Greetings all. I'm very late to this particular conversation (though I've
been following along all this time), and I have one question I'd love to
hear some answers to.
Would the TEs present here (of which I'm likely one, in essence) find it
fair to argue that science is simply not equipped to handle the question of
design with regards to evolution? And by that I mean, if evolution was in
fact a guided process via front-loading, or even if biological history on
earth was directly tinkered with at key points (putting aside theological
issues with such involvement, for the moment), wouldn't these things, even
if true, be in principle outside the scope of science? I understand and
sympathize with Timaeus' stressed concerns about how 'Darwinism' has had a
heavy philosophical component attached to it. I also think I agree with the
responses that amount to 'even if Darwin attached such philosophy to his
theory, it is not part of the scientific theory and can easily be
detached/ignored'. But it seems to me that if science is truly unable to
detect that sort of thing - and I find myself agreeing that it would be
unable - then it also seems as if no judgment can be rendered about whether
what we see in biological history (or indeed any other kind of natural
scientific history) 'requires intelligence/intervention' except in the most
strawman ways ('We don't need Archangel Gabriel pushing the moon to make it
move'). We would still be able to investigate common descent, etc, etc. But
any question of intelligence's input or requirement in the process, positive
or negative, goes unanswered. Science simply hits a wall there.
Does this sound accurate?
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 21 16:23:42 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 21 2008 - 16:23:42 EDT