‘Scientism’ infects Darwinian debates
An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology
Douglas Todd - April 4, 2009
There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us.
The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence.
The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.
Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”
Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it’s irrelevant.
Tags: Scientism
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
April 10th, 2009 at 4:19 am
An interesting article, however I think the author is in error if he thinks Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is somehow less of a New Agey nut job than Blavatsky. Note the seemingly derisive confounding of Creationism in general with Biblical Literalism. Despite frequent misapplication by the literati, Creationism, as the name suggests, should merely be used to describe the belief that the universe and or life were created by an intelligence or Creator. Biblical Literalism is merely a type of Creationism. Essentially any person professing belief in a creator deity/s is in fact a Creationist. This would include a sizable majority of the world’s population. Although this case might be an innocent confusion on the part of the author, I have my suspicions that this is somewhat of a semantic game being played by Darwinian Atheists, who want to shame non-literalist theists into disassociating themselves with the word Creationist as a whole. Through debasing the term itself, even amongst it’s exponents, they likely hope the position itself will soon after disappear from scientific discourse altogether.
Whether Darwinism is true or not, it is the Scientism that has often championed it, that is more to blame for the bloodshed carried out in the name of the theory. Because Scientism disregards all epistemologies other than empiricism, it cannot infer a basis for morals transcendent of the Order of Nature, hence the ethical template becomes at best the Social Contract and at worst the Law of the Jungle. Underpinning both of these is moral relativism and the threat of violence and death. Scientism can argue for obedience to ethical standards on the grounds of enlighten self interest or Man’s biological evolution as a social animal, however it cannot defend why one should still maintain morality if they had the means of bypassing such social and environmental constraints or why one should obey morality even when it works against their own best interest. For these reasons in the hands of the Scientistic Priesthood the Theory of Evolution became a monstrous blueprint for human society rather than merely a theory of scientific interest. Of course there is growing evidence that the desire for such a totalitarian worldview preceded the emergence of the idea itself. Whatever the case, to the scientific secularist who often point the finger at religion as the sole progenitor of violence and mass murder, one look at the followers of the religion of Darwinism suggest that people in glass houses shouldn’t chuck bricks.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Ross,
Outstanding observations. Evidently, you have done your homework.
I am in the process of writing an article over the epistemological foundations of totalitarianism and the view of science as a cosmological myth. You might want to check it out once it is published.
Phillip D. Collins
April 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Thanks Philip, actually my initially interest in all this really started with my reading of the excellent articles that you and Paul have written on the subject. Prior to that I was pretty much just an excepting theistic evolutionist. Your “Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship” was perhaps the best book I’ve ever read on modern conspiracy theory.
As you may already know all too well, the history of ideas is often underplayed in contemporary academia in favour of other theoretically approaches such as post-colonialism, feminism, queer theory and other forms of “cultural studies”. This has directed much scholarly attention away from the fact that many ideas (Darwinism included) did not spontaneously generate out of the conclusions of a unbiased observer. Numerous philosophical, religious, social, technological and economic conditions contribute to the trajectory of the epistemological narrative provided by science. The influence of prior thinkers like Anaximander, Empedocles, Lucretius, Goethe and even Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus are generally ignored in the spit-shinned, high school presentation of Darwinism, perhaps at least in part because they show purely theoretical assertions to have preceded some of the key physical data.
The assertion you and your brother have made, that quasi-Gnostic cosmologies influenced the Darwinian paradigm, does not seem too far off when one considers the plethora of 19th century fringe religions based on the idea of God as an immanent electrical force in nature. I am in the process of reading John Benedict Buescher’s “The Remarkable Life of John Murray Spear” a biography of a bizarre 19th century American Spiritualist. What’s truly surprising is that a number of the occultish spiritualist of the mid 1800s harboured cosmologies (referred to by the author as Gnostic) that were strikingly similar to evolutionary theory, in many cases several years prior to the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”.
Even the materialistic precedent for Darwinism, provided in Robert Chamber’s “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” relies on the idea that abiogenisis can be explained by the spontaneous generation of less complex life out of an interaction of electricity and inanimate matter; an argument premised on British scientist Andrew Crosse’s supposed claim to have produced tiny insects by exposing mineral samples to electric currents. I say “supposed claim” since Crosse never maintained to have discovered abiogenisis but rather assumed he had merely induced the hatching of microscopic insect eggs within the mineral sample. Since, despite false reports to the contrary, this electric abiogenis was never replicated, it seems that Crosse was correct in his assumption, and Chamber’s, (certainly an influence on Darwin) was lacking an empirical basis for one of his central arguments. Fascinating, when one considers the fact that electricity’s effect on crystal formations is still often used by Evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life.
