Subj: Re: Whose 'science'?
Cliff:
>The explanatory power of ID is too great to be of any value. Couch it
.>any way you like, it's still deus ex machina.
Bertvan
Hi Cliff. Is the explanatory power of ID greater that that of naturalism,
which also appears to claim the ability to explain everything?
Cliff:
>Abiogenesis will be explained someday, like so many other things that
>once were inexplicable but now are not. Unfortunately, when this occurs,
>those whose religious views depend on inexplicability will be put out,
>their religion undermined by an advance of knowledge.
Bertvan:
Why do you use the term "unfortunately"? Perhaps abiogenesis will be
explained someday. If that ever happens, I suspect many of those whose
religious views depend on inexplicability will adjust their religious views.
Could materialism adjust to the possiblity that abiogenesis will never be
explained? Or would they, like alchemists, continue their quest in spite of
centuries of failure?
Cliff:
>How does ID theory distinguish between things which might be explained
>in the future and things which can never be explained naturalistically?
>How do you judge what is a proper object of research and what is not?
Bertvan:
I'm certain ID would consider everything the proper object of research. ID
merely accepts the possibility that not everything can be explained
naturalistically. There is no way to know in advance which can be explained
naturalistically and which can not. As I see it, the danger of naturalism is
a readiness to accept simplistic explanations, since it seems part of
materialist philosophy that nothing inexplicable exists in nature. I doubt
those believing in ID would favor restricting Abiogenesis research. They
might not be inclined to choose that as their personal field of endeavor.
I find your posts thoughtful and objective. You manage to avoid the
emotionalism of many of the Darwinism defenders.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 17:06:41 EST