Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
142 of 165 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Explaining the Religion of Science, July 29, 2007
Anyone examining the debates surrounding evolution and various alternatives, including "intelligent design," cannot help but be struck by the vehemence with which advocates of the former attack the latter. Whether on Amazon reviews and discussion boards, or in the broader scientific and popular literature, Darwinists attack those who disagree with them in an manner that far exceeds what one would expect from one scientist simply disagreeing with another's interpretation of the data. This is because the question literally involves the personal religion of those who support the current neo Darwinian synthesis. Despite the claims that supporters of evolution routinely make, namely that they are opposing "religious" fundamentalism, the fact remains that their basic suppositions are religious. This new book by biophysicist Cornelius Hunter examines these religious assumptions and lays bare their strengths and weaknesses in the historical sciences.
The story of modern science begins with Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, each of whom rejected the rationalist theories of Aristotle. They did so, however, in very different ways. Bacon supported a moderate empiricism. Stressing observation and experimentation, he suggested science as such limit itself to observable and testable hypotheses. In contrast, Descartes advocated a new rationalism: one in which all science would pursue naturalistic explanations and use these explanations, even if they did not yield useful predictions, because such explanations were inherently superior to supernatural (or non-natural) paradigms. The approaches found in the work of both Bacon and Descartes have had an enormous influence on the world of science today, but in terms of what Hunter describes as the "historical" sciences (the origins of the universe, the solar system, and, of course, the "Origin of Species") Descartes rationalism has been by far the dominant influence.
People, however, are not generally aware of the extent to which rationalism, particularly in its naturalist expression, is the result of religious influences. The heart of Hunter's book outlines these influences. Theological naturalism was a solution to the problem of reconciling creation with a wise and loving creator. For theological naturalists, assigning creation to various natural laws isolates God from perceived imperfections or "evils" in the world. Hunter dwells into the history of naturalism, highlighting the often neglected whig theologian Thomas Burnet along with better known figures like Immanuel Kant. But ultimately, this theological naturalism led to a methodological naturalism in the sciences. The search for exclusively natural clauses became something of a game rule in science, but the theological basis for it is often overlooked.
Nonetheless, naturalism presents problems, not the least of which is the "blind spot" referenced in the title of the book. When a naturalistic paradigm fails, it does not occur to scientists to examine non-natural explanations. Indeed, there is a tendency to create false dichotomies (either evolution is "true" or all observations of species must reveal only some sort of ideal perfection--otherwise there would be a "bad" design which a creator or other designer could not possibly make.) Needless to add, this sort of reasoning effectively pre-empts alternative suggestions. But it also includes stunning theological suppositions that its adherents are loath to acknowledge. Why, for example, must we assume that a designer would always opt for what we consider a perfect design? As Hunter correctly notes, that this was an assumption of some 18th century natural theologians hardly means it is prescriptive for all natural theology.
There are a number of important implications to the arguments in Hunter's book. One is that religious assumptions are far more common in the sciences than many would be willing to acknowledge. Indeed, much of the "evidence" in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is essentially theological arguments about how nature "should be" rather than simply an empirical discussion of how it is. Historians have known this for some time. (Readers interested in pursuing this subject further should examine historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's masterful Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.) But amazingly enough, such reasoning persists into the modern era. When SJ Gould declares the Panda's Thumb an inadequate design, he is making a theological claim, not a scientific one. Similar arguments abound in supposedly scientific literature. That these same writers are often critical of design theorists for supposedly bringing "religious" values and ideas into science merely demonstrates the extent of the blindspot Hunter describes.
But this book raises a broader question as well. Is "science" possible without some metaphysical insight. Although Hunter does not mention it, in the broadest sense the answer to this question is no. We must, as Einstein admitted, acknowledge that a prerequisite of science is the presumption that the universe is understandable at all. But beyond that, can a science be constructed that is truly empirical? Or are we stuck between the theological naturalism of many modern biologists, and the theological alternative(s) suggested by intelligent design. Hunter suggests it can by returning to Bacon's "moderate" empiricism. But what would such an empiricism entail? For one thing, it would require the admission that naturalism really is only a game rule, and not an overarching theological construct as it is for such scientists as Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller. It would also require that we reject the few atheists (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins come to mind here) who attempt to appropriate naturalism for their own purposes. As a game rule, naturalism is not a "universal solvent" that dissolves all religious claims, whatever our atheist friends might wish. Accepting Hunter's moderate empiricism would not even "destroy" evolution as a useful working hypothesis. But it would have the effect of seriously limiting what questions science could answer. More important, it would require that we again integrate learning. As Hunter so eloquently notes, there "are rich multifaceted problems that include reasoning from a variety of disciplines. We cannot understand such problems with narrow appeals to just science, or just philosophy, or just theology, or just history. The full range of knowledge ought to be considered."(p.145) The research possibilities such a moderate empiricism offers are tremendous, but they undermine the dominance theological naturalism currently enjoys under the label of "science," and it is unlikely the high priesthood of this religion will give up so easily. Indeed, they currently enjoy a monopoly on the presentation of their religious views in the public sector and they are unlikely to share it. After all, it is easier to accuse one's opponents of religious fanaticism than to examine the mote in one's own eye.
