Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Tue Jun 09 2009 - 19:23:02 EDT

> So the question arises why, if we can infer an intangible, invisible,
> massless thing like "gravity", without violating "methodological
> naturalism", why can't we infer something intangible, invisible and massless
> like "final cause" in nature?  I am not arguing that we *should* make the
> inference that final causes operate in nature; I am only asking why such an
> inference is shut out of science *in principle*.

I can't think of a good reason that final cause would be, in
principle, excluded from science. However, I do not think it is
likely that final cause will be amenable to scientific investigation,
nor do I think that the methods for detecting such advocated by
Dembski, Behe, etc. actually work.

In other words, I would respond to the theoretical end of ID "go ahead
and try to find scientific evidence of design if you like, but I'm not
optimistic that you'll get anywhere."

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 9 19:23:47 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 09 2009 - 19:23:47 EDT