Irreducible Complexity

Hi, AllI think Percy has a good point here. To really have a productive debate about Creation and Evolution, all parties must first understand a few things. For those people who wish to understand what the theory of evolution is (and is not) I would recommend that they refer to a text written by a Biologist, not to sources such as Kent Hovind or the ICR. A Biologist (for reasons which I hope are obvious) has the best chance of fairly, thorougly, and accurately representing the Theory of Evolution and its evidence and implications.On a more basic level, I think it would be of great benefit if those who have a healthy curiosity and want to learn about scientific ideas (whether they think they will agree or disagree with these ideas) to take some time at the beginning of their exploration to understand some of the "basics" of science--ie, what it is and how it works. What, for example, does a scientist actually mean by "theory"? What is a "good" theory and what is a poor theory? What is the scientific method and what are its steps? Those are important questions, and understanding these questions and their answers will help a person understand what is "scientific," what scientists are trying to do, and how they do it.Sadly, the average American does not seem to have learned about these issues--and that is where we end up with scientific theories being misrepresented, scientific language being misunderstood, and any "unusual" idea being branded "unscientific". This is also where we see people who automatically believe that because science does not know the answer *yet* that science cannot answer the question. If people truly understood that science is an ongoing, progressive enterprise, people probably wouldn't make that mistaken assumption.--Redwing

Hi, FaithI am glad that you are doing some research/reading. It's always nice to see some curiosity--all too often, people "don't care". Kudos to you for your effort.I was reading (I think this was in another message thread) that you were feeling a little "bashed over the head" by "scientific"-type folk defiding you for believing in God. I can sympathize with the "bashed" sensation--although for me, it was religion which did the bashing and my scientific leanings I was deridied for. *sigh* Perhaps the two of us can help each other out.I think I understand Percy's suspicion that it is the Creationists rather than the Evolutionists who have tried to "take over the field" in an agressive manner. In reality, they do nothing less than try and rewrite the entire philosophy of sicence. The "philosophy of science" deals with such questions as: what is science? What kinds of questions does science try to answer? How should it try to answer those questions and why? What things are *not* a part of science and why? What are the sources of scientific knowledge and how does one define a "good" source?The right to define the philosophy of science is (rightly) awarded to the scientists, because they are the ones *doing* science. Over the years, by the consensus of the scientific community, it has been basically agreed that scientific data, theories, and ideas deal with solely "naturalistic" phenomena. ("Naturalistic" phenomena are those thigns which occur in the physical world--things we can ultimately percieve with our five senses.) Therefore, no scientific theory or idea can invoke God as a cause. Also (you can tell this to the next scientist who says "there is no God because science proves it") science actually cannot say anything about whether or not God exists. Science must remain silent on that issue.Bacause scientists deal with strictly "naturalistic" phenomena, some of them develop what we call a "naturalistic" philosophy--they believe that *all* of true "reality" is "matter in motion" (purely physical things moving and interacting with one-another). Sadly, many scientists, science teachers and also many "laymen" (people with little or no formal trianing in science) think that this purely philosophical position *is* science and cannot be separated from it. That is not correct--remember, science can only really *deal* with purely naturalistic things, so it can neither absolutely deny nor confirm any purely philosophical position. Scientific data and theories may *suggest* certain ways of thinking about the world, but that is as far as it can go.Creationism tries to force science to use God as a total explanation--and this is contrary to the accepted philosophy of science (which is necessary to help us distinguish what is science, and what is philosophy or religion). Scientific Materialism (the philsophy of materialism which scientists frequently believe in) is, however, equally at fault for using science to deny God. What we really and truly need is a proper education about the nature and philosophy of science in our schools.Regretfully, there is no specific book I could point you to right now which discusses the philosophy of science. (I wish I knew one off of the top of my head, but the only book I've recently read which discusses that topic is "Creationism on Trial"--I think it is an excellent book, but it has a definite "evolutionist" slant to it which you might find uncomfortable at this time). Some science textbooks *briefly* discuss the scientific method in the first chapter or so, but that only vaguely and implicitly toutches on a lot of the important issues. (If nothing else is forthcoming, then at least that is a start.)Well, good luck in your reading (and in any future science classes). Have a nice day,--Redwing