Re: Kansas defining science from Re: There they go again

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sat May 07 2005 - 00:58:34 EDT

To be simplistic, science involves control at some level. We get an idea
that something functions in a way we can model. So, in keeping with the
model, we set things up so that we can vary the parameters and measure
the results. If it happens as expected, we say that we've confirmed the
model. We have a theory.

There are some things that do not allow us to test them at all directly.
It's more than a little tough to collect vegetable matter, put it under
extreme pressure for a very long time, and discover that we have coal or
some other product. We have to work at the edges, to go as far as we can
go, to extrapolate, etc. But we often get a reasonable explanation,
especially as technology improves.

When we consider the deity, we recognize that he is beyond our control.
This puts him outside of scientific investigation. It does not deny
either his existence or his imminence. That is why we thank God for our
food, and we also pay the grocer.

At any time, there are areas about which we are ignorant, things we
clearly don't know how to test. One such is how to get life from the
nonliving. Because we don't know, ID claims to have the answer: we can't
know, so it was a matter of intelligent intervention. The same holds for
flagella, should hold for cilia and no end of other phenomena in living
creatures. It's a denial of the dual aspect, "natural" and
"supernatural," of all things, and the substitution of natural xor
supernatural. The approach is deistic rather than theistic. It also makes
our ignorance the measure of the deity. This gives us appalling theology.

There are views that claim to control matters beyond the obvious
physical. This is witchcraft, magic, alchemy--the realm of incantations
and spells to compel the obedience of spirits, of potions that give one
insight or abilities beyond the natural. Whatever happens here, the God
of Abraham is not involved.
Dave

On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson
<sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
That is a great explanation. To expound a little: ID says in part that
if we don't understand something, it must be supernatural. Science says
we don't understand because we don't have all the evidence or knowledge
required to understand. If this is true, where does the supernatural fit
in to any explanation? What would cause us to believe in God if we think
this way? If everything can be defined by natural explanations, then
where is God?

I don't believe ID is correct nor do I believe in a young earth. I also
don't know where to draw the line between the natural and the
supernatural explanations.

Sheila

bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> wrote:
> The article further states:
>
> Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of
science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe
around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing
investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement,
experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more
adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
>
> While I don't agree with the new trial, isn't that what science is?

The key change is the deletion of the phrase "natural explanations". ID
advocates want to allow non-natural explanations. Actually, I would agree
that such explanations cannot be excluded a priori; however, theological
considerations suggest that non-natural explanations will be either bogus
(astrology, erroneous antievolutionary claims, etc.) or else no t
amenable to scientific experimentation (e.g., Biblical miracles, which
were situation-specific).

Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Sat May 7 01:04:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 07 2005 - 01:04:39 EDT