EASTERN ANTECEDENTS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN SCIENCE
PROLEGOMENA
PART I:
EASTERN NARRATIVE DISPLACEMENTS
WORLD VIEWS IN CONFLICT (NON WESTERN NARRATIVES)
PART II:
WESTERN NARRATIVE DISPLACEMENTS
CLASSICAL GRAECO/ROMAN SCIENCE
PART III:
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (ENLIGHTENMENT) (MODERNISM)
COPERNICUS
GALILEO
BACON
DESCARTES
POSITIVISM -- DARWIN
PART IV:
IMPACT OF DARWIN ON LIBERAL SOCIAL GOSPEL-(POST MODERNISM)
PHILOSOPHERS OF SCIENCE:
EINSTEINIAN REVOLUTION
PLANK
HEISENBERG
GENETICS
COMPUTER REVOLUTION (CHRISTIAN SIGNIFICANCE OF
MIND/BRAIN COMPUTER ANALOGUE)
PART V:
CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES IN MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
AND MEDIA (MATHEMATICS)
PART VI.
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SCIENCE: IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
MYTH OF NEUTRALITY
PROLEGOMENA: Paradigm, Cultures and Civilizations - Narrative of Civilizations and
The Development of Science
(My dependence on the classical literature in the history of science will be evident. The
works of Draper, White, Jaki, Merton, Hale, Burtt, Wolff, Bernal (Marxist), Thorndike,
Sarton, Cohen, Koyre, Taton, Singer, Crombie, Claggett, Needham, Polkinghorne, Kung,
McGrath, Behe, and Bube. Our most crucial question is--can those of us with commitment
to Jesus Christ live a consistent spiritual and intellectual life in the context of a naturalistic,
secularistic, pluralistic, revisionist history, anti science post modern culture?)
A. INDIAN COSMOLOGY:
1. Vishnu Purana clearly reveals the Pantheistic, Animistic, and Cabalistic roots of the
Hindu obsession with perennially recurring cosmic cycles.
2. In the Hymns of the Rig-Veda, the most important of the Fedas, the ‘creation’ of the
world is described as a process subsequent to the rhythmic breathing of “that one thing,” the
undifferentiated, eternal all.
3 Atharva-Veda, later document which presents the same world view as the Rig-Veda.
4. The Chandogya Upanishad contains phrases like “in the beginning,” but do not denote
an absolute start for everything out of nothing. Here too, there is a pantheistic resolution of
‘being’ from ‘non-being.’
5. Aitareya Upanishad also presents a pantheistic self-differentiating process of the ‘Lord
of Creation’ -- which is definitely not a personal, rational, Sovereign Creator.
6. Maitri Upanishad attempts to come to grips with the problem of universal decay. Here
the ‘world soul,’ the “overload of all things,” “the king of all things,” acts itself out as a cosmic
wheel.
7. The Brahmavivarta Purana depicted the endless cyclical, “eternal returns” thesis (see
M. Eliade, Myth of Eternal Return).
B. CHINESE COSMOLOGY: (See J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China. 5 vols.,
Cambridge University Press; 2 vol. Pb edition on reserve; A. Forke, The World Conception of
the Chinese: Their Astronomical, Cosmological and Physico-Philosophical Speculations
(London: Arthur Probsthain, 1925)..
1. Why science did not have its origin in China or The Lull of Yin and Yang.
2. Influence of Mohists--Confucius and The Taoist--none of these inspired a search for
quantitatively exact laws of nature. Each of the above ‘thought’ in terms of cycles between past,
present and future events. Success or harmony was contingent on one’s docility and willingness
to merge into the rhythm of cosmic cycles. Taoist influence was second only to that of
Confucianism. Taoists were hermits who rejected the Confucian method of finding the pattern of
cosmic order through reflection on social life. In the eyes of the Taoists the only viable approach
to the order of nature (Tao) lay in a constant communing with nature. To them, order in nature
cannot be adequately described in words. The conception of nature as a cosmic cycle was
eagerly reasserted on the pages of the Chuang Tzu, and with an uncanny wording concerning
some of its principal implications.
2
3. Ricci (Jesuit) and Aristotelian western science clearly confronted all forms of Chinese
pantheism. Western methods, i.e., ‘new methods’ became a serious threat to Chinese thought
forms. Chinese scholars praised Chinese men of science for not falling prey to the lure of
western methods. Even the Marxist, Needham, acknowledges that western science derived its
initial insights from their faith in a personal rational Creator. The Chinese had no such recourse
to a similar belief system.
C. AZTEC, INCA, AND MAYA CIVILIZATIONS AND SCIENCE: Pantheistic
cyclicalisms pervade these civilizations too, e.g., Aztec calendar stones (e.g., 1479 relief
sculpture) and folklore. The wheel of time was the wheel of fate. (See Miguel Leon-Portrilla,
Aztec Thought and Culture (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963); J. Soustelle, La
pensee cosmologique de anciens Mexicaina (Paris: Hermann, 1940).
D. EGYPTIAN COSMOLOGY:
1. Herodotus’s often quoted claim that the Greeks learned their geometry from the
Egyptians has no support even though Rhind Papyrus promises “rules for enquiring into nature
and for knowing all that exists, (every) mystery. . .every secret. . .”leaves the modern searcher for
the origins of science with a keen sense of disappointment. Actually, the text contains not even
the slightest trace of general formulas of reasoning. A classical example is problem 14 of the
Moscow Papyrus that gives correctly the volume of the frustum of a pyramid of a given square
basis and height. The steps do provide a generalized formula (V = (h/3) (a2+ab+b2) but this
must not be taken as proof of available generalized knowledge. The same holds for the Egyptian
manner of calculating the area of circle by squaring 8/9ths of the diameter, which yields 3.1605,
an admirable approximation. Egyptian units of measurement also lack generalization which
developed in a wholly unsystematic way. Egyptian theory of the calendar brings this out
forcefully. Whatever Egyptian contributions to science and technology--their ultimate
cosmology was cyclical. Their basic religious conviction that the supreme good in life was to
experience the rhythmic harmony of nature. Pantheistic cyclicalism dominated Egyptian
cosmology. (See the so-called Egyptian Creation Hymns in Prichard)
(See especially R. Taton, ed., et.al., History of Science, vol. I, pp. 17-64; Pierre Montet,
Eternal Egypt (NY: New American Library, 1963 E.T.); The Rhind Mathematic Papyrus (trans.
T.E. Peet, Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1923); O. Gillain, La Science egyptienne
(Bruxelles, 1927); O. Neugebauer and R.A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1950). See the classic works of Frankfort, Breasted and Budge for
general details.)
E. MESOPOTAMIAN COSMOLOGY: (Babylonian Astrology exemplifies its
Cosmological Fatalism)
The architectural variations which distinguish the Pyramid from the Ziggurats do not hide
their background in a common Monistic Cyclicalism. No positive evaluation of nature-manculture is rationally feasible from a cosmology rooted in an eternal cyclical monism. The nonscientific character of Babylonian astronomy is strikingly evident from the fact that it however
developed even tentatively a geometrical, or a mechanical model of the system of the planets. It
is very strange that numerous contacts between Greece or Mesopotamia did not enable the
3
Babylonians to advance their views of Astronomy. During the periods of this contact Eudoxus,
Hipparchus and Aristarchus, et.al., made extensive use of geometrical and mechanical models to
explain the planetary system and the closed spherical universe.
The Babylonian cosmological poem Enuma Elish represents the universe in heavily
animistic terms (see Prichard, Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Actually, it is a misnomer to
call the Enuma Elish a cosmological poem. Its main theme is not the cosmos but the ultimate
coming to power of Morduk, the chief god of the Babylonian pantheon. The poem is not
concerned with the ‘absolute origin’ of the cosmos.
The fundamental reason for this failure is neither geophysical nor socio-economical, but
has rather to do with Weltanschauung. The rational possibility of such a prediction was
precluded by the perpetual whims of animistic forces.
(See O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed. (NY: Harper-Torch,
1962); also his work, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (London: Lund-Humphries, 1955); M.
Levey, Chemistry and Chemical Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia (London: Elsevier Pub.
Co., 1959); A. Heidel, Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942 pb); and
my syllabus, Historiography of the Physical Sciences, Lincoln Christian College Library.)
Regardless of counter claims, science in its power of explanational prediction developed
in the Judaeo/Christian West. The history of science will confirm this claim. (See the recent
book by Alvin J. Schmidt, Under The Influence, How Christianity Transformed Civilization
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Press, 2001.)
I. For the History of Science and the concept of an oscillating universe, see especially
Stanley L. Jaki, Science and Creation (History Publications, 1974), his Planets and Theories of
Planetary Systems, and his The Paradox of Obler’s Paradoxy. All near Eastern cosmologies were
Monist pantheisms. The theories of the nature of physical reality is basically the problem of
natural science. The history of the theories of periods of scientific development can be divided
into five periods: (1) Pre kinetic, Greek theories, (2) Medieval theories, (3) Classical Modern
theories from Galileo/Kepler, Newton and (3) Theories from Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, i.e.
Relativistic Theories, (5) PostModern Anti Science Revolt against classical Positivism (eg. Unity
of Science Movement
The idea of an Oscillating Universe was the controlling cosmology of the great Greek
thinkers--Aristotelians, the Stoics and Epicureans (atomistic). These three schools produced
much of Greek scientific corpus. The reason why these influences were intellectually sterile can
best be seen from the historical fate of Greek science in the hands of positivistic scepticism and
the anti science movement. The historical fate of the Greek scientific corpus is that it got into the
hands of the Arabs. By the 800s the Arabs had what was available in Greek learning.
This influence became exposed in Aquinas’ use in Aristotle’s Contra Gentiles, primarily
against the Arab invasion into Western civilization. The Muslims used Aristotle to prove the
4
case for Allah and Aquinas used Aristotle to develop Allah’s so-called five proofs for God’s
existence.
The Arabs were ardent monotheists and became trapped in Greek pantheism. When it
came to science and philosophy it should not be surprising. The explanation goes in the Koran,
in its concept of a capricious God (see esp. The classic passage in Sura xxxv, which is often
quoted by the Mutakollimun as discarding the notion of physical law). The Muslim scholars
chose to deny the notion of physical law in fear it might put constraint on the will of Allah,
ultimately the concept of God as creator.
The entire history of the nature of science seeks to address four crucial questions:
1. What is the physical world (eg. history of science is composed of theories of physical reality)?
2. What is life (eg. Theories of the original nature of living reality)?
3. What is ultimately real (e.g. Ontology, mind, consciousness, mind, brain, computer analogy)?
4. Post Modern anti science (Sociology of Knowledge Thesis) rejects all past narratives of
description. The replacement narrative in post modern context is the Sociology of Knowledge
Thesis, i.e., all knowledge is socially constructed. Historically this interpretative scheme derives
from Kant’s work, First Critique, i.e., “transcendental unity of apperception.” From Descartes
and Kant forward the “finite self” is origin of “all reality.” At this point of time Post Modern
cultural/epistemological relativism becomes the interpretive narrative. This thesis effects every
category in the academy.
The following six theses deal with Narrative Displacements of Eastern and Western
World Views and can perhaps help us understand the Paradigmatic Revolution in the answers to
the above questions:
(1) Eastern Cosmologies, (2) Judaeo/Christian Narrative, (3) The Aristotelian cosmos, (4) The
Newtonian Scientific Revolution, (5) The Plank, Heisenberg, Einstenian Revolution, and (6)
PostModern Enemies of Science, i.e., left wing quarrels with science.
In the Prekinetic Greek theories the Monist outlook prevailed. All things were forms of
“one” substance: (1) to Thales - water was the one cause of everything. (2) Anaximandes,
Infinite, boundlessness is the essence of all things. (3) Anaximenes - all things arose from
condensation of rarification of air; (4) Parmenides - Being is the one homogeneous and eternal
substance, (5) Heraclitus - Fire is the first principle of reality. In the dualism school all things
are forms of two substances: (1) Pythagorus - the world arose from a limitation of the unlimited,
i.e., an imposition of the numerical forms on space. (2) Plato - all things consist in mater and
ideas. In the pluralist mode all things were forms of a pluralism of substances. In the
quantitative atomism of Democritus, reality was atoms and space. Epicurus held that reality is
atoms and space qualified by a spontaneity of atoms; motion is inherent in the atoms. In
quantitative atomism teleology appears. In Eupedocles there were four elements--earth, air, fire
and water--moved by love and hate. Anaxagoras held that there were countless elements
matching the countless qualities of experience guided by an active element of mind or nous.
