Richard Wein wrote:
>
> I hope you realize that IDers will use these as examples of how the
> scientific consensus was proven wrong. And if it was wrong so many times
in
> the past, perhaps it's wrong again!
I agree with IDers about some things. Along with IDers, I think that
the current "scientific consensus" is wrong on two *philosophical*
points.
1) Many scientists today are philosophical naturalists. I think they
are wrong about that.
2) A majority of scientists believe that methodological naturalism is a
ground-rule for science, a strong line of demarcation. They believe
that any hypothesis about physical events or historical developments
which include the possibility of extra-natural causation must
_a_priori_ be rejected as unworthy of "scientific" consideration. I
think they are wrong about that philosophical point. I've discussed
this point in other posts, so I won't do that here.
However, I essentially agree with the scientific consensus about
scientific hypotheses of macroevolution (as opposed to the
philosophical claims of evolutionism). Moreover, whereas many IDers
claim that the primary motivation for the consensus about
macroevolution is due to philosophical bias, I do not. I think that
the primary motivation for the consensus about macroevolution is an
honest scientific appraisal of the evidence.
One purpose for my original post was to point out that the "scientific
majority" *does* change philosophical commitments when prompted by the
data. In my opinion, this fact casts doubt on the accusation, made by
some IDers, that most scientists believe macroevolution simply because
of philosophical bias rather than the data.
Loren Haarsma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 11:44:05 EDT