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

I think "Consider ALL the evidence" means consider all the natural facts, not philosophical arguments. I think "Ascribe nothing to the gods" means don't ever resort to "God did it" (as a statement of faith based on no data).

If ID ever creates a scientific way to detect design, then it will become a science. But as for now, they simply try to disprove evolution, and then say "since there is no possible answer on how this can come about naturally, then it follows that God did it." It doesn't follow. Could be... maybe so... but not science. ID needs to determine a way to detect design, then put it to tests to verify that it works.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:32 AM
To: John Burgeson (ASA member)
Cc: David Clounch; john_walley@yahoo.com; Marcio Pie; ASA
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<mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 11/25/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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 12:36:59 2008