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)
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)
posted by AndyOfVermont at 1:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home