Re: Today's blogs 2

Seems to me that there are additional nuances here. Denyse's first
question involves a fallacy. Yes, there is evidence for God's work in
nature, but it is not compelling. Its appreciation depends on a mindset
which some sophisticates set aside. The evidence is not anti-science, but
outside of science. As an example, the universe has a set of remarkable
constants that, were they slightly different, would preclude our
existence. A number of folks attribute this to Providence. The
determination of the constants and their effects is a scientific matter.
The attribution is not. There is another theory that qualifies as
scientific that explains matters differently, the multiverse. Its claim
is that there are so many different, noncommunicating "universes" that
one of them had to have the set of constants that allows our existence.
It's just a matter of chance. Someone may want to challenge the
multiverse using Occam's razor. But that is not a scientific principle.
Additionally, recognizing his /praeter necessitatem/, can she prove that
the multitude is absolutely unnecessary?

There are other ways one may move out of the province of science, e.g.
asking why there is anything rather than nothing, whether universe or
multiverse. There is also the need to recognize that science builds on
nonscientific premises or assumptions. There is currently a post-modern
challenge to these assumptions. There is evidence that the challenge is
humbug, but that is another matter. It is always possible, to backtrack a
bit, to say that the universe/multiverse just is; that reason just is; to
adopt scientism. I am persuaded that there is an element of irrationalism
in such, but that's because I stand outside. To those inside, "That's the
way it is" is an adequate response.

In what I have written, I am obliquely challenging Bob's claim that the
biologist is the one to define biological science. Most of them are too
immersed in the minutiae of their project (or writing prospecti for money
to carry on the task) to think about the range of the discipline, let
along the full range of disciplines claiming scientific status.
Historians like Ted have something to offer. So do philosophers. Both
history of science and philosophy of science look over the scientists'
shoulders. Some have goofed by telling scientists definitively how they
work or, worse, should work. But the scientists who have tried to
understand their discipline have to recognize that there is a great
difference between what they expect to publish in a scientific journal
and what looks into the underpinnings of the scientific endeavor. This
latter area is what ties into theological matters, unless one takes on
the task of justifying every supposedly scientific claim in scripture.
Cud-chewing coneys (hyrax) and hares make that impossible.
Dave

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:41:14 -0400 "Robert Schneider"
<rjschn39@bellsouth.net> writes:
Denyse writes:

If there is evidence for God's work in nature, can that evidence be
admitted, or is the evidence itself actually anti-science?

Controversies like Kansas are simply a proxy for that question because it
is a question about who gets to say what science is.

If anyone should say what science is, it should be the people who
practice it, not an emeritus law professors who buried himself in books
for a summer and came out a ninety-day wonder (for you younger folks, the
last phrase was used of 2nd lieutenants who finished basic training
during WWII). I also would prefer a biologist or whatever stripe to
define biological science, and not an engineer or a physicist.

Bob
Received on Wed May 25 00:02:12 2005