5
The concept of teleology, i.e., all things have an inherent tendency to fulfill a purpose. In
Aristotle, all substances possess intelligence (inherent tendencies) toward a teleos - end.
The historical confrontation of biblical Monotheism with the Greek world view (e.g..
Acts 17) occurred during the third and fourth centuries of our era. From Origen to Augustine,
the Fathers of the Church
kept decrying the idea of the Great Year as a pernicious doctrine
utterly irreconcilable with crucial points of Christian faith--as creation, incarnation, resurrection
and the ultimate day of resurrection (see extensive discussion in S.L. Jaki’s book, Science and
Creation: From Eternal Cycles to An Oscillating Universe (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,
Science History Pub., NY, 1974)
The linear concept of existence is written in many pages of the Old and New Testaments
and received its first major theological formulation in Augustine’s De civitate Dei, a classic from
the early middle ages. Christians could not, for instance, accept the divinity of the heavens
implied in the doctrine of the Great Year and especially in its Aristotelian formulation. The
heavens and earth were bound to be conceived as being perishable matter and ruled by the same
dynamics and mechanics. From the thirteenth century on the world was referred to as a
“clockwork mechanism.” Equally divisive was the impact of the notion of a linear existence
deriving from the concept of creation out of nothing by a rational and provident Creator.
Oresme’s challenge of Aristotle’s notion of intelligence moving the celestial spheres (see John
Herman Randall, Jr. in “The Development of The Scientific Method in the School of Padua”,
Journal of The History of Ideas, (1940), pp. 177-181, 180-194, 199-206) The radical
development was toward the power of function of experimentally grounded and mathematically
formulated source of nature. This produced actual achievement extending power over nature.
This concept was revolutionary!
From Oresme to Ficino’s school of neoplatonism, the pantheistic theme of “The Great
Year” made its impact on the Renaissance. The classical Greek doctrine of the “renaissance” or
rebirth of ages, as well as of souls in endless sequence. Oddly the Renaissance humanists who
adopted much of antique paganism were also the least sympathetic to the scientific movement.
Ficino’s school was clearly an advocate of Hellenistic paganism, was also in charge of the
translation of a third century collection of a mystical Egyptian priest, Hermes Trimegistus. The
translation was responsible for the obscuration, magic and cabala that flourished in many quarters
during the sixteenth century. The most pathetic spokesman of such vagaries was Giodeno
Bruno, whose late nineteenth century Italian anti clericalism turned into a champion of reason
and science.
His work on Copernicus was a farce. In the work there is emphatic endorsement of the
idea of The Great Year and of eternal recurrence. This same dubious emphasis was also present
in the empiricist and rationality method of science as articulated at the time of Bacon and
Descartes respectively. The balanced fusion of these two trends was achieved by Newton. His
deeper perception of the consequences for scientific epistemology of a world view was based on
the creative act of God. God’s creative act as a supreme craftsman was necessary in views of
6
creative nature’s contingency. Creation was viewed as a once-and-for-all product, a linear
process (E.T. Whittaker, Space and Time (Henry Regnery, Hinsdale, 1948; and his The
Beginning and End of The World (Oxford University Press, 1942); my essays on Postmodern
Science and Eschatology in the Lincoln Christian College library; Stanley Jaki, Is There A
Universe? (NY: Wetherfield Institute, 1993; John Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991); and William A. Demski, Intelligent Design
(InterVarsity Press, 1999).
The Race Toward Immanence
From Kant and the development of science, the West progressively abandoned the two
centuries of history of science from German Idealism (e.g.. Hegelianism) to the Marxist offshoot
of Hegelianism the concept of eternal return was categorically rejected. Here the classical liberal
claim of inevitability of progress finds expression in nineteenth century thought (see also Engels’
Dialectic of Nature (NY: International Press, 4th printing, 1960).
Nietzsche was the greatest 19th century spokesman for Eternal Recurrence. This thesis
ran counter to the scientific developments of the Lord Kelvin , Clausius, Holmboltz and Maxwell
who perceived the cosmic relevance of the dissipation of energy in the physical processes. In
connection with the Entropy Principle such a universe posed that matter is eternal.
(Important tools for this brief sketch are--Morris R. Cohen/I.E. Dradkin, A Source Book
in Greek Science (Harvard University Press, 1966); Friedrich Solmsen, Aristotle’s System of The
Physical World: A Comparison with His Predecessors (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1960); I.P. Williams/H.J. Steffens, A History of Science in Western Civilization (3 vols.)
Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979); A.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy
From Thales to Kepler, 2nd edition (NY: Dover Pub. Co., 1953); Wm H. Stahl, Roman Science:
Origins, Developments and Influences to Later Middle Ages (University of Wisconsin Press,
1961
Medieval theories of physical reality, of Augustine and Aquinas were reformulations of
Platonic and Aristotelian theories of physical reality. These giants set the agenda for ca. 1000
years of Western Christian thought. It also set the framework of the discussions of the
relationship between reason and revelation, reason and faith. The discussion was inseparable
from the place of authority in scientific investigations and conclusions.
Renaissance Science exposes the Dark Night of Europe’s intellectual soul. With the
discovery of the Greek classics towards the end of the 15th century science was free to throw off
the bonds of scholasticism. We must acknowledge that Francis Bacon was not the founder of
modern science, but was a typical medieval person.
(See esp. W.P.D. Wightman, Science and the Renaissance (2 vols., Edinburgh: Oliver and
7
Boyd; NY: Hafner Pub. 1962, the second volume is an indispensable bibliography); Wayne
Schumaker, The Occult Sciences in The Renaissance (Berkeley, CA: University of California,
1972, esp. Mystical tradition and alchemy); Ralph M. Blake, Curt J. Ducasse and Edward H.
Madden, The Theories of Scientific Method: The Renaissance Through the 19th Century
(Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1960; Erman McMullin, editor, The Concept of
Matter in Greek and Medieval Philosophy (University of Notre Dame Press, 1965, pb.); Gerald
Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (Harvard University Press,
pb 3rd printing, 1975); Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society in 17th Century
England (Yale University Press, 1964); I. Bernard Cohen, The Newtonian Revolution
(Cambridge University Press, 1980); and Alexander Koyre’, The Astronomical Revolution:
Copernicus, Kepler, Borelli (Cornell University Press, E.T., 1973).
