Re: [asa] Science proves there's no need for God?

The line about not needing the God hypothesis is from a fictional
account, rather than actually from Laplace; it is a reasonably
accurate expression of the attitude of many people, however.

Occam's razor is often incorrectly invoked as removing God from the
picture (whether by Dembski or Dawkins). The flaw is overlooking what
science regards as simpler. Science actually seeks to minimize two
things: the number of factors posited and the number of special cases.
 If science were merely about minimizing things, we wouldn't make laws
and theories-those are add-ons to tables of data. A more inclusive
explanation is seen as desirable, even if we have good explanations
for individual cases-hence the search in physics for unifying the
basic forces, for example. God provides an ultimate explanation of
everything, science and non-science, and so doesn't get removed by
science even if it's not possible to extrapolate laws of physics or
biology from that ultimate explanation.

-- 
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.