THE SCIENTIFIC RACIST, eugenicist, Nobel awarded stealer of other Peoples' work, would-be (failed)-solver of the "hard problem of consciousness" and part-time amateur abiogenetic researcher Francis Crick had a theory of the origin of life on Earth that, from what I can see, rather stupidly attributed it to the intelligent design of ancient lords of creation who sent life to the Earth, from where, for why and how by, totally unanswered and, of course, as the actual origin of life on Earth is, entirely unevidenced. Atheists have never much been troubled by such a scheme of intelligent design as science, as seemingly absurd as it really is.
Of course, he being an ideological atheist and his theory being for the purposes of supporting materialist-atheism, he never suffered for his ideological implantation into the culture and the actual literature of science - the "literature of science" being, actually, a hell of a lot less sealed off from ideological and other extra-methodological naturalistic "faith pollution" than the materialistic, atheistic and scientistic or even just the scientific claims of that purity would lead you to believe. At least that's the case in the highly contentious parts of science such as evolutionary science or cosmology. There are huge swaths of science in which neither religious fundamentalists nor materialist-atheistic-scientistic are especially invested so those are probably quite free of that kind of ideological insertion.* I would suspect climate-change science is quite pure science and the success of their horrifying predictions are made manifest in real life experience in a way that theories of evolution, cosmology and the semi to totally pseudo-scientific study of minds and "behavior" are rife with, and thus the short shelf-life of such scientific "truth."
Since you rather badly cite it, I've gone over the Miller-Urey experiment before to point out a. Miller and Urey DIDN'T recreate the conditions of the early Earth, they didn't even create a little evidenced, speculative early-1950s imagination of what that was - I would suspect some of that imagination based in what they thought would get them the result they sought, b. they, according to current scientific belief of what those conditions may have been, were quite wrong, c. they didn't "make life" they manufactured some amino acids and other molecules by subjecting very concentrated, isolated chemicals to some very powerful electrical forces and heat over a long time but not strong enough to destroy what they were making, d. if their intent was to "prove that life isn't the design of God" abbreviated to "intelligent design" which I believe was behind what they did, they proved the exact opposite because their experiment only proved that a couple of professionally and likely ideologically motivated scientists can create amino acids within a very specially planned and designed container under specially planned and designed conditions in an mixture planned and designed to recreate something they got wrong, in any case, proving that their intelligent design was an intrinsic part of what they proved could be done under conditions almost ideally planned to yield the result they got.
You cannot filter out the intelligent design of a scientist from what they create. It is one of the key discoveries of 20th century physics that even physicists cannot filter out the effects and point of view of conscious observation of what they find from even a more passive scientific act.
That result was certainly not "life" and certainly not very far along in the production of a living being which, unless you are going to indulge in the sci-fi fantasies of Francis Crick and his like, according to the materialist-atheist of a probable scientistic bent, by their unadmitted gods of random chance, probability, trial and error and the like, arose by those in the very likely uncongenial to life atmosphere of the early Earth without the crucial element that Miller and Urey and so many another ideological atheist-scientist provide, intelligent design.
It is remarkable how basically and fundamentally philosophically inept so many even very accomplished and prestigiously employed scientists are. Crick won the friggin' Nobel prize, for Pete's sake and he couldn't understand all he'd done is insert the intelligent design of imaginary extra-terrestrials for the appearance of life on Earth, merely putting off the even more unevidenced creation of the ETs who he wanted to put in place of God in another time and place long ago. I believe both Miller and Urey were Nobel Laureates, too. Stanley Miller was also considered to be an "expert" in "exo-biology" another "science" which is entirely without the first sample of what would be needed to study "other life."
I will point out that their creation and, it being Crick I'd guess, imagined evolution into such highly sophisticated intelligent scientific ETs could be considered even more improbable because they would have had fewer billions of years than life on Earth did to assemble by chance and evolve thus, probably far longer than life on Earth because Earth scientists this many billions of years into the existence of the universe are not nearly able to do such stuff which may, actually, be impossible to accomplish. I'm entirely skeptical about our ability to get a human being to Mars alive and viable, nevermind anyone living on that very un-Earthlike planet close by. And let's include the distances such a scheme would have to work through. The time restraints for such a scenario may make Crick's imaginary ET scientists and technologists more highly improbable than whatever is the actual earliest organism on Earth far more difficult to explain by the atheists' unadmitted cast of creator gods, random chance, probability, etc.
By comparison with that anti-scientific scientific POV, belief that life was created by the design of God is eminently more honest and, I hold, rational. It is not and never should be mistaken to be a scientific idea, but, then, neither should so many of the claims of such ideological atheist-scientists, though those regularly are mistaken as such. Many a bum scientific claim is saved by materialist-atheist-scientism.
If you want to find people who regularly insert such faith pollution into science, look at the interested, active, ideologically driven atheists among scientists because they're the ones who, like Crick and John Maddox and myriads of others get their stuff regularly published as science in scientific journals and who even more regularly are put on TV shows and podcasts to pretend what they claim about such things as disposing of the "necessity" of God for the origin of life or the creation of the universe. Those are the kind who are almost always on TV and podcasts creating the popular understanding of "science" and not infrequently in the literature of science, implied or explicitly stated. I doubt there is much of any science dealing with consciousness that isn't thoroughly shot through with atheist ideology and there are entire branches of science that originated in such ideology such as "abiogenesis," created by the ideological atheists Oparin and Haldane as a "scientific" demonstration that life could arise by spontaneous generation through random chance, etc. By the way, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, it is a totally different thing because if there's one thing we can be fairly certain of, the original organism so theorized, whether it arose here or on another planet billions of years before life arose here, didn't come about through biological evolution. That misconception is as philosophically and logically inept as the idea that scientists today can really study the origin of life on Earth for which they have absolutely no evidence except that there is life now and has been for billions of ever less evidenced life the farther in the past you go. You can't do science without physical evidence.
They really should make people who major in science take rigorous courses in philosophical reasoning, certainly courses that would instruct them on the more idiotically clueless claims of eminent and some not so eminent scientists on the basis of their faith in materialism, atheism and scientism. Even the accomplished mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell, one of the most popular atheist saints of my generation was quite capable of making such philosophically inept claims, he unequivocally stated the formula of scientism that anything that science can't show can't be known which, itself, is an unscientifcally made statement and so cannot be known to be true by its own definition. He really did know better but his faith would not let him not make such an absurd claim. He was far from the only one.
* The quasi-scientific study of "evolution" is rife with the baldest of political-economic ideology and has been even before Darwin tied it perhaps for the rest of human science to that with his adoption and complete distortion of Malthus's elevation of the British class system to a law of economics. As Marx pointed out, Darwin turned the non-scientific and philosophically inept Malthus on his head and applied it to the entirety of life.
There are huge swaths of biological science that are quite non-ideological in their content and motives but those are usually solidly based in what can be seen and measured, especially when they are honest about the complexity and so, difficulty of what they study. The scientific study of evolution is none of that except in rare cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment