Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Reiss (that Christian Darwinist clergyman who got dumped from the Royal Society) tries to explain his position

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to British physicist David Tyler, here “Michael Reiss revisits his worldview theme.”

In his discussion of the nature of science, Reiss draws attention to the work of Robert Merton and Karl Popper. Whilst there is much of value here, he writes, “most historians and philosophers of science would argue that there is more to the nature of science”. He considers the “seminal contributions” of Thomas Kuhn and the concept of scientific paradigms, plus the related analysis of research programs by Lakatos. More recently, science has become “more influenced by politics; it is more industrialized; and it is more bureaucratic.” Then comes the conclusion: “The effect of these changes is to make the boundaries around the city of science a bit fuzzier. [. . .] Of course, if one accepts the contributions of the social study of science one finds these boundaries fuzzier still.”

Whilst all this is helpful, it is not clear to me how this affects the subsequent argument of the paper. The paradigms affecting evolutionary biology are not analysed; nor the research programs of scientists involved with origins research. The fuzzy boundaries are not mentioned again. Reiss could have taken the opportunity to show the defenders of “scientific materialism” where they fit into the analysis – thereby constricting their comfort zone – but he does not. Later, he says that creationism “is not really a science in that its ultimate authority is scriptural and theological rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world”. Creationists, of course, do not see any incompatibility between their ultimate authority and working with evidences from the natural world – but that is another discussion. If ultimate authority is an issue, what can be said of the many advocates of “scientific materialism”? What shall we make of Richard Lewontin’s oft-quoted maxim: “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”? Does this statement imply that Lewontinism ‘is not really a science in that its ultimate authority is philosophical materialism rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world’?

My sense is, Reiss was just trying to be nice and helpful and serve Darwin faithfully – and he just didn’t get the fact that the Darwin fans are past that now. They aim at power, and destroying him Reiss a minor way of demonstrating that.

See also: Michael Reiss: Sinner in the hands of an angry god.

Comments
Interesting. Well, historically it seems that you had to be both an atheist and a eugenist to remain in the good graces of the Royal Society. See here how many medals they awarded to eugeenists and anti-Christians and such. Charles Scott Sherrington, for example, was a president of the Royal Society and big-time promoter of eugenics. Read a little of his preface to the scientifically twisted "Creation by Evolution" a top-knotch evolution book by creme-de-la-creme evolutionists of the time.Vladimir Krondan
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
One cannot serve two masters.Lock
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply