Re: ID and Scientific Utility
David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:52:17 -0400Not the main focus of the post, but an important issue here-
> For example, science educators often just say that "if it isn't science,
>it should not be discussed in science courses." (this shuts ID out of all
>discussions, unless ID is defined as scientific)
> And if ID (or any other concept that suggests the possibility of
>theistic action in the universe) is labeled "not scientific" -- or worse,
>"unscientific" -- the "prestige of science" can be used to promote atheism.
This happens widely, but is dishonest. Atheism is non-science just as
theism is. Also, it is important for scientists to consider the history
and philosophy of science, not just science itself. To the extent that God
is assumed to have operated via secondary, material means, in accord with
natural law, theists and atheists may make identical predictions for
anything science can detect. Much if not most of the impetus behind and
support for Christian opposition to the scientific mainstream has been
reaction to such claims of support for atheism.
To some extent, I see ID and young-earth approaches as succumbing
to the second temptation of Christ. Not only one-on-one with Satan but
also throughout His ministry, He refused to do a miracle to impress
unbelievers (e.g., Mt. 13:58). Rather, miracles were an aid to belief,
serving a specific purpose.
David Campbell