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

From: David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
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 majordomo@calvin.edu 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