"I cannot disagree with you very strongly as long as you allow for
us to receive real knowledge outside of the area you define as
science. I think you should, however, allow that subjects which scientists
study (in that phrase, using your definition of science) can also
receive information from outside of science. Really, it doesn't
seem very wise to hold that the Bible does not answer any origins
questions that scientists/philosophers ask."
Darn. I was hoping for sharper disagreement! <G> A couple points:
1. I will be among the first in insisting that most REAL knowledge
comes from outside science. My training as a physicist led me
to regard science, in principle, as a game, capable of revealing
many great things (truths) about how processes work and events
happen, but capable not at all in revealing anything about what
might lie behind these. For some such questions, philosophy and religion
must be consulted. For others -- the law, arts, etc.
2. I have a problem with your 2nd sentence; "subjects" don't receive
information -- people do. The concept I was trying to explain is
simply that, as a scientist, I MAY NOT (rule of science -- remember, it
is a game) formulate any theory about an event or process that
does not have natural causation as 100% involvement. Bringing in
the supernatural -- God -- is simply disallowed. ICR, of course, and
Phil Johnson also, disagrees with this position, but I think it
is unassailable.
3. I agree 100% with your last sentence, however. But not as "science."
Burgy