> My training as a physicist led me
> to regard science, in principle, as a game, capable of revealing
> many great things (truths) about how processes work and events
> happen, but capable not at all in revealing anything about what
> might lie behind these. The concept I was trying to explain is
> simply that, as a scientist, I MAY NOT (rule of science -- remember, it
> is a game) formulate any theory about an event or process that
> does not have natural causation as 100% involvement. Bringing in
> the supernatural -- God -- is simply disallowed.
My trainng as a physicist has led me in a different direction about
science. In my view, science includes:
(a) a structured way of making descriptions of phenomena;
(b) a structured way of discovering patterns in the natural world;
(c) a methodology for constructing models of the natural
world possessing explanatory and predictive power.
I'm not comfortable with the way supernatural causation is
specifcally excluded from consideration. (Incidently, for the
Christian, natural and supernatural causation are both directly
related to God's activity).
It is not unscientific to postulate an intelligent cause to
explain phenomena that cannot be explained mechanistically.
William Paley's "argument" for a existence of a Designer was
never falsified - the new alternative explanation of Darwinists
was considered to be preferable. Anthropologists have been using
this type of argument for years when assessing the significance
of stones with chipped edges. By excluding all other options,
they conclude that certain categories of artefacts are actually
stone tools, crafted by intelliigent beings. A recent example
of this style of argument is to be found in Sagan et al. (1993).
When the satellite Galileo passed by the Earth, some of the
signals detected from the surface of our planet were
unexplainable by natural means. "On the basis of these
observations, a strong case can be made that the signals are
generated by an intelligent form of life on Earth".
If the Bible is true, we must challenge the naturalistic
straitjacket on science! We can predict that naturalism will
have numerous "vulnerable" points, where the philosophy is
imposed on the real world. We can predict that they have gone
down many blind alleys - their own equivalent of the "god-of-the-
gaps".
Whilst the naturalists make a lot of the "god-of-the-gaps"
mistakes, and argue strenuously for continuity, they are
significantly blind to the gaps in their own system of knowledge.
It is important to realise that the naturalistic world view is
a matter of principle - not a principle of science. Consciously or
subconsciously, they can afford to be complacent about their own
"gaps".
Sagan, C., Thompson, W.R., Carlson, R., Gurnett, D. and Hurd, C.
1993. A search for life on Earth from the Galileo spacecraft.
Nature. 365(21 October), 715-716.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***