Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality?
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:56:15 -0700>On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 10:55:47 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>Thanks to Susan for confirming my point! Methodological naturalism *in
>>>the case of origins* is really *metaphysical* naturalism. Behind it is
the
>>>*metaphysical* assumption that God is imaginary, like "fairies"
>
>>CC>No, behind it is the assumption that fairies (and God) are simply
outside
>>the scope of the method of science. Science is simply a LIMITED method; it
>>doesn't have the MEANS to deal with fairies or Gods. Arguing that science
>>should study fairies and God is like arguing that one should use a
>>microscope to study mathematics, or perform chemistry experiments to test
>>the laws of logic, or that one should use introspection to determine the
>>exact chemical make-up of a planet in the next galaxy-cluster.
>
>Chris is here just setting up a special definition of science to protect
his
>materialist-naturalist philosoiphy. There is no reason why science should
>not study the natural world to see if they reveal the *effect* of an
>Intelligent Designer.
>
>>>SB>Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>>>>pending new evidence.
>
>>SJ>Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
>>>*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is
metaphysical
>>>naturalism.
>
>>CC>No, it's a scientific method requirement, because the scientific method
is
>>not applicable to fairies or Gods. Metaphysical non-naturalism is a
>>PHILOSOPHICAL position, and it is basically not subject to scientific
>>method, that's all, except when it makes predictive claims about empirical
>>facts not yet empirically determined.
>
>Again this is just materialist philosophical dogmatism. There is no reason
>why the scientific method is not applicable to the work of an Intelligent
>Designer. The scientific method is applicable to the work of human
>intelligent designers (eg. archaeology, forensic science) and even alien
>intelligent designers (eg. SETI).
Chris
That's only IF the designer you claim behvaves in a way that lets his design
efforts be scientifically tested. This would mean that design theorists
should be proposing experiments and investigations to locate the kinds of
facts that they claim are specific to their designer. For example, it might
be possible to create two sub-populations of an organism, put them into
different environments, and make systematic counts of the various kinds of
variations that occur. If the designer is active, then there should be
violations of the rates of variations that would be predicted on the basis
of even a very nearly PERFECT knowledge of chemistry and of the chemical
environment in which DNA replication takes place. These statistical skewings
would be indicators that some outside force was influencing them. If the
RIGHT patterns could be found in a number of species, and if other
explanations could be ruled out (such as the actual CHEMICAL influence of
the external environment on the intra-cellular environment at
DNA-replication time; obviously, if this is significantly changed in unknown
ways, the results may well mean nothing of significance).
I look forward to design-theory supporters jumping on this opportunity to
empirically support their case.
Obviously, my exclusionary remarks only pertain to alleged "hidden"
designers, designers who DON'T (in any reasonably systematic way that we can
currently detect) interfere with what "should" happen, given a strictly
naturalistic theory of evolution.
I will try to get to other points tomorrow.