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

Good evening George, Happy Thanksgiving.

I think the simple concept you are referring to is really just the
scientific method. The method that every scientist assumes is the
scientific method . Why is it that anything other than the scientific
method needed? I'd like to know more about why something else is needed
if indeed all one is doing is science. Poe/Mytyk seem to raise the question
of whether MN undermines Bacon's concept of the scientific method. Asking
that question is certainly not conspiratorial.

But, taking a guess at why something other than the scientific method is
needed: De Vries seems to try to use the term as a sort of synonym for
scientific method. But why invent a new term? I propose it is because De
Vries is trying to build a firewall that didnt exist before, and wasn't part
of the scientific or education community's conciousness.

You yourself George give a hint as to why something else is needed when you
raise the issue of "Ascribe nothing to the gods". This is given in
answer to a question about final or ultimate causes, about whats behind
whats observed. About what should be believed or what can be allowed to be
believed, but which is beyond the reach of the simple answer given by the
scientific method. And its not a question the scientific method can
address. It is really is a theological question, not a scientific
question. And this is why MN is needed. When one is asking philosophical
questions. Its a sort of firewall that says "don't confuse that ultimate
question with the scientific method". When one has already asked a final
question then and only then does MN comes into play. But when one hasn't
asked any final questions then the scientific method is sufficient. And
totally irrelevant.

I mean, George, if I asked you what the temperature is outside, and you
replied "Ascribe nothing to the gods", I would think you had too much
pepperoni for dinner last night (to put it kindly).

DeVries gets into this because he is a theologian and is thus grappling with
ultimate questions. He starts with theology and goes toward science, and
boom, out pops MN. The burden is upon the person who says we can start
with science and end up worrying about MN. No. Science doesn's ask the kind
of questions that make MN necessary. I dont think MN pops out of
observation + inference. Not unless one is already thinking about ultimate
causes in the first place.

I don't have any problem with MN in it's proper context. But when a
government starts saying its the basis for science rather than the
scientific method, then I object. Government can legitimately say "don't
ask the final questions". But isn't that the same as just saying "science
is based on the scientific method?" I cannot imagine anybody ever
possibly objecting to that.

But, the problem is, it's impossible to exclude a religious group by doing
that!!!! (by limiting science or the teaching of science to the scientific
method). That is why MN is trotted out by governments seeking to juggle
some religious ideas over and above others. That is the exact offense the
Edwards case was intended to prevent. States cannot engage in that type of
preference.

Just look at the complexity of the Poe/Mytyk analysis of Bacon's concept of
science, and how MN may or may not modify it in subtle ways. Do we really
want a state to promote teaching all the subtle ins-and-outs of MN and
how it relates to the scientific method? Do we want a state to include why
the scientific method isn't good enough? (Well, Johnny, its like this,
first there was the scientific method, but then there is that big fat GOD
QUESTION, and we need a way to give you proper judgement on that, and
welllll, wink wink nod nod...etc). Is it proper for states to even raise
this question? My liberal bones say, "I object!!!!!" Government should
just stick with the scientific method and call it a day.

Is that a red herring? I'd call it a "don't ask, dont tell" type of
policy.

 So George, I don't think you and I really disagree all that much. Unless
you seek to have government get involved in juggling ideas about final
causes. Then I would oppose that at every turn. But I haven't heard you
say that, either.

I do think that you and I could come to an agreement about MN and whether it
is the same as , or different than, the scientific method. And possibly so
could everyone on this list. But that wouldn't stop some state legislator or
school board member from mis-applying the concept or morphing it into an
inappropriate use, or using it as a weapon in an ideological war. That is
the danger. If MN == scientific method and != theology then it has no
independent meaning.
I do not understand why people defend it so vigorously and set it up as an
icon. There must be a reason.

Best Regards,
David Clounch

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:28 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> I referred of course to the content of what is called "methodological
> naturalism." It is that content, the ancient principle "Ascribe nothing to
> the gods" (quoted here recently by Burgy) as a guide for understanding the
> world that has been an accepted principle of science for centuries. & the
> reason that "does not engage the average scientist in a lab coat" is because
> it is accepted almost automatically by such scientists. No serious
> scientist, including those who pray every day "Give us this day our daily
> bread," will be content to explain a puzzling result of an experiment by
> saying "God did it." Therein lies both the content of MN & its distinction
> from metaphysical naturalism. When the specific phrase "methodological
> naturalism" was first used is of interest for historians & the editors of
> the OED but doesn't touch the question of the principle's content & how long
> it's been accepted.
>
> Christianity can indeed give proper theological grounding for that
> principle when science is viewed in a Christian perspective. But of course
> that grounding will have value only for Christians.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
> So the PSCF article by Poe and MyTyk (
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07dyn.html) is off base, and
> DeVries did not in fact use the term for the first time in the peer
> reviewed literature in 1986?
> Can you point to literature discussing the term prior to 1986. And to
> non-Christian sources?
>
> Poe: Karl Giberson and Donald Yerxa have
> argued that the term is the focus of a quarrel
> within the Christian community, but that
> "the quarrel over methodological naturalism
> and theistic science does not engage the
> average scientist in a lab coat ..."3
>
> And so on. This is all completely off base? It should be easy to show the
> quarrel going on outside the Christian community, if in fact it actually
> did. But in that case one wonders why the various referenced authors in the
> article bother to claim what they did. Seems to me PSCF deserves a
> rebuttal article. Until I see one I see no reason not to remain skeptical of
> your claim, George.
>
> This issue seems to me to be important not only to the ASA but to the
> entire world. Just as the Gregorian reform gave us equal rights (circa
> 1075) I believe Christianity gave us methodological naturalism.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Clounch
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> You do indeed disagree terribly here. MN has been part of the
>> scientific community's tacit understanding of how science works for the past
>> ~350 years and is held by scientists of different religious faiths as well
>> as atheists and agnostics. The reason that it is maintained consistently is
>> that it has been found to lead to fruitful scientific work. MN is quite
>> consistent with good Christian theologies but is not dependent upon any of
>> them.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
>> *To:* john_walley@yahoo.com
>> *Cc:* Marcio Pie <pie@ufpr.br> ; ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:53 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I terribly disagree.
>> MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and
>> should not be taught in schools.
>> ................................
>>
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 22:59:28 2008