It is also noteworthy that Chamber’s was born with 12 fingers and 12 toes, a physical anomaly that his parent’s tried to “correct” through surgery which resulted in rendering him partial lame. It is likely that, that unusual physical trait alienated Chambers and led him to formulate the theory of transition within species.
Both Chamber’s and Darwin and indeed numerous likeminded thinkers were indebted to the Deism promulgated in the 18th century. Though often traced to Newtonian physic’s picture of God as an uninvolved clockmaker who abandoned the universe for it to be governed by natural laws, the first fruits of this theory (at least as far a Christian civilization is concerned) can perhaps be seen in the heretical doctrine of the cessation of miracles, which already enjoyed currency in the Islamic World. This erroneous dogma left no room for a belief in the possibility of a still active, Causal Force exterior to the causal chain of events itself. In other words, even though this presentation left God’s position as First Ultimate Cause intact (a position that would remain within Deism) it expelled God’s status as Continuous Ultimate Cause. Hence, the idea that the Deistic God is not a time bound entity, but rather supremely distant, is in itself untrue, rather the God of Deism is confined to temporal quarters so far back in the past as to be virtual irrelevant.
Arguably the reverence and intellectual interest once reserved for the Ultimate Cause, became increasing directed towards the myriad Secondary Causes within Nature itself, leading to the unprecedented explosion in scientific learning that began during the 17th century. This produced many technologies which serviced the attainment of Man’s many secondary purposes, however, those who embraced this epistemology at the sacrifice of all others often found themselves cut off from the realization of Man’s Supreme Purpose. This left no choice but to make the somewhat vague concept of Progress itself into the ultimate purpose, an ethos which was just as influential on Darwinism as it had previously been on Wesihaupt’s notion of the Perfectibility of Man or Hegel’s dialectic process.
Not only have their been efforts by certain Darwinists to gloss over their theories origins, but so too its social consequences, such as the injustices of Social-Darwinism and eugenics. And while they often caricaturize exponents of I.D as potential theocratic totalitarians one and all, they neglect to mention the globe spanning, intellectual suppression carried out by Julian Huxley and his brainchild organization U.N.E.S.C.O, directed not just towards Creationism but indeed towards all evolutionary theories contrary to Huxely’s own.
I’m quite excited to read your upcoming article. Is it going to be available online? You and your bro always bring so much new, relevant info to the table. Because of you guys I now find it hard to have a civil conversation with any fellow conspiracy theorists regarding 911 Truth. They say their piece, I fire back with the Khashoggi connection and then they usually tune out. You guys have made me an outsider, even amongst the so-called Lunatic fringe, thanks a bunch (just kidding haha.)
Ross
April 11th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Ross,
You are extremely well-read! I especially enjoy your observations concerning the sociology of scientific thought. That is the primary vantage point for our critique of Darwinism. I feel that, heretofore, it is an overlooked aspect concerning the origins of scientific paradigms, particularly Darwinism.
Moreover, you synopsis of the religion of Progress and its development is right on the money. I am so glad that there are such erudite thinkers like you out there!
Yes, the new article will be available online. It is entitled, “The Faustian Face of Modern Science” and will be featured in Inside the Grassy Knoll, an E-zine that is being produced by Vyzygoth of Beyond the Grassy Knoll.
However, the version that will be appearing in the E-zine is abridged considerably. I will be passing along the unabridged version to Terry some time in the future. If he likes it, he might publish it. As you can see, Terry has graciously supplied Paul and I with a platform at this outstanding website.
By the way, have you read Terry’s book? I am finishing it up and preparing to review it at Amazon.com. It is, without a doubt, the definitive work over the Illuminati! In my humble opinion, it is one of the best books of 2009!
Phil
April 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Thanks for the compliments Phillip, coming from you they mean quite a great deal. It was quite kind of you to say, especially after I spelt your name wrong (with one L) in my previous post. Sorry about that. I also wrote “excepting” when I meant “accepting”… ah the perils of relying on the spell checker program.
I too am in the process of finishing Terry’s “Perfectibilists.” I agree, it is by far the best book ever written on the subject. If contemporary academia could get past its own closed mindedness, they might realize just how much new light Terry’s research sheds on European Revolutionary History and the famous figures who populated it. It is well worthy of an honorary degree. Hopefully the coming theatrical release of this Dan Brown rubbish will have a silver lining by serving to bring attention to Terry’s book and consequently disabusing the reading public of much of the error that Brown has spread concerning the Illuminati and numerous other aspects of “alternative history.” Apparently Kevin Sorbo (Tv’s Hercules) even has a movie coming out about the Order called “The Illuminati: Order Out of Chaos.” I think it will be direct to video, but one can only hope that all this Illuminati hype will only further Terry’s sales.
