Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

David is correct. However, it's the "Ascribe nothing to the gods" principle that really corresponds to MN. & simply stating it that way (instead of "Ascribe nothing to God") suggests one reason - certainly not the only or the most important one - for MN: Which gods? If science is to be a public enterprise and "the gods" are to be a legitimate way of explaining phenomena we'll run into problems when some ascribe the bacterial flagellum to YHWH, some to Krishna, some to Odin, &c. & the problem is not avoided by saying "the Designer" as long as it's clear that that entity is in the "gods" category.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: John Burgeson (ASA member)
  Cc: David Clounch ; john_walley@yahoo.com ; Marcio Pie ; ASA
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

  Burgy said: 1. Consider ALL the evidence
                     2. Ascribe nothing to the gods.

  I respond: I think MN is a valuable pragmatic limitation on a particular, narrow kind of human inquiry that we call "natural science." However, the two statements above seem contradictory to me. What if the "evidence" involves the activity of the gods? MN specifically and deliberately says "do NOT consider all the evidence." In fact, from a legal perspective, I would view MN as an exclusionary rule of evidence. In the courtroom, we don't allow juries to consider "all" the evidence -- we have lots of exclusionary rules based on reliability (hearsay), competence (limits on expert testimony), privileges (attorney client privilege), constitutional rights ("fruit of the poisoned tree" re: search and seizure; evidence obtained by torture), scope (relevance) and so on. A judicial proceeding is not really a search for capital-T Truth; it is a limited device pragmatically designed to adjudicate the truth of particularly defined human rights and relationships. Likewise, Science cannot seek or define capital-T Truth. Science is a limited device designed to uncover natural processes. Science oversteps its bounds when it claims to consider "all" the evidence.

  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 11/25/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

    "MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and
    should not be taught in schools. Unless the school treats it as a
    religious theory in a comparative religion class."

    I assume you mean MN as meaning "Methodological Naturalism." If so, it
    was "taught" as long ago as 1 BC (+ or - some years) by the Greek
    Lucretus. Also by Epictitus. And more recently by my physics
    professors at Carnegie Tech in the 1950s.

    t was sort of a bedrock principle to them. I remember being taught the
    "Two basics of science" as:

    1. Consider ALL the evidence
    2. Ascribe nothing to the gods.

    (This last a quotaton from the ancient Greeks, of course.)

    I have a faint memory of it also being taught in my high school class,
    but I'm not sure of this. But it makes sense to introduce it then
    anyway.

    To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 26 11:41:58 2008