Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality? (was evolution archive list)
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:15:29 -0700>Stephen Jones wrote:
>
>>Therefore, if there is no real limitation of science to study the *effect*
>>of an
>>Intelligent Designer on the natural world, but Intelligent Design
continues
>>to be ruled out of consideration anyway, then what is really being
maintained
>>is not methodological naturalism but *metaphysical* naturalism.
>
>but in order to study the effect of an intelligent designer, you have to
>presuppose one such exists. And then you have to figure out how to define
>and detect inteligent design. Then you have to figure out how to test for
>that effect. Have the proponents of intelligent design been able to do
that?
>
>>This is exemplified by leading biologists like Harvard's Richard Lewontin
>>dropping all pretence and stating dogmatically in the New York Review of
>>Books that an *absolute* materialism must be maintained. . .
>
>>". . . .
>>Moreover, THAT MATERIALISM IS ABSOLUTE, FOR WE CANNOT
>>ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.
>
>yes. If you can say "the fairies did it" you don't have a reason to inquire
>further. Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>pending new evidence. "Divine feet" tend to be pretty final. The earth can
>cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period."
Chris:
Implicit in Susan's remark is another: Scientific method is not suited to
the study of divine feet in the door. Scientific method uses a process of
conjecture and refutation by empirical test of implications. What test would
you propose based on the presence of a divine foot in the door in the midst
of a theory of mechanics (say)? The scientist wants theories that imply
things like: "If we measure this quantity, and it does NOT have THIS value,
then the theory is false." Or: "If we look in places where thus and so
conditions are met, we will find fossilized whatsits." What similar test of
a divine foot would you propose?