Could its infinite energy content be reconciled with the dissipation of its energy that had
been underway since eternity? Obler has also brought the optical paradox implied in an infinite
universe to public attention. Obler’s paradox had little significant consequences. Yet failure to
recognize the curious optical paradox implicit in an infinite universe had been brought to the
center of a paper published by Obler in 1823, in spite of antecedents to Obler, i.e., Haley (1720)
and Choseux in 1743. (See esp. Stanley L. Jaki, The Paradox of Obler’s Paradox (Herder &
Herder, NY, 1969); A. Koyre’, From The Closed Universe to the Infinite Universe (Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957); D. Kubrin, “Newton and The Cyclical Cosmos: Providence
and the Mechanical Philosophy” Journal of the History of Ideas 28 (325-346, 1967); Marshall
Clagett, The Scientific Mechanics in The Middle Ages (University of Wisconsin); compare with
Ernan McMullin, editor, The Concept of Matter (University of Notre Dame, 1961).
From Maxwell to Boltzmann discussions of molecular dynamics continued to pursue the
contradiction between statistical recombination could be upheld as long as scientists continued to
believe in an infinite amount of matter (energy). Note the assumption is not grounded in
scientifically available data. If matter is eternal, how could the law of entropy be eternally in
force? The conviction could be rationally maintained as long as it was assumed that the universe
possessed an infinite amount of matter. (G.W. Hawkins and G.F.R. Ellis, The Large Scale
Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
The 20th century sequel of cosmology is contingent on the belief of the “Great Year” and
the idea of an oscillating universe (see A.O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of The
History of An Idea (Harvard University Press, 1936, pb.). Surely it is a great flow to logically see
any meaningful parallelism between the fantasies in individual and collective rebirths as implied
in that doctrine and the mathematical formation of the cosmology of an oscillating universe in its
strictly scientific sense. The oscillating universe as a physical theory, let alone a true description
of physical reality, is a different matter. How can the mental boldness or fancy convince the
scientific community of the validity of the enormous extrapolation in time which it implies.
What is the scientific basis for believing that the processes taking place will continue to repeat
itself in an endless sequence? Another crucial difficulty is that superdense state into which all
matter of the universe will have to be concentrated at the end of each contraction. The dubious
post modern claim that the superdense state of matter will turn into a gigantic black hole. This
8
would require that all galaxies would form a dimensional space/time continuum with a radius so
small that gravitation would gain an upper hand over all physical forces and would do so
irreversibly. How can the enormous work implied in pushing apart the galaxies and putting them
together again be the force of the dissipation of energy? The universe would replace an oscillator
with a vibration of ever-diminishing amplitude in an oscillating universe would more likely
attain the heat death as proclaimed by Helmholtz a century ago? Entropy spells scientific death
to perpetual oscillation.
The thesis of an oscillating universe does not originate from a purely scientific
consideration, but rather it originates in a philosophically determined paradigm - narrative
explanation of the physical universe--as an ultimate reality, as an absolute self contained, self
explaining, self perpetrating being. To look at the world as the ultimate entity is an age old urge
in man. Men search for self identification with the “blind forces of nature” relieves man from
certain metaphysical and ethical questions. Such an urge is finally satisfied in the idea of a
“Great Year” and in certain presentations of the idea of an oscillating universe. In either
proposal, man is nothing more than a bubble in unfathomable dark waves that rise and fall with
no purpose and without beginning or end. As long as man is committed to this urge, since he is
condemned to repeated stillbirths, and it is whatever circles this urge that made its appearance in
modern and postmodern times, it gave rise to a parody of science; thus enters postmodern anti
science (see esp. Alvin J. Schmidt Under The Influence--How Christianity Transformed
Civilization); also John Polkinghorne, Science and Christianity (SPCK/Fortress Press, reissued
1997) and his Science and Creation and Beliefs in God in an Age of Science (1995).
The Biblical narrative addresses man’s search in the absolute origin and consummation of
the universe by a rational creator. This vision of universal rationality has penetrated Western
civilization until Postmodern Anti Science and Revisionist History gained influence in the
academy. The connection of that cultural matrix was the only viable rise of science in history
and can “best” be seen in the manner in which Burrdeen, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo,
Boyle and Newton anchored scientific methodology in man’s ability to perceive from the order of
particular, changing beings from the ultimate unchangeable source of order and being, to the
creator of all.
While history forcefully shows the superiority of the second paradigm over the first
paradigm, history also exposes this superiority and must be taken in a qualified sense.
Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism nowhere plays greater havoc than in a theologically
oriented thinking. Indeed this paradigm of rationality anchored in the creator time and again
degenerated into an illusion which equated this or that rational worldview with the rationality of
the creator, the result was a painful confrontation between the Greek worldview and
scholasticism (see Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to An Oscillating
Universe (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974). Another crucial issue is that the
processes of nature are running a course which is linear in the sense in which entropy revealed
itself as a universally valid direction of times flow. This direction runs from a maximum level of
energy to a maximum level of entropy, a situation that readily suggests an absolute beginning and
an absolute end for physical processes. Science and theology demand eyes ready to see beyond
9
any physical barrier, however impenetrable it may appear. The proposed cosmic black hole is
not a feasible barrier. There must not be uncritical affirmation infinity as is too often played in
science The principle of plentitude fell far short of its cosmological promise (see esp. Jaki,
op.cit.). The universe is not the realization of all possible existences, but only of a relatively few
forms--an oscillating universe cannot derive its specificity from itself. Even if the hydrogen
atom, all other fundamental particles are determined and even all features of the cosmos, the
particularity of the hydrogen atom still remains to be accounted for. The explanation of a
particular universe can only start with some particularity which is not accounted for by the
particularity of a circularity of an argument is to be avoided. If the universe is a specific event
that happens, and because it does happen, and does so in radical sense, it cannot exist necessarily.
It therefore owes its existence to a Being that does not happen, that is, not subject to change
which is happening in any sense. Such a Being is without any restriction, i.e., “One who is” -Lord of all -- the entire realm of change --- precisely because He is and therefore transcends and
all change. An oscillating universe is a changing universe and this fact has far reaching
consequences. The physical possibility and the conceptual history of an oscillating universe are
transfused with the very same message which is essential for understanding science, its past as
well as it future.
From the theories of Galileo, Newton, Boyle, et.al., we take note of five principles: (1)
Kinetic Principle, i.e., explanation in terms of atomic matter in motion (materialism and
positivistic reductionism) (2) Principle of Causality, i.e., all occurrences are the necessary
consequences of antecedent events. The fusion of these two principles comprise mechanism.
(See esp. E.J. Dyketerhuis, The Mechanization of The World Picture (Oxford University Press,
1961 pb). (3) Principle of Uniformity, i.e., natural laws are universally the same for all physical
reality (contra naturalistic Evolution). (4) Principle of Quantification, i.e., all differences are
quantifiable and theoretically measurable, i.e., written in mathematical language). (5) Principle
of Conservation, i.e., neither mass nor energy is created or destroyed. Kinetic Theory became
Newtonian Physics or Classical Modern Physics.
From Modern to Post Modern Theories of Science
(Associated in Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, Whitehead)
Post Modern physics has found that the classical Kinetic approach is adequate only for
specific systems at velocities approaching that of light changes become considerable. Some of
the more crucial developments are: (1) Law of Entropy, i.e., (Carnot and Clausius’ Second Law
of Thermodynamics) which states that the amount of available energy decreases and which raises
the questions: Is the universe running down? (2) Radioactivity--from the Curies forward the
theory proposes through nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, mass may be transformed into energy
(coming Einstein and nuclear weapons). (3) Concept of Mass Energy: This concept is stated in
mathematical terms by Einstein -- E = mc (2). Where E is equal to energy in ergs; mass = mass
in grams; C equals the velocity of light in centimeters per second equals - 3 x 10 (10), hence C(2)
= 9 x 10(20). This is the mass of one shotgun pellet, e.g.. Equals the total produced by all power
stations of the world during 20 hours. In this theory, matter becomes the sum total of the fields
of mass-energies, altering with events, relative, and having individual geometrics. (4) Dynamic
10
or Wave Theories of Physical Reality: De Broglie (1922) introduced the idea of “wave
particles.” Schroedinger said that the electron is a disturbance proceeding along the electron
orbit in the form of a wave. Einstein observed that a moving stone is a changing field where the
state of greatest intensity travels through space with the velocity of the stone. (5) Quantum
Theory: According to Planck’s theory, energy emitted in a radiation, e.g.. in light, occurs in
discrete quanta but acquires wavelike properties under certain conditions. Light is neither
particles nor waves in the classical sense of the terms. (6) Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and
Complementarity: Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty (or Indeterminacy) and Bohr’s
Principle of Complementarity, in contrast with assumptions of classical physics, state that the
position and velocity of atomic physical entities cannot be established simultaneously. “A
rigorous is space-time description and a rigorous causal sequence for individual processes cannot
be realized simultaneously--the one or the other must be sacrificed.” (D’Abro) (7) Einstein’s
Theory of Relativity: His theory consists of two parts: (a) Special (or restricted) Theory of
Relativity (1905); and (b) General Theory of Relativity or Theory of Gravitation (1914-1916)
The Special Theory deals only with objects or systems which either are moving at constant
velocity with respect to one another or they are not moving at all. Either cannot be detected but
cannot be denied; hence, all motion is relative, and the velocity of light is always constant
relative to an observer (classical physics--distance and time are in terms of the velocity of light.
These postulates result in length and speeds and time being relative to an observer, and the same
notion may appear to one observer straight, to another curved, to another looped, etc.. There is
no fixed or universal frame of reference, no absolute motion, and straight lines reacting to
infinity are non existent.
The General Theory: This deals with objects or systems which are speeding up or slowing
down with respect to one another. In it, Einstein advanced to The Principle of Equivalence,
wherein he affirmed the equivalence of the effects of gravitation and acceleration (e.g.. Einstein’s
theory of the theory was developed--gravitation) into the unified field theory on which Einstein
was working when he died. He observed that “it is not the charges nor the particles, but the field
in the space between charges and the particles which is essential for the description of physical
phenomena.” The field is curved in content and form. Events occur to it as part of a process, as
physical reality, matter (mass-energy) is a function of space-time, as is also gravity. Gravity
becomes the phenomenon associated with a distortion of space-time and it attempts to “straighten
out.” (8) Dominant Significance of This Scientific Revolution: (a) Mass-energy (= implies);
(b) Physical Reality is reducible to energy; © Energy moving at the speed of light is radiation;
(d) Energy concentrates is mass; (e) Mass can be changed (deconcentrated) to energy by
radiation: (f) No energy - no mass - no space - no time; (g) With respect to motion, arrow up =
“increases;” arrow down = “decreases;” (h) Motion up is energy; motion down is mass; motion
up is time flow, motion down is gravity; motion up is curvature of space; motion up is
metabolism rate; motion down is dimension to direction of movement; motion down is distance
measured in direction of movement motion up.
Dictionary of Words and Meaning as Related to Theories of Physical Reality
11
1. Cause - a relationship between events, processes, or entities in the same time series that when
one occurs the other invariably follows. When the relationship is “necessary,” the doctrine is
“Hard Determinism.” When the relationship is viewed as constant conjunction, the doctrine is
“Soft Determinism” or Positivism (see Hume, part V, and causality, pp. 5, 29,30).
2. Cause Multiple - J.S. Mills, cause is “the sum total of the conditions positive and negative
taken together. . .which being realized, the consequence invariably follows.” (Mills, Part V and
Causality, p. 5).
3. Causes Four: Aristotle’s theory that cause is not efficient (as actor push) but also material (as
potential of matter); formal (as directed according to plan), and final (as initiated by some
purpose or end). This theory of cause comprises a Teleology, where as cause is seen in terms of
a consequent end (teleos) aimed at but not yet existent (see Aristotle, Part V and causality p. 5).
Design, i.e., teleology, totally rejected in modern/postmodern science, i.e., no cosmic teleology or
purpose) e.g.. God’s providence and eschatology).
