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

Then you're defining "ALL" to mean something other than "ALL".

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> 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> 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 12:38:29 2008