On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:51:05 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>This is indeed what science *should* be. But if science is
>restricted 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.
MM>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.
It is not "scientific theories with proven predictive power" in
general that I am attacking and neither is it "on purely religious
grounds". What I am attacking is Darwinist ("blind watchmaker')
macroevolution, on both scientific and "religious" grounds. This
theory (or rather "metaphysical research program" -- Popper), is used
by atheists to attack my religion, namely Christian Theism. But your
proposition seems to be that I am not allowed to defend my position?
I accept all the *facts* of evolutionary science, but as a
philosophical theist (not a philosophical materialist-naturalist) I do
not accept its *metaphysics*.
MM>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.
Which particular "evolutionary theory" are you referring to? If it is
common genetic ancestry, then that is not necessarily the result
of Darwinist "blind watchmaker" macroevolution. Progressive
Creation, for example, could account for common ancestry just
as well.
MM>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.
I am not claiming "creationism" as "science", per se. If God
progressively created: 1. the cosmos; 2. life; and 3. life's major
groups, then that is a fact of *origins*. It may have little
applicablility to normal operations "science". However, it does have
applicability to those areas of "science" that concern themselves with
discovering *origins*.
SJ>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.
MM>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.
I have no problem with this "continually refined description of
reality"
process, but I am referring to the "extremely subjective" decision to
aprior deny (in effect) that an Intelligent Designer is behind this
"reality", particularly when that is the overwhelming first
impression:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p1)
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------