字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2008/02/10 12:49:39瀏覽503｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
| One of my NTUEE classmate tried to reconcile reason (Darwinism) and his Christian faith(Creationism) by 'Intelligent Design' argument. 'Intelligent Design' is proposed by Christian groups as 'science', and therefore worth teaching in school in the Unitd States as an alternative to evolution in biology. Mt critique on creationism is by applying Occam's razor: the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In other words, how does introducing the concept of God make evolution a better scientific theory? Modern science defines its domain to be observable physical phenomenon. This by itself doesn't mean it's materialism: it only means it doesn't know, and therefore can't say, beyond observable physical phenomenon. Creationism can't be taken seriously by the scientific community unless you can demonstrate its value within the realm of physical phenomenon. Once you start talking about non-observable, non-predictable cause (e.g. God's design/intervention), you are not talking about science. Another characteristic of scientific theory is it should be refutable in principle; i.e. there should be some experiments/observations that can be conducted according to the logical consequences of the theory, and if it's not true, the theory is incorrect in some way. An example is General Relativity predicts the bending of the path of light when passing by the Sun, which no competing theories predict, and it was proven later. Arguing 'design by God' doesn't seem to be refutable in principle, so it is not a scientific theory, but rather a metaphysical(beyond physical) argument. Lastly, even if you argued successfully that evolution must be guided by something non-physical, this doesn't prove that something is God. Buddhists can well take the position that it is 共業 (the collective action of countless individual consciousness) that drives evolution, not an all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God. So why is Creationism better? You just change an argument in the physical realm into metaphysical one :-) which doesn't get settled at all if history is any guide! Being refutable is important for scientific progress because that's how scientific theories get improved and reach common acceptance over time. Many scientific theories were discarded in history (e.g. about electricity, magneticism, or burning) when their predictions contradict facts after repeated revisions. Metaphysics and theology doesn't 'progress', and centuries old question have no generally accepted answer, because most theories are not refutable in principle. Believers believe them, and non-believers aren't convinced at all. IMO, it's a sign of futile exercise. |
|
| ( 時事評論｜教育文化 ) |
