Salu2
Craig Rusbult wrote:
> In the first reply to my "ID and Utility" post, George Murphy says,
> > "Intelligent design" is a part of science in a limited sense:
> >If a paleontologist finds a piece of bone abraded in a certain way,
> >he/she may hypothesize that it was a product of such design, & then try
> >to predict things about the designer & test those predictions.
> > BUT - ID in the sense in which it is now being used, _theistic_
> >ID (whether the theistic element is explicitly admitted or not) is not
> >"scientific" in that sense, for a simple reason. God "can do anything".
> > Thus if unrestrained divine action is allowed as an explanatory
> >element, literally "anything goes". The theory can thus explain
> >anything. You found something your naturalistic theory can't explain?
> >Mine can - God (or The Intelligent Designer) did it.
>
> This is a good summary of the standard arguments against ID-as-science,
> if scientific utility is based *only* on ability to MAKE PREDICTIONS (or
> non-adhoc retroductions). In my post I stated that I agree with these
> arguments (although I still want to think about the arguments of Meyer,...
> more carefully, and I reserve the right to be eventually persuaded) that ID
> is typically not strong at making specific predictions. { Plantinga, in
> PSCF Sep-97, accurately refers to claims that "God did it" as "science
> stoppers" }
> Therefore, in the hope of making a defensible case for "the utility of
> ID in science" I suggested that ID can be most scientifically useful by
> providing a basis for good CRITICAL THINKING during evaluation. So far
> there has been only one direct comment (by Don Page) about this.
> Is this because everyone *wants* ID to fail, so that MN will be the
> dominant viewpoint of scientists who are theists? And if so, is this due
> to thinking that God is never active (except for "sustaining") in nature?
> Or because you think that a better way to argue for theistic action is to
> emphasize the distinction between methodological naturalism and
> philosophical naturalism?
> Or is it because you think that ID contributes nothing to critical
> thinking during evaluation? (see the AREA-SEPARATIONS post)
>
> *******************