> IF I could just ask the various interlocutors on this thread one question,
> and request a very short answer from each of them:
>
>
> In your view, is God's -supernatural- intervention into a natural system
> something that is theoretically in the realm(s) of:
>
> (1) physical science?
>
> (2) reason?
>
> (3) philosophy?
>
> (4) theology?
>
> (5) Blind faith?
>
>
> My answer, FWIW, would be that it's properly in realms 2, 3, and 4. (There
> may be some overlap between realms, obviously -- e.g., science, philosophy,
> and at least largely theology seem to me species of reason, but some will
> disagree on that.)
>
>
> Can I -imagine- ID theory being in realm 1? Well, I guess I can think up
> alternate universes in which such might be the case, but it's hard right now
> to see it in the actual universe. (Suppose, e.g., that the most naive
> charismatic and fundamentalist Christians were right, and having simple
> faith inevitably meant we could effect physical miracles: every time, on
> demand, no non-theistic explanation. Then one might be able to build a
> science on that. But alas, that is purely a thought experiment. But it may
> be enough to prove the point -in principle-. I suppose methodological
> naturalism in science, but not as part of the very -essence- of science, but
> rather as an important, time-tested, theoretically justified practical rule.
> I can -imagine- rejecting it, but see no current reason to.)
>
> My point for years has been that if ID advocates want to move it into 1, all
> they need do is come up with not philosophically or rationally compelling
> argument, but EMPIRICAL arguments, new, detailed, intersubjective/objective
> theories that make unambiguous, novel, and successful predictions even
> according to those with no prior commitment to ID. That'll make it not just
> TRUE, but SCIENCE.
>
> I can imagine their eventually doing this; but I don't think they're too
> close just yet.
>
>
> If they can do this, then ID will become another field that leaves
> (speculative) philosophy to become science, like every current science
> before it.
>
> If they (as I suspect) cannot or do not do this, then it will never become a
> science (even -if- it's true).
>
>
> Okay, a second question: are these conditionals things BOTH sides can agree
> on? I would think so, even though the first antecedent will strike most
> scientists as absurd. But were it to happen....
>
> I'd appreciate the group's thoughts.
>
> John
>
>