>>Susan:
>> >you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>> >doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no
way
>< >to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
>> >Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>> >about conducting science without that assumption.
>
>>Bertvan:
>>I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism" is not
>>required. One can just as easily do science under an assumption of design.
>>Science is the process of observation and accurate measurements. Those who
>>assume design are, in my estimation, more likely to decipher the details of
>>the design than those who insist no design can possibly exist
Steve Clark:
>Bertvan, do you believe that observation and accurate measurement is an
>adequate definition of science? If so, do you believe that cooking and
>sewing and accounting and football are science?
Hi Steve Clark,
While observation and measurement is what scientists mainly do, I'd prefer
"an attempt to describe reality" as a definition of science. There may be
other definitions, and I'm willing to consider them. (The meaning of your
comment about cooking and football eludes me.)
Are you of the belief that the only a definition of reality which
specifically excludes plan, purpose or design in nature would be
"scientific". (Sorry, I've forgotten where you stand on the question of ID.)
In any case, while neither philosophy might be provable, one description of
reality is more accurate than the other. Perhaps we will only be able to
determine the relative merits of materialism and ID by the results which they
produce. Materialism gave us Freud, Marx, Darwinism and E.O. Wilson. I
wonder what ID will produce? Don't cite the accomplishments of physics and
astronomy. They have been straying from strict materialism ever since
Einstein.
bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 16:56:33 EDT