Re: The real lowdown on "Intelligent Design"


SilkUpholsteredChair wrote:
> Delia wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can't go wrenching people 300 years out of the past to proof text
> > your arguments. You need to know what they were really talking about,
> > which might not actually turn out to support your claims.
>
>
> I am quoting from the Principia, not some esoteric Newton numerology
> text passed quietly along to John Locke to get printed in France and
> dug up by Keynes, to which you refer. (Yes, as you correctly point
> out, the PC Police were on patrol even back then.)

Of course you are. As I pointed out, the Argument from Design was
completely unremarkable. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries virtually everyone believed in it. That's not the esoteric
part of Newton. And they didn't edit it out of Newton. He hid his own
notes away. He was an incredibly secretive and suspicious man. If
you've actually read a biography of him you know this.

>
> It's funny: Physical science has no difficulty wrenching "people" 300
> years out of the past to establish the fundamental laws of motion,
> optics, and so forth, which haven't changed one iota in the macro
> world. They don't mind wrenching "people" 300 years out of the past to
> teach calculus, which this "people" invented. Funny that refraction
> business. Uh-huh, 300 years back.

I have news for you. Newtonian physics is out of date and has been so
for quite a long time. His optics (light as corpuscular) was abandoned
in the early nineteenth century. By the 1870s Maxwell's equations
governing the laws of electromagnetic radiation summarized a century of
research in fields undreamt of by Newton. In 1905 Einstein
incorporated Maxwell, Newton and a lot more to completely revise the
foundations of physics. Relativity contains Newtonian physics as a
special case. Fast forward to the 1920s and you add quantum mechanics,
which Einstein couldn't stand.

If you take a modern freshman year physics course you'll get Newtonian
mechanics in the first semester or quarter. Then you plunge into
electricity and magnetism, which is probably straining the level of
math you've had to that point. If you go on to a second year you learn
the Einsteinian viewpoint, which is much harder mathematically.

If you're suggesting that the Principia be used as a freshman physics
text, I really need to suggest you call up your nearest physics
department and make the suggestion to them. Not only do introductory
science classes, like all survey courses, have an incredible amount of
material to cover in a very short time, but most working physicists
have very little interest in the history of their disciplines. Or
politics, for that matter. They're going to lose their tempers if some
right wing fanatic comes in off the street suggesting they take
precious class time talking about Newton and the Argument From Design.
They'll probably suggest you take . . . . a history of science class.
They don't know much about those, but it will get you out of their
hair. An introductory physics text will have a short paragraph on
Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein, and that will be it. As I mentioned,
the Principia is out of date. There's also the matter of the
mathematics. Calculus was simultaneously invented by Newton and the
German philosopher Leibniz. Leibniz invented the notation we use
today. Newton didn't want the riff-raff to learn how to do these
precious calculations, so he invented a very convoluted geometrical
technique. This is what he uses in the Principia. It means the
prefaces he talks about religion and the relationship of God and
gravity and stuff like that is very accessible; the laws of motion and
rules of reasoning are fairly accessible (once you get past the
seventeenth century language) and can be used as readings in Great
Books and Ideas classes (and often are, BTW). But the actual
calculations are very dense, and I doubt one freshman in 1000 would
have a clue.
>
> Newton framed these principles in the context of understanding God's
> "design." It's a matter of historical record. And you would censor
> that from the curriculum. Not worthy of discussion, I guess. Reflected
> widespread thinking of the time, but the students don't need to know
> that. We'll skip over that section. What's that current expression? Oh
> yes--cherry pick.

I would censor this from the curriculum, huh? I had pointed out
precisely in the curriculum where it could be found. Now I've pointed
out two: a Great Books class as well is likely to contain some excerpts
from Newton. You're just upset that I went and ruined your nice little
rant. You seem to want the scientists to teach it. I'm not a
scientist, but I'll make one further observation. Scientists have been
the people on campuses who have been least interested in the culture
wars. They've just wanted to ignore all this business and do their
work. Now it seems to be wingnuts who know nothing about science who
are bringing the wars to them.


>
> Why? To further dumb down the American educational system in the name
> of enlightened thinking? This is not the Soviet Union where all
> academic disciplines have to be first filtered through the
> Marxist-Lenist Thought Dept. Or is it?

I have news for you. The educational system is already dumbed down.
What the hell makes you think it's in the name of enlightened thinking?
It's the despair of everyone who's ever worked there. Every year the
students who enter seem to be less prepared. Let us all know when you
have the solution worked out.

>
> If Newton's quest was theological, that isn't to be concealed--it's to
> be discussed. Assert it. Ridicule it. Debate it. Build it up. Tear it
> down. Most importantly--talk about it.

It _is_ discussed. It's discussed by the sort of scholars that you
take delight in ridiculing. There's a huge literature on it.


Frankly, I wasn't aware that
> anything Newton wrote in the Principia has been refuted--either
> scientifically or theologically.

See above for the science.

Has some great scientific mind
> refuted Newton's assertion that these physical laws are manifestations
> of the perfect, finished plan? (And I don't mean by someone in the
> Episcopal Church.)

This isn't something that can be either proved or disproved.

>
> I don't see what the problem is here. This is not about alchemy, which
> you try to sneak in to what he said. It's really okay to stay with the
> text as it is written. Nobody is asking you to deconstruct it to find
> the sinister, hidden meaning in it. It's perfectly acceptable to take
> it at face value. That's all he said. You needn't feel threatened.

Huh????


>
> I point out Newton's history not to promote teaching ID in biology
> class. The Bible is not a science text and wasn't compiled as one.
> Where natural selection can be shown a posteriori to have naturally
> occurred, it should definetly be taught in biology. Where it can be
> demonstrated that life on the molecular level is not irreducibly
> complex, by all means, present the students with the evidence. Where it
> can be shown that Darwin himself saw holes in his theory, I say teach
> it.
>
> And where Newton framed his Principia in the context of the Deity, that
> should be explained as well. And not in some off-the-beaten-path
> History of Western Science elective. Who knows--it might even open
> some new doors of scientific inquiry.

In the seventeenth century just about everyone who wrote on science
framed their work in terms of the Deity and how He interacted with the
physical world. There's a lot of very fine scholarly work on the
interaction of Christianity and science, but it's all by these
off-the-beaten-track history of western science types that you don't
want to hear about. Who the hell do you think is going to do work like
this? It's not science. Scientists are not going to teach it. It's
history or philosophy of science.

(Or do you think that "God
> doesn't throw dice" gets left out of the Uncertainty Principle
> lectures. OMG! Even Big, modern Al thought there was some intelligent
> design? Must be something he ate.)

Well, golly, I wasn't good enough in physics to make it to the quantum
mechanics class, so I don't really know what they taught in there. But
do you know what Einstein meant by that statement? Because he didn't
believe in a personal God. Here's another statement from him.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi
Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had
sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?"
Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has
Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

or:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will
or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical
behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in
a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9
November 1930


Now these are not my beliefs. But they are Einstein's. When he (and
some other modern physicists) use the word "God" they are using a sort
of shorthand for "the rational order of the universe." The only moral
here is that you don't line up scientists as your authorities for
religious beliefs, no matter how smart they are. Just because someone
is authoritative in one field doesn't mean he is in another. That's
one reason I brought up the matter of Newton's well-established
religious wackiness as well. Like the old bumpersticker said,
"Question Authority."

.