" Naturalistic
science is ruling out of consideration a certain category of
explanation of origins - but on what grounds? "This is the only way
to do science!" This is a philosophical position which I find
indefensible. If we are interested in truth, we MUST allow
intelligent causation to be a possible explanation. "
If you have not done so yet -- read Geisler's book Origin Science, published
by Baker Book House in 1987. As far as I can see, you are in agreement
with him, his co-author Anderson, and, probably, Phillip Johnson. The book
is a well-written argument supporting your case.
My reasons for disagreeing with the position are as follows:
1. I don't see "science" as a "search for truth." That is the job
of the philosopher. The words of Whewell seem relevant here:
One of the main spokespersons
for what science was in the 1830s was the Reverend William
Whewell, Master of Trinity College, scientist, natural theologian,
and historian and philosopher of science.
Whewell, William (Reverend). 1857 (third edition) _History of the
Inductive Sciences_: Volume II: Book XVIII History of Geology:
Chapter 6 Organic Geological Dynamics; section 5. Question of
Creation as related to Science., p. 570 [quote carries from first ed.
1837].
[the preceding discussion is on the ability of geology to tell us
about "the beginning of thing": **emphasis added**] "But such a
train of thought must be pursued with caution. Although it may not
be possible to arrive at a right conviction respecting the
origin of the world, without having recourse to other than physical
considerations, and to other than geological evidence; **yet
extraneous considerations, and extraneous evidence, respecting the
nature of the beginning of things, must never be allowed to
influence our physics or our geology**. Our geological dynamics, like
our astronomical dynamics, may be inadequate to carry us back
to an origin of that state of things, of which it explains the progress:
but this deficiency must be supplied, **not by adding
supernatural to natural geological dynamics**, but by accepting, in
their proper place, the views supplied by a portion of knowledge
of a different character and order. **If we include in our Theology
the speculations to which we have recourse for this purpose, we
must exclude from them our Geology**. **The two sciences may conspire,
not by having any part in common; but because, though widely
diverse in their lines, both point to a mysterious and invisible
origin of the world**."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as
this -- **we can perceive that events are brought about not by
insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular
case, but by the establishment of general laws**." William
Whewell, Bridgewater Treatise, this quote is from frontispiece
of _On the Origin of Species_ by C. Darwin, 1859.
(Above from past correspondence with Don Fraack).
A second example of this kind of thinking comes from the
introdustion to Copernicus's work:
From the introduction to ON THE REVOLUTIONS OF THE HEAVENLY SPHERES, by
Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473-1543. The book itself was published the year of
his death.
The introduction has been ascribed to Copernicus himself; most scholars now
think it was written by Andrew Osiander, a friend who saw the book through
the publishing cycle.
"Since the newness of the hypotheses of this work -- which sets the earth
in motion ... -- I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken
grave offense ... . If, however, they are willing to weigh the matter
scrupulously, they will find that the author of this work has done nothing
which merits blame. For it is the job of the astronomer to use ...
observation in gathering together the history of the celestial movements,
and then -- since he cannot by any line of reasoning reach the true causes
of these movements -- to think up or construct whatever causes or
hypotheses he pleases such that, by the assumption of these causes, those
same movements can be calculated ... for the past and for the future too.
...it is not necessary that these hypotheses be true, or even probably; but
it is enough if they provide a calculus which fit the observations ... ."
Crick has a similar statement in one of his recent works; at the moment I've
misfiled it. The sense of it is, I think, to warn young researchers not to
become too much "in love" with their pet theories. Theories come & theories go
and use is made of them in the meantime, but they should not be taken
as "truth."
2. I have a gut fear that should Phil, and Norm, and others
ever be successful, it will open up science to all sorts of nonsense. For the
Christian views are only a few among many. And without ANY means of
testing -- well, the National Inquirer, with its "2,000,000 blunt edge readers"
will most certainly thrive!
3. Along with Phil, I perceive the natural scientists Sagan, Gould, Dawkins and
many
others going well beyond the boundaries of "science" into philosophy as they
preach
(and preach well) the philosophy of absolute naturalism based on their studies
in science.
Part of the rebuttals I make to this is to put science (properly) in its place.
Based on PN, it cannot
ever assert PN. I think that's proper and best. Few (outside ICR and certain
others
in the Christian community) seem to disagree, although, of course, I've never
been able to get Gould, Sagan or dawkins to face up to the question! Phil seems
to have had some success
with this in the case of Ruse, but only partial.
Burgy