I was happy to see the poet Percy Shelley covered in “Perfectibilists.” I had always been interested in what the source was for his wife’s knowledge of Illuminism. His own revolutionary leanings and his interest in Zoroastrianism always seemed to ring of the influence of Weishaupt’s crew, with their Persian Calendar and what not. In many ways it was the Shelley’s (both Percy and Mary) who provided much of the symbolic language and imagery for the Revolutionary movements of the 19th century and though it is often ignored there was a palpable Gnostic influence on their works. It was only after your own work introduced me to the “Hypostasis of the Archons” myth that I came to notice its presence in numerous modern texts, but I was quite surprised when I realized just how much it resembled the plot of Percy Shelley’s “Prometheus Unbound.” I would even argue that, perhaps barring “Hypostasis” itself, “Prometheus Unbound” may very well be the template for most modern repackaging of this heretical myth. I wrote an post, turned article (under the pen name of Peter Parker) about it for Jay Dyer’s Nicene Truth webpage. You can check it out if you want since it was your own work on Gnosticism, sci-fi semiotics and the Promethean religion, that inspired much of it in the first place.
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2009/02/parkers-analysis-of-80s-alchemy-occult-psychosymbolism.html
Some of the info concerning Shelley’s Gnosticism was derived from Ross G. Woodman’s “Apocalyptic Vision in the Poetry of Shelley”, which actually referrers to it more as a corruption of Platonism, though since that’s essentially what Gnosticism is anyway, its merely a difference of words. By the way, I am not Ross G. Woodman, he’s a now very old (perhaps even deceased) Professor who just happens to share my first name (which is actually really my middle name… I’m one of those goes by their middle name people, you can blame my parents for that one.)
It’s been really cool having this exchange with you. I better shut my yap now, I have a tendency to get carried away and talk (or type) people to death. Once again I eagerly await your coming article. Keep fighting the good fight.
Ross
April 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Ross,
Don’t worry about the minor typo with my name at all. Truth be told, when most people hear my name, they confuse me with the pop star!
I’ll definitely check out the link! Jay is friend. We did a series of YouTube interviews and one written interview with him. Both were stimulating!
Phil
April 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it’s irrelevant.” - it is more than irrelevant - it is not real (you don’t know what you felt, heard, saw, experienced, you were mistaken)…further they think their powers of observation and experience are better than *yours* - even when *you* are a trained observer (i.e. a nurse or police officer)….they seem to tap into the same sort of “knowing a secret” that *religious* folks do…
April 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“it is more than irrelevant - it is not real”
No, it simply means that at present science cannot yet account for a phenomenon. The author is correct when he says that for scientists, anything outside their present understanding of the universe is irrelevant to them. What was considered impossible or silly at one time or another, may prove correct as knowledge progresses.
But all kinds of things are inherently outside the purview of mechanistic/materialistic/measurable science. Intent, for one. They can answer with relative certainty, the question: what is the nature of the universe? What does it consist of and how does it behave? That sort of thing. As to it’s purpose, they are at a loss. The same thing goes for any complex system. Ask a scientist why instead of what, and they get flustered and annoyed, as if the very notion of intent being integral at all - even worthy of investigation - is akin heresy.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I agree with Phil: you’re a smart guy Ross.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
UNDRGRNDGIRL,
You statements bespeak an overwhelming epistemological rigidity. First of all, how do you account for entities that are not quantifiably or empirically demonstrable? For instance, mathematic axioms are formulated a priori, not a posteriori. Yet, they hold sway nonetheless.
Secondly, the ontological plane of the physical universe cannot be considered the totality of reality itself. Leibniz is one of many thinkers who demonstrated the reality of supra-sensible entities.
Thirdly, radical empiricism is no less mystical in character. As David Hume observed, radical empiricism relegates causality to metaphysical fantasy. In the absence of causality, all of a scientist’s observations become a matter of faith.
Terry and Ross are right on the money.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Hey guys, unless I’m mistaken I think UNDRGRNDGIRL is actually agreeing with us. In the first part of her post she is quoting from the article but when she follows up with “it is more than irrelevant - it is not real” I don’t think she’s saying that she thinks non-observables aren’t real but rather that this is the questionable stance that radical empiricists take. She then complains that they (the radical empiricists) discount the observations of other trained people. She then compares the claim to special knowledge exhibited by these scientistic types to a sort of elitist priesthood. Assuming, I’m right and this is what she’s saying, I think she’s essentially in agreement with us.
PS: Thanks for the compliment Terry and thanks for running this awesome forum, otherwise I’d just be bombarding my friends with all this crap over a plate of hotwings while they tune me out and later complain to each other about my rantings while I’m using the bathroom.