4. Space - conceptual - The ideal space abstracted from perceptual space, having the property of
unity, isomorphism (i.e. homogeneity), continuity, infinite and true dimensions, i.e., objective
space of classical physics
5. Space-Perceptual: The subjective and qualitative sense of the relationship of entities arising
from the organization of all perception (see Kant V) regarding the doctrine of subjectivity of
space.
6. Space-Time: The Four Dimensional continuum of relativity, physics, motionless and
changelessness, for motion and change are relative to particular physical realities taken in terms
of an individual space and time.
7. Time-Conceptual: The spatialized is mechanized time of clocks and mechanical counters-one continuous and infinite, having one irreversible dimension (i.e. absolute time of classical
physics).
8. Time Perceptual: Experiential or “lived through” time, the succession of specious presents,
units of lived through presents rather than knife-edged presents, heteromorphic, each moment
unique, essentially subjective but shared in the group experiences of given cultures (e.g.. Bergson
Pantheistic view of time).
Theories of the Origins and Nature of Living Reality
Life is present in organisms capable of some or all of the following: (1) Response to
stimuli; (2) Reproduction, (3) Metabolism, (4) Environment adaptation, (5) Self maintenance,
and (6) Self protection
Theories of The Origin of Life or the Monogenetic Presupposition
12
(1) Creation (Biblical Theism; (2) Interstellar origin (Anaxagoras, Arrhenius, Helmboltz,
Lord Kelvin, et.al., (3) Hylozoism, animism - all nature is alive (primitivism, pantheism), preSocratic Milesian Philosophy, PostModern Panentheism (Capra, et.al.). (4) Naturalistic
Evolutionism, Pantheistic fiction, extra terrestrial intelligence from inorganic matter, classically
held by Anaximander, Lucretius, Stoics, Epicurianism, etc. (E.g.. Acts 17).
Theory of Biological Evolution
(See my “Narrative Displacement in The History of Biological Ideas: From Classical to
Post Modern Perspectives in Genetics and Neurobiology” also “Mind-Brain-Computer
Analogues, i.e., Does A Computer ‘Think’?” and my extensive bibliography in “The Making of
The Post Modern Mind” syllabus.)
The doctrine that many complex organisms now existent descended or evolved from a
relatively few and simpler organisms was anticipated in Anaximander, Eupedocles, Aristotle,
Lucretius, Goethe, Erasmus, Darwin, et.al. Its basic claim is the evidence of follil remains,
geographical distribution, comparative anatomy, embryology, vestigial remains, and artificial
breeding “back to ancestral forms. Perhaps the most serious evidence against biological
evolution as a naturalistic world view is--that the physical sciences (Periodic Chart, etc.) Know
nothing of evolutionary development independent of the laws of physics (see Michael Behe’s
Darwin’s Black Box - a world class geneticist claims that genetics knows nothing of simple to
complex embryos. In fact, Genetics supports the thesis of complex to simple modification.
Some narratives of theories of evolution are: (1) Mechanism - Evolution is the product of
continuous physico-chemical action (e.g.. The Gene Code (DNA), egs. Hobbes, Lamettrie,
Holbach, Vogt, Buckner, Haeckel, Loeb, Herrick, T.M. Huxley, Spencer, Weiss, et.al.). A living
organism is defined as a complex system of physico-chemical mechanisms. (2) Emergentism:
Evolution is the emerging of new levels of reality in the manner of matter--life, mind, God (e.g..
Alexander, Whitehead, L. Morgan, Boodin, Chardin, et.al.) This fundamental philosophy of
naturalistic evolution is Process Philosophy--as major step child of Darwin’s biological
evolutionary theory. (3) Vitalism: Evolution is the product of an ever present and inherent urge-“entelichy” (purpose and design in all things). (Aristotle, Driesch, Schopenhauer, Bergson,
Aurobindo (Hindu pantheist), Lecomte du Nouey, Haldate, Wm. McDougall, et.al.
The Theory of Naturalistic Evolution has influenced far beyond biology; it is the
hermeneutical center of all areas of the academy (see my “19th Century--The Context of The
Victory of The Darwinian Method: Background of American Pragmaticism.”
The philosophical legacy of the Founders of Pragmatism are: (1) Pluralistic Empiricism,
(2) Temporalism (e.g.. Historicism--all consciousness is historically contingent from Hegel,
Darwin, Dewey, and all forms of Cultural/Epistemological Relativism--note Post Modern
Multiculturalism which dominates the National Association of Education Theories, i.e,
Skinnerism, “Operant Conditions” (OutComes Based Education). (3) Cultural, Conceptual,
13
/Relativism i.e., the Sociology of Knowledge Thesis. (4) Probabilism and Fallibalism vs.
Absolute truth and certitude. This positivism derives from the development of Probability
Calculus (Insurance actuaries, weather prediction, decision making by taking polls (e.g.. Barna);
Democracy has become an epistemology for Post Modern Relativists. Probability calculus
cannot tell us what position 6 out of 10 persons hold is True or False! Decisions are made by
color coding the voting process. (See my paper, “Goedel’s Refutation of The Mechanical Model
of Explanation: Mathematical Roots of Post Modern Constructivism”.
If naturalistic evolution is our interpretative narrative, then post modern democrazation of
Eurocentricism is justifiable. If logic, mathematics, language, and history are nothing but
cultural conditioned opinions that seek to control, dominate and destroy alternative belief and
behavior system, then our post modern fiasco is the evitable results. If there is no cross cultural
language truth, then only tribalistic power encounters remain in our Eurocentric ‘field of
dreams’. In our postmodern cultural relativism only dialogue and compromise remain (eg. 9-1101 - terrorists or patriots?
Dewey’s Witness to The Darwinian Revolution
The influence of naturalistic evolution is far greater than the biological claims of Darwin.
