From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 10:20:17 EDT
My response is added below.
ted
>>> <douglas.hayworth@perbio.com> 10/10/03 09:40AM >>>
See comment below:
"Ted Davis"
<tdavis@messiah. To: <asa@calvin.edu>,
<jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
edu> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
10/09/03 07:50
PM
jwburgeson@juno.com writes:
Phil's primary error, IMHO, is not understanding that philosophical
naturalism (the universe is all there is) and methodological
naturalism
(science is a game which investigates causality as if no gods exist)
are
two very separate ideas.
I used to say the same thing myself, and on one occasion I said it
directly
to Phil. I now think I was mistaken: I think Phil understands this
distinction very well. He simply believes, rightly or wrongly, that MN
leads inevitably to PN. He does not mean by this, that the acceptance of
MN
leads to PN for every individual thinker who accepts MN; he knows full
well
that there are people like me in the universe. Phil wants to know what
*my
children* and their children will believe, if I live out my life accepting
MN. He believes in historical inevitability on this (and probably also
some
other matters), that unless people right now make a strong stand against
MN,
that PN will indeed make strong headway in future generations.
Ultimately,
he believes that one cannot *consistently* believe in MN without also
believing in PN.
Doug's comment:
How then does Phil propose that we conduct natural science? Unless he has
an fruitful alternative method for doing natural science, then I can have
not any respect for it. If his goal is to help us avoid thinking that the
material world is all there is, then we doesn't he simply become a
theologian and preacher to help us "open" our spiritual eyes. Our problem
in this technological age is not that natural science is too strong but
that our theology is too weak.
Ted: How does Phil propose that we do natural science? That's a good
question that I won't try to answer for him--many critics of ID would like
to see it answered. In vague terms, however, I think he would say, "not
entirely naturalistically," in other words to have a science in which "the
design inference" can and will be made, by scientists themselves and within
science itself and not simply in philosophy or theology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 10:20:38 EDT