SB>He is using science in the sense of definition 3b in Webster's 3rd "such
>knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : Natural
>science."
SJ: Modern day dictionaries' definition of science simply reflect today's dominant
materialistic-naturalistic worldview.
Are you sure of that?
SB>Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. You should keep
>that in mind.
SJ: What has that got to do with it? Is Susan now arguing that science is a
special way of thinking that only scientists can understand?
Nope but Johnson's confusion about what science really is, is obvious.
SJ: In anyevent, Johnson is not just a lawyer. He is a senior Professor of
Law at one of the major universities in the USA, "with a specialty in
analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that
lie behind those arguments" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p13). Analysing the arguments of Darwinists is right up his alley:
Wow, of course this still does not show that he understands science. Merely that he understands rethoric.
SB>1. How would you guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer?
>2. If you could guage the effect of an Intelligent Designer, what would it
>get you? How would it affect the work of science?
SJ: The first thing for science is to admit that there *could* in principle,
be evidence of the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world.
Why? Such admission has no scientific merrits.
>SJ>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.
SB>give me a example of applying the scientific method to the work of an
>Intelligent Designer. You should also be aware that scientific philosophy
>and science are not the same thing.
SJ: The second step is to redefine "the scientific method" so that it does not
rule out in advance evidence for "the work of an Intelligent Designer."
Why, ID has no scientific merrit, why should it be included?
SB>It *is* best not to have every generation re-invent the wheel. Howevewr,
>scientists don't take what they see on faith for long. Some observations can
>be repeated and some can't. The ones that can't are going to get talked
>about. That's how Ph.D.s are born.
Ph.D's are *specialists* in their own area of expertise, so they must rely on
the authority of other scientists in other fields. Even in their own field, they
can't possibly check everything personally, so they must rely on the
authority of other scientists there as well. As Johnson points out:
"Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist
outside his field of expertise is just another layman." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial," 1993, p13)
SJ: Well, at least Johnson recognizes that he is just another layman. Good for him.