Again you fail to make a point but lapse instead back into your usual mindless insults. Coherent philosophical arguments don't get invalidated by the simple passing of 20 years. The fact is you don't have any answers is evidenced by your angry, agitated and irrational responses.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a
prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of
the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set
of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant
scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could
believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any
moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
That paragraph is the most insightful statement of what is at issue in the creation/evolution controversy that I have ever read from a senior figure in the scientific establishment. It explains neatly how the theory of evolution can seem so certain to scientific insiders, and so shaky to the outsiders. For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter.
|
