Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

It's trivial to point out Hunter's flaw

<quote>> Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect:
"The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg.
9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be
empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further
from the truth.
</quote>

People may be familiar with Hunter's flawed arguments about
methodological naturalism

<quote>Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion
and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising
conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on
theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction
of science to naturalism for religious reasons. </quote>

Science is not restricted to naturalism for religious reasons but
rather for methodological reasons. IFF people want to propose ways to
add the supernatural to an empirical examination by science, then all
they need to do is propose how.

I can see why the DI is happy with Hunter's book but as is usual with
ID arguments, the underlying flawed logic can be quickly exposed and
dealt with

On 7/15/07, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is The Design of Modern Science Defective?: A review of Science's Blind
> Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
>
> [Editor's Note: This post was written by a Discovery Institute legal intern,
> Guillermo Dekat. Mr. Dekat is a law student at St. Mary's University in San
> Antonio, Texas. He holds a bachelor's degree in biology from the Air Force
> Academy.]
> A review of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism
> By: Cornelius G. Hunter (Brazos Press, 2007)
> In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably
> dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to the
> injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to
> successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put another
> way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something wrong
> with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are
> found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.
>
> Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning of a
> product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our cars.
> If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an
> automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an expert
> witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has created a
> blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.
> Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The problem
> is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on to
> explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free of
> theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter
> examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history and
> arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern design
> of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe
> the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
> But Hunter goes further and refutes a common argument that naturalism is a
> result of atheism or empirically based findings. Instead, he lays the
> responsibility for naturalism at the doorstep of theists, who were largely
> thinkers inside the church hundreds of years ago. Hunter explains that
> theological naturalism is not opposed to religious ideas, because the
> philosophy is itself religious. It makes theological assumptions for a
> number of different reasons and then mandates a non-intervening "god." This
> mandate allows the stream of thought to necessarily flow from theological
> naturalism to methodological naturalism—the idea that science ought to
> pursue naturalistic explanations. According to Dr. Hunter, this philosophy
> of theological naturalism predated the theories that we argue about today.
> Dr. Hunter then makes the connection between the philosophies and the blind
> spot that was created in science:
> The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might
> occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any
> better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered,
> theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution has
> not been found. Non-natural phenomena will be interpreted as natural,
> regardless of how implausible the story becomes…. Theological naturalism has
> no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot
> consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the
> DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems — and many have their
> share — the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as
> paradigm problems.
> (Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism, Brazos Press, 2007, pg. 44-45)
> Dr. Hunter follows theological naturalism through many of the significant
> ideas of science in the modern era and analyzes how the blind spot affected
> the results. However, he doesn't just analyze the problem, for Hunter also
> suggests another design that will not produce such a blind spot. His
> suggestion is moderate empiricism in lieu of the heavy reliance on the
> assumptions of theological naturalism. Hunter explains that moderate
> empiricism is not a new idea; it was used by Boyle and Newton and pursues
> the experimental sciences largely unhindered by axioms or historical science
> frameworks. He sees this method being used by the intelligent design
> theorists and applauds them for it.
> As an expert witness, Dr. Hunter excels. Not only does he examine the
> current design of modern science, he also offers a design that will address
> the defect and allow science to function properly. Perhaps it may function
> even better. With his testimony complete, the jury is out. Will the
> scientists of today and the next generation choose to drive an automobile
> with this defect, or will they choose a different design, one without this
> blaring blind spot? Regardless, they would all do well to read Cornelius G.
> Hunters' Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism.Posted by Guillermo Dekat on July 15, 2007 12:23 AM | Permalink
>
> Source:
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_the_design_of_modern_scienc.html
>
> The book:
>
> Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
> (Paperback)
>
> by Cornelius G. Hunter (Author)
>
> Book Description
> Had evolutionists been in charge, they wouldn't have made the mosquito,
> planetary orbits would align perfectly, and the human eye would be better
> designed. But they tend to gloss over their own failed predictions and
> faulty premises. Naturalists see Darwin's theories as "logical" and that's
> enough. To think otherwise brands you a heretic to all things wise and
> rational. Science's Blind Spot takes the reader on an enlightening journey
> through the ever-evolving theory of evolution. Cornelius G. Hunter goes
> head-to-head with those who twist textbooks, confuse our children, and
> reject all challengers before they can even speak. This fascinating,
> fact-filled resource opens minds to nature in a way that both seeks and sees
> the intelligent design behind creation's masterpieces.
>
> From the Back Cover
> In this thought-provoking book, Cornelius Hunter shows that modern science
> has in fact been greatly influenced by theological and metaphysical
> considerations, resulting in the significant influence of what he calls
> "theological naturalism." Naturalism is therefore not a result of empirical
> scientific inquiry but rather a presupposition of science. This bias is
> science's "blind spot," and it has profound implications for how scientific
> theories are evaluated and thus advanced or suppressed. In the end, Hunter
> proposes a better way—moderate empiricism—and shows how Intelligent Design
> fits into such a method. "Continuing the theme from his previous two books,
> biophysicist Cornelius Hunter surveys the history of science to reveal the
> real source of modern scientists' opposition to intelligent design. Turning
> popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists who
> oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically
> based arguments. Science's Blind Spot is a must-read for anyone wishing to
> understand why those who oppose intelligent design are becoming more
> entrenched as the evidence for it continues to build." —Guillermo Gonzalez,
> Iowa State University "This book is a scholarly, yet easily understood,
> description of how difficult it is to work outside the dominant paradigm.
> Hunter provides a perceptive analysis of how we got to be where we are, and
> why `theological naturalism' is an overlooked but critical issue in
> understanding the current face-off between religion and science. There is a
> depth of perception here, an insight into our most unexamined assumptions,
> that will boggle the mind of anyone conversant with the issues. This book
> will richly reward all those who read it, whether they are new to the debate
> or hardened veterans of the science wars. The author has a great gift for
> clarifying arguments that have long been misunderstood or overlooked." —Gene
> Bammel, professor emeritus, West Virginia University; author of Everyday
> Philosophy
>
> About the Author
> Cornelius G. Hunter (PhD, University of Illinois) is formerly senior vice
> president of Seagull Technology, Inc., and is currently engaged in molecular
> biophysics post-doctoral and engineering research in Cameron Park,
> California. He is adjunct professor of science and religion at Biola
> University and author of the award-winning book Darwin's God and its
> follow-up, Darwin's Proof.
>
> ________________________________
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 15 16:05:44 2007