>This is indeed what science *should* be. But if science is estricted
>to considering only natural causes, and there is in fact an
>Intelligent Designer who intervened in nature at strategic points to
>introduce new information and direction, then to to that extent
>science will be an incomplete description of reality.
Most would probably not object to someone saying "God did it" in a
discussion of philosophy. The problems arise when scientific theories with
proven predictive power (which you label as "natural causes") are attacked
on purely religious grounds. If creationists provide some alternative theory
with predictive power to help understand the world around us, then
scientists would consider it. Science without predictive power is useless.
At this point, proven predictive power of evolutionary theory from the macro
perspective can surely be argued. However, the micro application of
evolutionary theory provides us all with beneficial drugs and new approaches
in controlling/curing disease -- and plenty more I'm sure.
Nothing I've seen from creationism provides us with those scientific
benefits, or any predictive power at the micro or macro level. Therefore, I
find it hard to accept creationism in any current form as science.
>There is nothing wrong with science being an incomplete description
>of reality, providing scientists state that up front and don't
>then claim that science is a complete description of reality.
It *is* a continually refined description of reality in the sense that it
helps explain and predict the course of actions that surround us. Any other
"reality" becomes extremely subjective.
Michael McCulloch
mmccullo@usit.net
Oak Ridge, TN