill, steal, and rape?

I think the examples pointed out of other “faiths” like Marxism, and how many intellectuals grasped these faiths, may be useful for defending the number of intellectuals who have latched onto Christianity, but may have the reverse effect of also making Christianity appear as ridiculous as Marxism. I’m not sure this was very effective, but it was a very interesting study on Marx and the phenomenon of his following. I think the argument is intended to illustrate how one can be swayed to believe in something silly. The illustration succeeds to some degree but the amount of ink spent on it gives me the feeling that the author has a particular fascination with Marxism and is just looking for an excuse to write about it.

Chapter thirteen and fourteen discuss more about how silly ideas become popular, and a little more on why everyone “needs” a faith of some kind. There is an interesting related quote from chapter 6 (page 70), “If we don’t have one kind of faith, we are very likely to have another. Faiths which are not watched grow like mushrooms in the dark. It is important, and quite difficult, to think them through and to make sure that they are of the kind we want to harbour.”

Chapter fifteen comes the closest to actually discussing religion at length. I agree with the idea on page 168 that the idea of mixing science with religion is vague, and that trying to reach God through science doesn’t work. I do think that science and religion are closely related, much in the same way as a nut and a bolt. The two are separate entities that can be taken apart, examined and studied separately, but support each other and go together in an intertwined sort of way. Chapter sixteen concentrates on how frail we are, just barely able to put humans in space at all with any reliability, never mind living there or exploring other planets. This was written after the Challenger disaster, but before the Columbia disaster. Chapter seventeen brings up the point of why should we assume that we should reign over any aliens that are out there. If we are alone in the universe, it puts the odds ever further against the idea of us being here by chance. Chapters eighteen and nineteen had little new to offer but the very last paragraph of the book concedes that people now (at publishing time I assume) seem to be reaching Midgley’s conclusions on their own. Interestingly, it is true that religion seems to be making a comeback (mostly in ways that I think are false, but that’s a subject for another time).

There is a question that the book raised for me and did not answer. What is the difference, really, between doubting that humans can eventually control the universe, and doubting fifty years ago that affordable home computers would someday be possible? I do believe that there is a difference. I once had a similar question about evolution. I knew (had a feeling) that an eye developing by chance was as impossible as a jumbo jet being spontaneously built in a junkyard, but did not quite know why. I knew that adaptation occurred through beneficial mutation. Finally, the answer came in the form of “irreducible complexity”. The whole basis for evolution is that beneficial mutations over billions of years can eventually bring about things like eyes. Unfortunately, there is so much irreducible complexity to the eye that the probability of enough mutations occurring at once to make the eye useful is not miniscule, but is in fact zero. I am now in search of a similar answer for why we can expect science to eventually accomplish certain things and not others. Science as Salvation danced around this question from cover to cover without ever quite answering it. It is time to get back to the library.

Instructors comments:
I do agree with you that religion need not be based on emotion. I have more trouble with your claim that ethical beliefs must be based in religious belief

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (4)

Kuhn claims that science evolves on its own as nature is claimed to do by Darwin. However, he admits that science as so defined has only existed for a short time (four hundred years perhaps?) and originated in certain civilizations. It is, then, a certain certain culture that allows for it. It does not happen on its own. Perhaps a day will come when science goes the way of the arts, where there are multiple paradigms (or perhaps Kuhn would prefer to say, no paradigm). People may not always agree that there is only one mountain to climb. In most disciplines, this seems to happen when a paradigm becomes too perfect. In art, it was once assumed that the goal of painting was precise rendering of an object or scene. For many years, progress was made until finally, it would seem that no more progress could be made. Ever since that point, painting has gone in several different directions at once with no resolution in sight. [Resolution seems not even to be desired. What if we find ourselves believing that we have found all the scientific answers?][1] Even if not true, believing it may be all that is required to cause enough boredom in science to abandon the one paradigm and chase various ideas. I do not know if this will happen, but am convinced that the possibility exists. If so, [I think that the direction of science depends more on the minds of people than Kuhn gives credit.][2]

Perhaps Kuhn's ideas themselves will someday bring this about. It was once assumed that science was reaching for the truth. Kuhn says it isn't, and if enough scientists buy into this idea, true or not, it may be more tempting for more and more scientists to abandon the paradigm and go their own way. In any case, I think the holes in Kuhn's argument that science makes progress [on its own][3] are analogous to the holes in the theory of evolution itself.

