It depends of course on what you mean by 'science'. I came across the
following in the latest issue of the Scientific & Medical Network Review
(No.64, August 1997), taken from a foundation address given by Gordon
Holmes to the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1934:
"Can we then express in a few words what is required of the clinician who
seeks knowledge and truth by the method of science? In the first place he
must be trained to observe accurately, to see not merely what he is
looking for but to examine all the phenomena connected with the question
and to neglect or discard no fact no matter how apparently trivial. In
the second place he must learn to describe observed facts accurately and
completely, but simply and concisely... In the third place the student
must equip himself with that intellectual honesty and independence which
refuse to submit to authority or to be controlled by preconceptions and
which are ready, when ascertained facts require it, to reject a theory or
hypothesis which has perhaps been hallowed by tradition and become an
article of faith. Finally he must learn to doubt conclusions too hastily
or too easily reached:"
This is a definition of scientific method which I am very happy with. It
is however not one which some branches of science and particularly
evolutionary biology have followed. It is not compatible with the
definition given by the National Academy of Sciences quoted in Phillip
Johnson's book:a science whose 'most basic characteristic' is its
'reliance upon naturalistic explanations'.
Evolutionary science this century has been dominated by (materialistic)
preconceptions and has certainly fallen into the trap of allowing its
theories to become articles of faith. Wherever this has been the case, it
is almost by definition bad science. At the very least its conclusions
are suspect.
The complaint has therefore also got to be against the (bad) science
(both method and results). One cannot attack the materialism without at
the same time attacking the bad science which appears to lend support to
the philosophy. It is simply not true to say that the science is OK, but
the conclusions are unsound. There is *no* scientific evidence that
Darwin's mechanism could ever explain evolution. When challenged (as by
Colin Patterson - quoted again by Phillip Johnson), natural historians
admit that they do not know anything for certain about evolution, except
that it happened.
You wrote:
<It seems to me that an important way to argue this point with
<materialists is not to argue that evolution science is invalid..
It seems to me important - for everyone's sake - to point out that no
science based on false presumptions can possibly be valid. Individual
facts, if accurately observed and recorded, can certainly be valid,
whatever the beliefs of the observer (though the observer's beliefs are
known to affect the results). Everyone would be happy with this and there
could be a constructive debate about the interpretation of the observed
data. But this is not possible when unvalidated assumptions (e.g. about
the age of the earth, the kinds of processes operating in the distant
past etc) are presented by one side as established facts about which
there can be no discussion.
I do not believe that it is helpful or accurate to pretend that the
evolution scientists had basically got it pretty well sorted out and that
ID can still be slotted in in a sort of God-of-the-gaps fashion. The
picture presented by evolution science - of life emerging inexplicably
from dead matter and evolving from the most primitive organisms up to man
- is fundamentally false, whether or not one somehow manages to slip in a
bit of ID along the way. The picture is false because it is upside-down:
life is not a property of matter and cannot emerge from it. Matter, on
the other hand, can and did emerge or condense from life/spirit. This is
not a theory; it is an observation. It is the starting-point for a new
science of life and a new evolution science.
Regards,
Paul Carline