Darwin the Philosopher
Charles Darwin was never so much a scientist as he was a philosopher. I say that because a scientist is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. However, Darwin was so committed to philosophical Naturalism, that his complete and total goal was, despite evidence, to disprove the possibility of a creator. As you can see already, that isn't objective science; it is not a search for truth. It is, instead, an agenda of promoting a way of looking at the world, regardless of the empirical evidence. In her book, Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey makes this argument as she points out Darwin's agenda (p. 170):
The fact is, when you are committed to a philosophy rather than the pursuit of truth (i.e. following the evidence where it leads), you'll take it all in--true or not--hook, line and stinker.
"If I have erred" by exaggerating the power of natural seleciton, he wrote, "I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." After listing some of the other theories offered in his day, he added: "Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by [these other writers] or by myself, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable." It's clear that, for Darwin, evolution was no so much a specific theory as a philosophical stance--a stance that could be described as, any mechanism is acceptable, as long as it is naturalistic. Darwinian evolution is not so much an empirical finding as a deduction from a naturalistic worldview.Earlier in the book (p. 156), Pearcey demonstrates that philosophical pre-disposition in action through the words of Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, who favorably called Darwinism a "universal acid." Using this terminology, Dennett proposes that Darwinism "eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view." Pearcey points out the methodology these philosophical naturalists employ:
Public schools are urged to revolutionize their students' worldviews by applying Darwin's "universal acid" to the beliefs they bring from home. And what if meddlesome parents persist in teaching their children that Darwinism is not the whole story of human origins? In that case, Dennett growls, "we will describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity." As a final insult, he suggests putting traditional churches and rituals in "cultural zoos," along with other artifacts from defunct cultures."Pearcey concludes by pointing out the unscientific nature of Dennett and, by extension, Darwin's "science":
Obviously, what Dennett is promoting here is not objective science but his own personal philosophy of evolutionary materialism or naturalism. Making an appearance in the eight-part PBS series "Evolution," Dennett informed the audience that Darwin's great accomplishment was to reduce the design of the universe to a product of "purposeless, meaningless matter in motion." But think about it: Is there any possible way such a statement could be tested scientifically? Any laboratory test that could confirm that the universe arose from "meaningless matter in motion"? Clearly not. It is not a scientific theory at all, but merely Dennett's personal philosophy.I am amused when Darwinists make the claim that Intelligent Design is not science because it cannot be proven, especially when Darwinism is based on philosophical naturalism rather than on real, empirical evidence. In spite of the fact that so much of what has been promoted as evidence for Darwinism has been publically debunked, they continue to recite the same old arguments. OK, boys and girls, one more time together: Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy...stop trying to pawn it off as something that it is not.
The fact is, when you are committed to a philosophy rather than the pursuit of truth (i.e. following the evidence where it leads), you'll take it all in--true or not--hook, line and stinker.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 8/10/2005 04:45:00 PM
|
5 Comments:
David,
In your studies, do find people generally hold tighter onto philosophies rather than scientific evidence? It seems scientific evidence is harder to present to the Darwinists/Atheists then to someone who is more open to fact.
Yes, Mark. Scientific investigation, like any real search for truth, leads the investigator. Someone with a commitment to a particular philosopy is often guided to where their philosophy leads, regardless of truth (where the evidence leads). In the beginning, most scientists were Christians...it is the Christian worldview that birthed science. These scientists followed the evidence to where it led, which was to a Creator. It wasn't until people determined to deny the existence of a Creator that these types of philosophies, like Darwinism, became popular. We buy into a lot of stuff that is billed as "science" which is nothing more than a philosophical framework posing as science. Good question/observation, Mark.
Good book to read if you're interested in this is The Soul of Science (Charles Thaxton and Nancy Pearcey). I think I have it up in the Book Room.
Thank you!
Due to friend moving away, he gave me his entire collection of Norman Geisler's and William Lane Craig's books (I have met Dr. Craig; he's wonderful.). I will add this one to my new library.
I enjoy your well thought out articles. Keep up the great work and I will stay in touch.
Thanks, Mark. Please do.
Quick correction: I improperly listed the authors of the book, Soul of Science, as Charles Thaxton and Nancy Pearcey. In fact, Ms. Pearcey was the lead author on that work, doing all of the research and writing for it. Mr. Thaxton provided the scientific review. If you have not read this book, do so. It does a wonderful job of pointing out the Christian heritage of science.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home