An evolutionist will be quick to point out the many similarities between species as evidence that one came from another. To the contrary, this is all the more evidence of a creator. Different models of car from the same manufacturer have all sorts of things in common. there are certain styling carryovers as well as numerous interchangeable parts. Just as in the study of the origin of life, the deeper you search in a car, the more you see similarities in the details. The clips that hold the interior door lining in place, the heater controls, various springs throughout the car, and much more turn out to be identical to other models. Why? It is because the different models came from the same creator. [4]

The book of Romans states it well: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what my be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," (NIV) As science progresses, it seems it becomes more and more of a stretch to believe in no creator. In fact, even the theory of relativity helps creationists. One of the most difficult things for the creationist to explain has traditionally been the idea that God has always existed and always will exist. Under Newtonian physics where time is fixed everywhere, this is difficult indeed. Now that time and space are negotiable, the idea of a God who has always been becomes much easier to grasp. Before learning about twentieth century physics, when confronted with the question of how could God do this or that, I had no choice but to say that if God created physics, He could work outside of physics. Relativity allows me to believe that God could be working within the very same laws of physics that we do. Observation of how light behaves, and of how particles behave as they attempt to reach the speed of light, makes the idea of God being infinite and omnipresent much easier. The Bible even says that God is light. I am not at all sure that it is being literal, but it is an interesting thought. [5]

I am still struggling with why God and science cannot go together. It seems obvious at first but as I try to actually list reasons it becomes difficult. I know what I think from a religious perspective. Belief in God can only come from God. It does not come about by evaluating evidence. The existence of God, as noted in the Bible quote above, is self-evident in all of nature. There are numerous stories in the Bible of [miraculous][6] wonders that would have proved the existence of God beyond any shadow of a doubt to any witnesses, and yet the witnesses still did not believe. Classic examples are God's dramatic descention onto Mount Sinai in Exodus chapter 19, Pharoah and the plagues that led to him freeing Israel from captivity (also in Exodus), Jesus' miracles, and closer to home, the [miracle of life].[7] From this perspective it becomes obvious why science has no room for God. [What science would give for reasons][8], I am less certain of.

One thing science would almost certainly say is that science would be impeded by the assumption that God exists. I'm not sure I see how this is so. To the contrary, things suddenly begin to fall into place. The ideas of survival of the fittest and a creator are not mutually exclusive. The problem with evolution is not that species adapt to their environments, or even necessarily the big bang theory. The woodpecker with the hardest beak, the moth with the most camouflaged markings, the fastest elk, and the busiest bee will be the survivors, no doubt. [But to think that something like the human eye could evolve with such a process is a bit of a stretch. There is a certain irreducible complexity to an organ like the eye that defies accidental creation. There is no one part of an eye that could be of any benefit to an animal][9], and even if it was, we are still far away from what is needed to have an eye. A lens by itself is nothing but possibly a hindrance to the organism. [The oganism is not more likely to survive with a lens than its peers who do not have one].[10] You must also have all of the other parts of the eye, and the parts of the brain that process what the eye sees, and the nerves that connect the two before the eye can do anything. The probability of this happening by chance, over any number of years, [is not minuscule, as some say, but is in fact zero][11]. It is even less likely than the famous example of many monkeys typing at typewriters for billions of years eventually coming up with a copy of a major work of Shakespeare. Even assuming that monkeys really do type randomly as the analogy implies, it simply will never happen.

The paradigm of evolution is getting ugly in a similar way that Ptolemaic astronomy became ugly. I have spoken with UVM graduate students in the sciences who say so. Some of these are not Christians, so it seems that the scientific community at large is beginning to see it. It will be interesting to see how this develops over my lifetime, because it does seem that science and the idea of a God are mutually exlusive in the current scientific culture. This brings up the question of what if God does exist as the creator of the universe? If so, how long can [science say He does not][12]? How many billions upon billions of years is science willing to say is required for [life to have occurred by itself][13]? There are plenty of reasons, many of which have been discussed here, that science will never conclude there is a creator, but it will be interesting to see how creative it gets in avoiding that conclusion.

Instructor's Comments:
1) Good point
2) This is something that has been argued by many post-Kuhn theorists. My own work on technology is based on this idea
3) yet, science does help create the intellectual climate that directs its future development.
4) This is a classic case of the underdetermination of theory by data. The similarities are, in fact, compatible with both interpretations.
5) Definitely a fascinating point. How does this sort with "Big Bang" theory that suggests a specific starting point for everything?
6) This suggests that God is outside science?
7) Ok
8) Perhaps that explanations based on God are hard to test?
9) This is a classic problem.
10) At least, until the eye parts all work together, at which point it becomes a huge advantage
11) There are some accounts of how this could have occurred, though they are largely speculative.
12) Science actually doesn't take a position on whether God created the universe, but it does on whether God specifically created all life forms in their present shape with no process of evolution.
13) Darwin allows for the possibility of divine creation of one or a few original life forms that later evolved. (See the final page of Origin of the Species)
I think you've done a good job of relating evolution/creation to Kuhn's ideas, and you show courage in taking on both of them. At the end, you don't come back to your original point, which is not so much about science and God, but about the ability of science to develop "on its own" in a quasi-evolutionary manner. One point of note: your characterization of science's attitude toward God may be a bit off. It isn't that science says God doesn't exist. Rather, that the question isn't a scientific one. (You acknowledge this on p3 at the bottom, but by p5 you've lost sight of it)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (3)

It is interesting that one hundred years after the theory of relativity came about, we are still teaching our children Newtonian mechanics, and engineers are using it to build sophisticated new airplanes and skyscrapers. Other problems, like nuclear physics and astronomy often cannot be solved without relativistic treatment. Kuhn has said that during the transition period between paradigms it is normal for such an overlap to occur. However, it seems that we have been clinging to Newton for too long for this to be the case now.

Kuhn spends considerable time wrestling with the fact that Newtonian mechanics is still so prevalent 60 years (at the time Kuhn wrote the book) after relativity replaced it.[1] I think it may be that relativity did not quite replace it. Kuhn mentions the idea that perhaps Newton’s ideas are a special case of Einstein’s ideas. After much thought, this is the school of thought I am leaning toward. There are many areas, for example, where relativity uses equations that are simply Newtonian equations with a relativistic factor thrown in. This factor is so close to “1” in traditional cases that it can be ignored. In these cases I think one could argue that Newton was not wrong, but simply incomplete. I might further argue that Newtonian mechanics really has been replaced in scientific circles and that Newtonian mechanics remains mainly as an engineering tool, because in many cases it is “close enough” and is easier to work with.[2]

A scientist would probably argue, though, that modern physics comes to its conclusions in a more scientific way than Newton did. They might argue that keeping Newtonian mechanics in use because they work in certain cases is similar to keeping the phlogiston theory because it works in certain instances.[3] Both theories originally claimed to cover all situations, but did so essentially through extrapolation. Einstein, on the other hand, [proved mathematically][4] that his theories work for all situations, and as far as we know so far, they do. We can now look back on Newton and see that he has a valid special-case theory, but this is not how it was previously presented.

Kuhn says that scientists are not attempting to solve useful problems, but simply to solve problems that are solvable. They do not set out to solve new problems. New things are discovered when the problems that should have been solvable give strange results. Newtonian physics began to yield such anomalies, and this was the crisis that bred relativity. By this way of thinking, from the purely scientific perspective, the Newtonian paradigm really has been replaced.

Perhaps one way of looking at it would be that a new paradigm comes about not because it is right, or even that more of the evidence supports it, but because it [works better].[5] On these grounds, there are certain situations where Newtonian mechanics really do work, and work better. In conventional engineering this is often the case. For example, Newtonian mechanics work far more elegantly to determine the forces required to stop a car, assuming the car was not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. For this reason, I think Newtonian mechanics are here to stay, unless a new paradigm comes about that actually makes engineering easier. Of course, there are engineering problems that only be solved with twentieth century physics, and for these problems it is very true that relativity “works better”.

Instructor's Comments:
1) Technically it is, but not conceptually
2) Many engineering applications (eg celestial navigation) are still based on ptolemaic astronomy. For those situations, it works. Would your analysis be the same for this case?
3) Ok, this is what I was hinting at
4) Means what?
5) This idea requires some definition

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (2)

We are now moving past defining normal science and beginning discussions of how a paradigm starts to fall apart. By now we know that a paradigm must experience a crisis before a new one can replace it. Albert Einstein could not have been taken seriously with his theory of relativity in 1860 because the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics was still, with some exceptions, working. Chances are that even if he had been alive and studying physics at that time, he would not even have investigated relativity because he would have been too busy studying within the paradigm.[1] Science was not yet ready for an upheaval in this field.

What we have learned in the first five chapters of Kuhn is that science does not normally seek novelties or the unexpected. It attempts to show that everything will turn out as expected. Sooner or later, anomalies are encountered, but with much head-scratching the paradigm remains steadfast. Kuhn's card experiment, where red clubs and black hearts are introduced into the deck, is a great example. When the cards are shown quickly, one becomes suspicious, but does not catch the specific problem. It is not until the cards are shown extremely slowly that one notices the anomaly. Once seen, further anomalies are more quickly recognized because they are no longer unexpected. The assumption that all hearts are red and all clubs are black is now shattered. We have a crisis.

While reading chapters six and seven I suddenly realized that Kuhn does not seem to say much, other than with a few brief examples, about how a scientific field in a pre-paradigm condition gets its first paradigm.[2] Chapter seven does say, though, that a paradigm in crisis begins to resemble the pre-paradigm state, so perhaps further reading on scientific upheavals in general will help us answer this question indirectly.

