Re: ID science (subtopic 2)

From: Howard J. Van Till (
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 09:44:50 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Ruse's Science Article"


    Moving on to your second "precept":

    > 2. It is not permissible to NOT have a theory. The gap must always be
    > filled.

    Again, I will quibble about words like "permissible" and "must." No
    scientist needs permission (from some ruling body) to formulate a theory or
    to refrain from formulating a theory. And no scientist is under any
    obligation (to some ruling body) to fill some explanatory gap. But human
    curiosity, especially as it is exercised by a scientist pondering a
    collection of observational data, is very likely to be expressed in the
    formulation of a scientific theory to give an account of that data. Why did
    system X behave as it did? How did system X come to be formed or assembled?
    Furthermore, as I noted in regard to your precept #1, if that theory is to
    be considered part of contemporary natural science, it will have to be be
    consistent with methodological naturalism (MN).

    ID advocates are free to advocate a theory that explicitly rejects MN, but
    they should, I believe, label it with something other than the word
    "science" alone. The label "ID science" would be one candid and honest way
    to distinguish an ID theory from a normal scientific theory.

    Howard Van Till

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 14:37:10 EST