|
|
|
62 of 82 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is The Design of Modern Science Defective?, July 18, 2007
I am a legal intern at Discovery Institute where this review was originally published.
In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to the injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put another way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something wrong with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.
Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning of a product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our cars. If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an expert witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has created a blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.
Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
But Hunter goes further and refutes a common argument that naturalism is a result of atheism or empirically based findings. Instead, he lays the responsibility for naturalism at the doorstep of theists, who were largely thinkers inside the church hundreds of years ago. Hunter explains that theological naturalism is not opposed to religious ideas, because the philosophy is itself religious. It makes theological assumptions for a number of different reasons and then mandates a non-intervening "god." This mandate allows the stream of thought to necessarily flow from theological naturalism to methodological naturalism--the idea that science ought to pursue naturalistic explanations. According to Dr. Hunter, this philosophy of theological naturalism predated the theories that we argue about today.
Dr. Hunter then makes the connection between the philosophies and the blind spot that was created in science: "The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered, theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution has not been found. Non-natural phenomena will be interpreted as natural, regardless of how implausible the story becomes.... Theological naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems -- and many have their share -- the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems."
(Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, Brazos Press, 2007, pg. 44-45)
Dr. Hunter follows theological naturalism through many of the significant ideas of science in the modern era and analyzes how the blind spot affected the results. However, he doesn't just analyze the problem, for Hunter also suggests another design that will not produce such a blind spot. His suggestion is moderate empiricism in lieu of the heavy reliance on the assumptions of theological naturalism. Hunter explains that moderate empiricism is not a new idea; it was used by Boyle and Newton and pursues the experimental sciences largely unhindered by axioms or historical science frameworks. He sees this method being used by the intelligent design theorists and applauds them for it.
As an expert witness, Dr. Hunter excels. Not only does he examine the current design of modern science, he also offers a design that will address the defect and allow science to function properly. Perhaps it may function even better. With his testimony complete, the jury is out. Will the scientists of today and the next generation choose to drive an automobile with this defect, or will they choose a different design, one without this blaring blind spot? Regardless, they would all do well to read Cornelius G. Hunters' Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism.
|
|
|
42 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Revealing Look at the Overlooked Role of Metaphysics in the History & Philosophy of Science, July 24, 2007
In "Science's Blind Spot," biophysicist Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter provides an insightful look at the role of metaphysics in modern science. In particular, he gives readers a succinct overview of the role naturalistic theological assumptions that have influenced the historical sciences in recent times, moving from cosmology to biology.
For Hunter, metaphysical influences are all but inevitable and by themselves pose no necessary impediment to scientific understanding and progress. He argues that it is essential that we be aware of the constraining impact of those influences in to avoid force-fitting data into preconceived conclusions. But important scientific findings, suggests Hunter, reveals how our modern demand that only undirected processes be considered in science has prevented other explanations that might better account for what we observe in the natural world. Along the way, Hunter examines the metaphysical influences behind ideas such as multiverse theory and the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.
In the concluding pages, Hunter makes a plea for the scientific community to embrace a modest empiricism that focuses more narrowly upon empirical findings that can be observed and verified through experimentation. Particularly where the historical sciences are involved, Hunter calls for a more modest approach to the scientific enterprise that is conscious of its own limits. He goes on to suggest that the theory of intelligent design fits within such an inquisitive atmosphere and that it be given careful consideration. (But Hunter just scratches the surface in this last respect, as this book is NOT about intelligent design.)
In two previous books, Hunter focused upon the metaphysics inspiring and affirming Darwin's theory of evolution and its modern form. But it is not necessary to have read those books in order to get the full benefit from "Science's Blind Spot." Given the scope of this book, readers might want to read this book before considering Hunter's intriguing work "Darwin's God."
Despite whatever technical or semi-technical jargon appears in this review, "Science's Blind Spot" is a very accessible book. It reads quickly, too. This book is thought provoking and is recommended to those interested in the role of metaphysics in modern science.
Darwins God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by John C. Lennox
by Cornelius G. Hunter