In thinking about my personal question of how the theory of evolution fits into all this, it is beginning to occur to me that the paradigm of evolution may in fact be necessary and perhaps I need not fight it as fervently as I once thought. If it is wrong, as I have always believed it to be, it still can never be replaced until we have tried and failed to prove it right. Note that the Biblical account of creation does leave some questions unanswered, and "survival of the fittest", for example, certainly occurs and answers some of those questions. It is even possible that the "big bang" could have occurred without violating creationism (God had to start things somehow). However, to find a way to avoid a creator at all is a bigger challenge, which evolution attempts.[3] But Kuhn states, quite rightly I think, that making an assumption and sticking to it, even if wrong, ultimately gets us to the truth more quickly.

I am writing hypothetically, because I still believe that creationism will never be the replacement for evolution because of its religious connotations, even though I think it is the "correct answer". By this I mean that I believe that the creation story of the Bible is "what's true". [Can I prove this? Can it ever be proven? Probably not. However, it seems that most paradigms are not required to be "provable" but simply must avoid being disproved, and in fact even disproof is not enough for upheaval; there must be a better proposal.][4] We seek a replacement theory when the old theory doesn't work. What is interesting to me, though, is that the theory of evolution seems to "not work". [What didn't work about creationism?][5] Only that it meant there was a higher being that we must contend with, and we do not want to believe that. It might mean we cannot be our own gods.

Instructors Comments:
1) Yes, exactly
2) Good point. Perhaps this is because he's not really interested in pre-paradigm science (in fact, he says it's not science at all)
3) Good point. In general, science tries to leave God out of it. why do you suppose this is?
4) We'll discuss this shortly
5) Perhaps that it's not clear how it can guide research? What predictions would it allow us to make?
I hope that you'll keep asking these questions -- it makes the reading much more rewarding when Kuhn's next chapter answers the questions you were asking about his previous one.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (1)

This was the first of 3 required readings in a class I just finished called "Theories of Science and Technology". It was my first and so far only philosophy class and it changed my life, as did this book. I am posting the weekly required papers I wrote as I was reading this book, along with the comments that the instructor wrote on them during grading.

So far in class and in the reading we have been studying, mainly by example, the definition of paradigm as Kuhn uses it to describe a phenomenon of the scientific community and the way in which science progresses. I am, in fact, finding myself referring to this as "paradigm class". So far we are mainly attempting to determine whether science is truly [objective][1] or if we really do start with what we already assume and go from there.

I find it fascinating and somewhat of a relief to find that Francis Bacon's scientific method is flawed and not generally used in real life. I recall being taught the scientific method in middle- and high school, and yet not truly using it in lab experiments, and wondering what the discrepancy was. Often a lab would try to hide the paradigm from the student by just giving the steps so that the student would blindly perform the experiment, and theoretically see the results without having any bias. Someone had to write the experiment, however, so the paradigm was still there.[2]

A formal definition of the paradigm remains elusive, but we know a few things about it. It includes knowledge of the subject, just as a sail racer studies the theories of the airfoil and other aspects of fluid dynamics, flotation, and even reads books on racing tactics. One must also put the theory into practice, in this case the person actually goes sailing and hones his skills. He also spends time with other sailors, on the water and off, and learns the social aspects. Understanding the "pecking order" is important, as is what to wear. Gradually recognition is gained and the sailor is respected and his input welcomed. If any of these aspects are missing, recognition is not likely to be gained. There tends to be a snowball effect known as the "Matthew effect" where the one who already has the recognition tends to receive further recognition.

One topic near and dear to me that I am thinking about anew after reading Kuhn and participating in class is the theory of evolution versus creation. I have long felt that science has gone awry with the theory of evolution by ["wanting" it to be true][3] so strongly that it ignores a lot of serious holes in the theory. I am now beginning to think that it is simply a case of a paradigm that is not working, just as Newtonian mechanics was before relativity replaced it. [incidentally, I think "augmented" or even "fixed" might be a better term than "replaced", but fear I may be violating a paradigm in doing so!].[4] I think this class may help me with this issue. It is a unique paradigm because the former state (the religious idea of creation) was pre-paradigm, but I truly feel it was the [correct][5] one. I believe that the current paradigm exists [primarily to give us an excuse to ignore whatever higher being there may be][6], and in fact see it as no less religious than the pre-paradigm condition. If I am right, I don't see how the issue can ever resolve itself, and in fact I do not believe it ever will. I do believe that [science continually proves creation and vice-versa; that there is no yet known discrepancy between the two.][7] I think if we could truly see religion as objectively as we claim to see science, creationism would become the paradigm eventually. We cannot, but my observation is that the current paradigm is becoming continuously more widely seen as one that does not work even by those in the scientific community. If this class had a large thesis component, I would probably make this the topic of that thesis.

Instructors Comments:
1) Tricky term. Define it?
2) Good example
3) This isn't it, quite -- they find that it explains things better than any of the competition
4) We'll discuss this later
5) In what sense?
6) This may be a side effect, but I'd say the primary purpose is to explain phenomena and guide research
7) Unclear