Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality? (was

Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:34:40 -0700

At 08:02 PM 6/10/99 +0800, Steve wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:13:27 -0700, Brian D Harper wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I would not express the point that way today, but any seeming
>>inconsistency with the views stated in this paper is semantic
>>rather than substantive. The key question raised by the
>>qualifier _methodological_ is this: What is being limitted--
>>science or reality? When "methodological naturalism" is
>>combined with a very strong a-priori confidence that
>>materialistic theories invoking only unintelligent causes
>>can account for such phenomena as genetic information and
>>human intelligence, the distinction between methodological
>>naturalism and metaphysical naturalism tends to collapse.
>>(Example: "Science can study only naturalistic mechanisms;
>>therefore we can be confident that life must have arisen
>>by a naturalistic mechanism, since science continually
>>advances and solves problems of this kind.") That science
>>has its limitations is not in doubt; the question is whether
>>unsound assumptions about reality have been made to permit
>>science to escape those limitations.
>>-- Phillip Johnson <Reason in the Balance> p. 212 (footnote)
>>=================================================================
>>
>>I find his parenthetical example interesting. I sincerely
>>doubt very many scientists are going to make such an obvious
>>blunder in logic.
>
>[...]
>
>Granted that not many methodological naturalists would put it as baldly as
>that (Phil was after all, giving a summary example in a footnote), but it
>is nevertheless, in a nutshell what MN's do claim.
>
>MN chain of reasoning usually goes something like this: 1) science can
>study only the natural world; 2) a supernatural Intelligent Designer is
>outside of the natural world; 3) therefore an Intelligent Design explanation
>for the origin of life is outside of science and is ineligible for
consideration.
>
>But this chain of reasoning depends on *metaphysical* naturalism as a
>basis for its first premise. That science can study only the natural world is
>no reason why science cannot study the *effect* of a supernatural
>Intelligent Designer on the natural world. Science can and does study the
>effects of intelligent design on the natural world, e.g. anthropology,
>forensic science, and SETI. Naturalism even has its own intelligent
>designer origin of life theory called Directed Panspermia!
>
>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.
>

Yes, you are correct. The instruments and methods of science could detect the
effects that an Intelligent Designer has on the natural world. Let's take
it from there. Suppose we observe some pattern in the natural world and
hypothesize that this is an effect of an Intelligent Designer. What next?

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert