Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 15:02:45 EDT

This argument just plays the trump card of
methodological naturalism and the strict redefinition
of truth to exclude anything non-scientific. But since
truth is not limited to just science, this is the
intellectual equivalent of YEC's dismissing an old
earth because it contradicts their interpretation of
the Bible.

If you constrain science to be only methodological
naturalism then science is impotent to explain many
key questions of life like what existed before the Big
Bang or for that matter how did we get here if not by
random mutation?

There is a reason why methodological naturalism is
distinguished from naturalism in general. Science has
historically been more than just what be can be known
by experiment, it was a search for truth.

Further this strict definition of science is measured
out dishonestly as Behe is on a very short leash but
Darwinists are free to speculate all they want about
evolutionary mechanisms without any more evidence than
Behe or sometimes in the face of contrary evidence.

I appreciate the value of methodological naturalism in
science and agree we have to constrain science to what
we can test but that does not constrain truth. It is a
logical deduction for a Christian to infer Design in
life just like for an atheist it is logical to infer
naturalism. But this doesn't make either one of them
science or truth.

Behe's theological notions are no different than the
naturalistic notions of his critics. To insist that he
add a theological basis to his arguments so they can
be discredited is the equivalent of dismissing all
scientific arguments of non-Christians because they
don't meet the ideological criteria of the church.
Eugenie Scott does this by being quick to bring in the
debate the faith of her opponents but she is quick to
dismiss the relevance of her own faith or lack of it.

Both sides contain points of valid science and
generous helpings of non-science as well as we saw
from Korthof.

John

--- PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> ID's scientific vacuity is a simple fact. Since ID
> refuses to add a
> foundation which would have to be inevitably
> theological, ID remains
> scientifically irrelevant.
> That ID proponents do not do good science may be
> related to ID's
> scientific vacuity but again it mostly is an
> observation of fact.
>
> ID's status and the status of research by ID'ers
> also does not depend
> on the status of other areas of science.
>
> surely you understand this?
>
>
> On 8/20/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
> > You are constantly harping on ID proponents for
> not doing good science. I ask you what good science
> is being doing by proponents of evolutionary theory.
> By that, I am not accepting as an answer, say, a
> biologist who is doing solid biology and is a
> proponent of evolutionary theory.
>
> >
>
> 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 Mon Aug 20 15:03:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 20 2007 - 15:03:06 EDT