It is, in fact, a fundamental presupposition of every science which develops in the 19th century
(e.g.. History of Religion, Comparative Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Sociology of Religion,
and Phenomenology of Religion, Geology, Anthropology, Sociology, etc., Legal theories: Legal
Revolution at Harvard (Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Sociology of Law). For our more limited
concern we will address the influence of Darwin on American Pragmatism, i.e., the entire early
20th century philosophy of Pragmatism. This is the “foundation” of multicultural relativism in
the 21st century! Take note of Dewey’s perceptive discussion of Darwinian influence on
American Philosophy-“. . .That the combination of the very words origin and species embodied an intellectual
revolt and introduced a new intellectual temper is easily overlooked by the expert. The
conceptions that had reigned in the philosophy of nature and knowledge for two thousand years,
the conceptions that had become the familiar furniture of the mind, rested on the assumption of
the superiority of the fixed and final; they rested upon treating change and origin as signs of
defect and unreality. In laying hands upon the sacred ark of absolute permanency, in treating the
forms that had been regarded as types of fixity and perfection as originating and passing away,
the “Origin of Species” introduced a mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the
logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion. . . .But for two
decades before final publication he contemplated the possibility of being put down by his
scientific peers as a fool or as crazy; and he set, as the measure of his success, the degree in
which he should affect three men of science: Lyell in geology, Hooker in botany, and Huxley in
zoology. . . .Without the methods of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and their successors in
Astronomy, Physics, and chemistry, Darwin would have been helpless in the organic sciences. . .
.As we have already seen, the classic notion of species carried with it the idea of purpose. . . .The
design argument thus operated in two directions. Purposefulness accounted for the intelligibility
14
of nature and the possibility of science, while the absolute or cosmic character of this
purposefulness gave sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man. Science
was underpinned and morals authorized by one and the same principle, and their mutual
agreement was eternally guaranteed. . . .the preparation in earlier stages of growth for organs that
only later had their functioning--these things were increasingly recognized with the progress of
botany, zoology, paleontology, and embryology. Together they added such prestige to the design
argument that by the late eighteenth century it was, as approved by the sciences of organic life,
the central point of theistic and idealistic philosophy.
“. . .the Darwinian principle of natural selection cut straight under this philosophy. . . .So
much for some of the more obvious facts of the discussion of design versus change, as causal
principles of nature and of life as a whole. We brought up this discussion, you recall, as a crucial
instance. What does our touchstone indicate as to the bearing of Darwinian ideas upon
philosophy? In the first place, the new logic outlaws. . .one type of problems and substitutes for
yet another type. Philosophy foresees inquiry after absolute origins and absolute finalities in
order to explore specific values and the specific conditions that generate them.
Darwin concluded that the impossibility of assigning the world to chance as a whole and
to design in its parts indicated the insolubility of the question. Two radically different reasons,
however, may be given as to why a problem is insoluble. . . .But in anticipating the direction of
the transformations in philosophy to be wrought by the Darwinian genetic and experimental
logic, I do not profess to speak for any save those who yield themselves consciously . . . To this
logic. No one can fairly deny that at present there are two effects of the Darwinian mode of
thinking. . . .there are making many sincere and vital efforts to revise our traditional philosophic
conception in accordance with its demands. . . .there is as definitely a recrudescence of
absolutistic philosophies; an assertion of a type of philosophic knowing distinct from that of the
sciences, one which opens to us another kind of reality from that to which the sciences give
access; an appeal through experience to something that essentially goes beyond experience. This
reaction affects popular creeds and religious movements as well as technical philosophies. The
very conquest of the biological sciences by the new ideas has led many to proclaim an explicit
and rigid separation of philosophy from science. . . .Doubtless the greatest dissolvent in
contemporary thought of old questions, the greatest precipitant of new methods, new intentions,
new problems, is the one effected by the scientific revolution that found its climax in the “Origin
of Species.”
(John Dewey’s The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy (NY: Peter Smith, 1951), pp. iii to 19)
(See my paper, “What Ever Happened To True Truth?”)
A brief narrative of theories of meaning as related to theories of the mind might be
helpful. Some of these proposed solutions are: (1) Associationism (e.g.. Hume)--the mind and its
content may be reduced to simple discrete experiences combined to form all aspects of the life
mind. (2) Behaviorism claims that all mental activity can be reduced to implicit behavior
(Watson, et.al.).
..........................................................................................................................................................
(4) Doubt Theory of Mind - the theory that mind and body are manifestations of a more primal
15
reality (e.g.. Spinoza and all forms to pantheistic monism, New Age occult pantheism). (5)
Emergentism: The theory that through naturalistic evolution new realities such as mind form
which cannot be reduced to lower factors (Wolff). (6) Gestalt Psychology, a holistic (pantheist)
form of structure psychology which rejects all forms of atomistic approach to which studies
behavior in terms of the Gestalt, the structure as a whole. (7) Holism - Theories of mind which
deals with mind in terms of its total organization and behavior. (8) Interactionism - The
mind/body are separate (ontological realities) that mutually influence each other (e.g.. Descartes).
This phenomena unfolds historically as (a) Monad - a unit of metaphysical reality - spiritual for
Leibnitz capable of enteracting into relation that comprise the world; (b) Occasionalism - the
theory that mind and body are separate realities which do not interact but that events occur in one
as they occur in the other according as God wills their occurrence (e.g.. Leibnitz); ©
Panpsychism - the theory that all material entities possess a degree of mind; (d) Parallelism - the
theory that mind and body are separate realities which do not interact but that events in each
accompany events in the other according to a “preestablished harmony” (Leibnitz Part IV); (e)
Phenomenology - the philosophy that seeks to analyze the phenomena as contents of experience
without references to cause a metaphysical presupposition (Husserl’s epoce’ suspending
judgment which is impossible! (f) The Self: the person, subject, ego or knower (see my “Demise
of The Self/Reason in Neurobiological Revolution, i.e., reduction of mind to brain to a low grade
computer”).
Theories of Nature of Ultimate Reality
“What is real.” said the rabbit? As early as the 6th century B.C. Thales declared that the
world was made of water. Anaximenes declared that it was made of air. The answer to the
question of reality assumed various forms, e.g.., that it is spiritual or that it is material. Some
philosophers claimed that ultimate reality was that which changes others with that which is
changeless. Some declared that “ultimate reality was unknowable.” It should be apparent that
these responses were highly speculative and imaginative.
The history of philosophy exposes two basic responses to this question--(1) basic
distinction between those answers--stress-unity or interrelatedness of reality and those who find
an essential duality or plurality. These views can be categorized as process, structure and
substance as ground is called monism (e.g.. All forms of New Age Pantheism, Animism,
Hinduism, Buddhism).
