> 1. Why is it that the people who want science to include the supernatural
> in its investigations are mostly nonscientists? The point is not that
> nonscientists have no right to criticize science. It is that natural
> phenomena exhibit regularities which can be studied. Supernatural
> phenomena involve intelligent entities who may or may not be amenable to
> discovery by science. In order to avoid endless controversy over whose
> model of the supernatural to apply, and how to define experiments,
> science generally tries to avoid dealing with the supernatural. (There
> were some papers in IEEE publications a number of years ago on the
> subject of extrasensory perception, but these sorts of things are
> exceptions).
I totally agree with this observation and have commented on it myself in
a different forum. Those who postulate some type of "theistic science"
always seem to be either philosophers or theologians. I haven't seen many
proponents of theistic science who actually get their hands dirty doing
the grubby work of science in the real world.
I think the philosophers and theologians who like to propose "theistic
science" are mostly thinking of the philosophical speculations of some
well-known scientists when they think of science. The fact is that 99% of the
people who do science are involved in very specific, limited-scope research
projects (I'm studying the geochemistry of calcite veins found in a couple of
lithologies within a small fold-thrust belt in the Hudson Valley region of New
York State, for example) where a "theistic science" would be totally
inappropriate (am I supposed to say that the veins have some particular
chemistry because God made them that way or is it perhaps more reasonable
to use methodological naturalism in investigating these structures?).
> 2. If science is ever going to investigate the supernatural, it must have
> a blueprint or map which defines _how_ to do it. If the Phil Johnsons
> of the world are going to continue arguing for theistic realism and
> never show how to conduct scientific investigations under the assumptions
> of theistic realism, and the rest of us are going to continue to assert
> that science can't investigate the supernatural, this impasse will
> remain. It does no good for Phil to say, "I don't _have_ to offer
> an alternative."
Exactly. In my discussions with people who promote such views, I always
ask how I, as a geologist, can practically incorporate "theistic science"
into my research. No one's ever been able to answer that and I can't
visualize any way either. Or, are we only to incorporate it into some types
of research -- those research projects which apparently conflict with some
tenets of Biblical literalism? I don't think people would object if science
done using the assumption of methodological naturalism completely refuted
evolution or showed evidence for a global flood.
Any method for doing science must be objective, testable, and reproducible.
I've yet to see any proposals for doing away with methodological naturalism
that satisfy these criteria (or a good reason for giving up on those criteria).
One might argue that "origins research" is not necessarily objective,
testable, or reproducible (many YECs claim that we can never know, for
example, how the earth formed because no one was there to observe it happening
and we can't reproduce it). But that's simplistic.
Let's look at what I study, for example. I can formulate a hypothesis for
the formation of calcite veins in a fold-thrust belt in my field area. This
was a unique event that happened a long time ago that no one was around to
observe. Yet I support my hypothesis with geochemical data that can be
reproduced by other workers. I use laboratory techniques that have been
shown, by independent testing, to yield information about things like the
temperature of formation of these veins. My field, hand sample, and thin
section (microscopic) descriptions can be verified by anyone wishing to do so.
My interpretations of this data are based upon theoretical and field
observations of the behavior of things like oxygen and carbon isotopes in
aqueous systems, geochemical modeling, rock fracture, etc. Why is it bad to
use methodological naturalism?
Let's be honest, no one cares about the implications of my research :) but
as soon as these techniques are applied to evolutionary biology, then people
object. By what's the difference? The difference is in the subjective way
people react to such research because of perceived conflicts with their
theologies.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium