Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 176 pages
• Published by: Brazos Press June 1, 2007
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 158743170X
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-1587431708
• Book Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.9 x 0.7 inches
• Weighs: 8.8 ounces

Book Description
Had evolutionists been in charge, they wouldnt have made the mosquito, planetary orbits would align perfectly, and the human eye would be better designed. But they tend to gloss over their own failed predictions and faulty premises. Naturalists see Darwins theories as logical and thats enough. To think otherwise brands you a heretic to all things wise and rational. Sciences Blind Spot takes the reader on an enlightening journey through the ever-evolving theory of evolution. Cornelius G. Hunter goes head-to-head with those who twist textbooks, confuse our children, and reject all challengers before they can even speak. This fascinating, fact-filled resource opens minds to nature in a way that both seeks and sees the intelligent design behind creations masterpieces.

Back Cover Copy
In this thought-provoking book, Cornelius Hunter shows that modern science has in fact been greatly influenced by theological and metaphysical considerations, resulting in the significant influence of what he calls theological naturalism. Naturalism is therefore not a result of empirical scientific inquiry but rather a presupposition of science. This bias is sciences blind spot, and it has profound implications for how scientific theories are evaluated and thus advanced or suppressed. In the end, Hunter proposes a better waymoderate empiricismand shows how Intelligent Design fits into such a method.

Continuing the theme from his previous two books, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter surveys the history of science to reveal the real source of modern scientists opposition to intelligent design. Turning popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists who oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically based arguments. Sciences Blind Spot is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand why those who oppose intelligent design are becoming more entrenched as the evidence for it continues to build. Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University

This book is a scholarly, yet easily understood, description of how difficult it is to work outside the dominant paradigm. Hunter provides a perceptive analysis of how we got to be where we are, and why theological naturalism is an overlooked but critical issue in understanding the current face-off between religion and science. There is a depth of perception here, an insight into our most unexamined assumptions, that will boggle the mind of anyone conversant with the issues. This book will richly reward all those who read it, whether they are new to the debate or hardened veterans of the science wars. The author has a great gift for clarifying arguments that have long been misunderstood or overlooked. Gene Bammel, professor emeritus, West Virginia University; author of Everyday Philosophy

Reader Reviews
Anyone examining the debates surrounding evolution and various alternatives, including "intelligent design," cannot help but be struck by the vehemence with which advocates of the former attack the latter. Whether on Amazon reviews and discussion boards, or in the broader scientific and popular literature, Darwinists attack those who disagree with them in an manner that far exceeds what one would expect from one scientist simply disagreeing with another's interpretation of the data. This is because the question literally involves the personal religion of those who support the current neo Darwinian synthesis. Despite the claims that supporters of evolution routinely make, namely that they are opposing "religious" fundamentalism, the fact remains that their basic suppositions are religious. This new book by biophysicist Cornelius Hunter examines these religious assumptions and lays bare their strengths and weaknesses in the historical sciences. The story of modern science begins with Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, each of whom rejected the rationalist theories of Aristotle. They did so, however, in very different ways. Bacon supported a moderate empiricism. Stressing observation and experimentation, he suggested science as such limit itself to observable and testable hypotheses. In contrast, Descartes advocated a new rationalism: one in which all science would pursue naturalistic explanations and use these explanations, even if they did not yield useful predictions, because such explanations were inherently superior to supernatural (or non-natural) paradigms. The approaches found in the work of both Bacon and Descartes have had an enormous influence on the world of science today, but in terms of what Hunter describes as the "historical" sciences (the origins of the universe, the solar system, and, of course, the "Origin of Species") Descartes rationalism has been by far the dominant influence. People, however, are not generally aware of the extent to which rationalism, particularly in its naturalist expression, is the result of religious influences. The heart of Hunter's book outlines these influences. Theological naturalism was a solution to the problem of reconciling creation with a wise and loving creator. For theological naturalists, assigning creation to various natural laws isolates God from perceived imperfections or "evils" in the world. Hunter dwells into the history of naturalism, highlighting the often neglected whig theologian Thomas Burnet along with better known figures like Immanuel Kant. But ultimately, this theological naturalism led to a methodological naturalism in the sciences. The search for exclusively natural clauses became something of a game rule in science, but the theological basis for it is often overlooked. Nonetheless, naturalism presents problems, not the least of which is the "blind spot" referenced in the title of the book. When a naturalistic paradigm fails, it does not occur to scientists to examine non-natural explanations. Indeed, there is a tendency to create false dichotomies (either evolution is "true" or all observations of species must reveal only some sort of ideal perfection--otherwise there would be a "bad" design which a creator or other designer could not possibly make.) Needless to add, this sort of reasoning effectively pre-empts alternative suggestions. But it also includes stunning theological suppositions that its adherents are loath to acknowledge. Why, for example, must we assume that a designer would always opt for what we consider a perfect design? As Hunter correctly notes, that this was an assumption of some 18th century natural theologians hardly means it is prescriptive for all natural theology. There are a number of important implications to the arguments in Hunter's book. One is that religious assumptions are far more common in the sciences than many would be willing to acknowledge. Indeed, much of the "evidence" in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is essentially theological arguments about how nature "should be" rather than simply an empirical discussion of how it is. Historians have known this for some time. (Readers interested in pursuing this subject further should examine historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's masterful Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.) But amazingly enough, such reasoning persists into the modern era. When SJ Gould declares the Panda's Thumb an inadequate design, he is making a theological claim, not a scientific one. Similar arguments abound in supposedly scientific literature. That these same writers are often critical of design theorists for supposedly bringing "religious" values and ideas into science merely demonstrates the extent of the blindspot Hunter describes. But this book raises a broader question as well. Is "science" possible without some metaphysical insight. Although Hunter does not mention it, in the broadest sense the answer to this question is no. We must, as Einstein admitted, acknowledge that a prerequisite of science is the presumption that the universe is understandable at all. But beyond that, can a science be constructed that is truly empirical? Or are we stuck between the theological naturalism of many modern biologists, and the theological alternative(s) suggested by intelligent design. Hunter suggests it can by returning to Bacon's "moderate" empiricism. But what would such an empiricism entail? For one thing, it would require the admission that naturalism really is only a game rule, and not an overarching theological construct as it is for such scientists as Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller. It would also require that we reject the few atheists (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins come to mind here) who attempt to appropriate naturalism for their own purposes. As a game rule, naturalism is not a "universal solvent" that dissolves all religious claims, whatever our atheist friends might wish. Accepting Hunter's moderate empiricism would not even "destroy" evolution as a useful working hypothesis. But it would have the effect of seriously limiting what questions science could answer. More important, it would require that we again integrate learning. As Hunter so eloquently notes, there "are rich multifaceted problems that include reasoning from a variety of disciplines. We cannot understand such problems with narrow appeals to just science, or just philosophy, or just theology, or just history. The full range of knowledge ought to be considered."(p.145) The research possibilities such a moderate empiricism offers are tremendous, but they undermine the dominance theological naturalism currently enjoys under the label of "science," and it is unlikely the high priesthood of this religion will give up so easily. Indeed, they currently enjoy a monopoly on the presentation of their religious views in the public sector and they are unlikely to share it. After all, it is easier to accuse one's opponents of religious fanaticism than to examine the mote in one's own eye. Comments (18) | | (Report this)