In classical Greek thought Monism characterized the philosophy of Parmenides (6th to
5th century B.C.). He taught that all is being. Being fills all space and thought. Experience of
change and plurality is possible only because there is a sustaining and changeless being which
makes the experience possible (e.g.. Cardinal Newman - for every change there is something that
changes). Change is apparent only to the sense. In reality there is only being; change is illusory.
This modern monism is expressed in the philosophy of Hegel (1770/1831), whose Idealism
pictured the world as the manifestation or unfolding of an all inclusive or absolute spirit realizing
itself in time (Hegel was an attempted response to Kant).
16
The problem addressed by modern philosophy exposes a pluralistic tendency. This thesis
derives from Greek philosophy--Democritus (460-360 B.C.). He claimed that reality was
composed of an infinite number of material atoms--occupying an infinite space. Parmenides
attributed permanence by the rearranging tendency of those atoms as they are in process of
becoming particular things--his atomic materialism (see the classic work of Frederick A. Lange,
The History of Materialism (NY: Arno Press, rep. Ed. 1974). Pluralistic explanation tend to
encourage belief in feasible and incoherent reality, yet the great systems builders attempted to
link all of reality together in an interrelated and logical whole. From the Greeks to Hegel
dualistic explanation of reality developed.
The early modern period beginning with Descartes (1596-1650) described the created
world as a duality of extended or space occupying substance and unextended or thinking
substance which comprised the mind in man. Bergson (1859-1941) distinguished a dualism
between that which is created and that which creates in the cosmic process. Plato (427-347 B.C.)
distinguished an eternal unchanging and perfect realm of their embodiment in the phenomenon of
experience. In fact, words, categories like monism, dualism or pluralism are essentially
convenient ways of identifying the emphasis in a particular theory of reality, some theories being
more distinctly one than another.
In the history of unfolding Idealism, Realism (Metaphysical) and Pragmatism
(Materialistic) the idealist stresses the role of mind. Man tends to argue “the world is my world
or the world of some mind. Therefore the world of ideas, consciousness, or the processes of
thought is real. A material world can only be known through ideas, and one could never know
whether his ideas about that reality accurately portrayed it. On the road to the Sociology of
Knowledge, Contextualization and Post Modern Epistemology, which denies the existence of
True Truth, we only know through our own language game (e.g.. Multicultural pluralism) where
there are as many worlds as there are linguistic filters
Mysticism attempts to identify the subject with its world. Interest lies in the experience of
a union with the ineffable rather than in knowledge of it in the usual sense. Classical materialism
simply points to matter or energy as the ultimate substance of reality and supernaturalists speak
of God “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17 - Paul quotes from Greek a
pantheistic poem of Aritus) who is wholly Transcendent but who has invaded all of creation
history to sustain, redeem and perfect existence.
There are similarities and differences between the entire history of thought, e.g..
Empiricism, rationalism, materialism, mysticism, realism, idealism. Through history there are
epistemologies and theories of reality--all searching for an explanation of the universe. (See my
“Dates and Ism as Cultural Indicators,” “Whatever Happened to True Truth?”, “Lost
Transcendence in Post Christian Culture,” “Lord of All Millenniums: Major Turning Points,
Persons and Events,” “Presuppositions of Pagan Temptations: Post Modern Pantheistic Mind”,
“Goedel’s Refutation of The Mechanical Model of Explanation,” and “Bibliograpny Making of
The Post Modern Mind”)
17
The Realist opponent answers, however: “I am in the world; the world is not in me.” Or,
with Whitehead, he might say, “I am in the world, and the world is in me.” Whitehead clearly
rejects that the mind creates reality! The world is independent of the mind. Realists separate the
world and its objects from knower or mind. Idealists stress the intimate relationship which holds
between knowers and things known. Pragmatism differs from both, rejecting the classical
knower and thing known distinction although and as in James, e.g.. held for a reality of “pure
experience” in which all relations are found but in which there is no duality of consciousness and
content, thought and theory.
Some philosophers have attempted to resolve the problem of reality by invoking the
answer of Mysticism (pantheistic monism). Though insisting on the oneness of reality,
Mysticism attempts to transcend the usual metaphysical distinction of monism, dualism and
pluralism for the reason that it believes ultimate reality to be ineffable (e.g.. Death of God, loss of
God talk).
Once the scientific method had become established it was applied to every category of
study. Historically science developed first in astronomy (Galileo, Copernicus to Newton). By
the 19th century the Positivistic Philosophy of Science was established in the hard sciences but
the tension between Positivism and Historicism (from Hegel to the historicity of consciousness)
from Epistemology to Hermeneutics) intensified. The conflict centered in the tensions between
Geists Wissenschaften and Naturavissenschaften. The field of battle was between nature and the
mind and affirmed the “constitutive interiority” of the human mind. Kant’s “constitutive power
of the transcendental ego “comes full circle in cultural and epistemological relativism. In the
19th century only the behavioral sciences were culturally relativized (also the development of
relativistic hermeneutics (Dilthey, et.al.) While the developments in the 20th century of the hard
sciences were also relativistically contextualized (cf. Post Modern anti science and the science
logic, mathematics are Western products; the emphasis on Eurocentricism as the cause of world
chaos). (enters Kuhn’s Paradigm thesis; see Prolegomena to Theories of Scientific Revolutions:
From Kant, Lakatos, Carnap, Popper; Thomas Kuhn’s Concept of Paradigm: Narrative
Displacement in the History of Science)
The historiography of 20th century science has yet to be written. Our perusual of the
history of science has not even mentioned biochemistry, entomology, parasitology, cybernation,
astrophysics after the laws of Kerchoft and Bunson made possible the physical and chemical
analysis of the stars. There is a new scientific revolution which begins in 1900 with Planck’s
enunciation of the Quantum of action and in 1905 with Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
We thus enter the new narrative displacement in the hard sciences! It would be impossible to do
justice to the classical, modern, and post modern views of science in one volume. A minimum of
several more volumes would be necessary to trace, delineate and critique the enormous narrative
displacement of the scientific enterprise in the 20th century and its social impact on the 21st
century in art, literature, philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology, global economics,
linguistics, logic, biology, history, political theory, media and educational philosophies and
ultimately the post modern revisionist history and anti science movement.
18
Dr. James D. Strauss, Professor Emeritus
Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln, IL
19