Bill Hamilton:
> > 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."
Steven Schimmrich:
> 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).
Does theistic realism suggest that science can investigate the
supernatural? Is this what Phil Johnson is saying? Or is this a
straw man argument? I regard myself as a theistic realist - and I
think that "science can't investigate the supernatural"! Miracles
lie beyond the reach of scientific enquiry.
The issue in my mind revolves around the concept of INTELLIGENT
CAUSATION operating in the realm of origins. The framework for
approaching this was something I attempted to present in a response
to Loren: the nature of empirical and historical science. If the
distinctions are not appreciated, people who argue that intelligent
causation is a legitimate element in scientific thinking will always
be misunderstood.
Steven's use of natural mechanisms to explain his observations is not
controversial - there is nothing to suggest that there is other than
a natural cause for his calcite veins.
[I posted most of this on 14th April - but it was not reflected back.
I assume it got lost somewhere].
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***