JB> 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. ICR, of course, and
> Phil Johnson also, disagrees with this position, but I think it
> is unassailable.
That may be ONE way to play the game of science, but it is not the ONLY
way. Moreover, I don't think that theists should agree to those
particular rules.
Science can operate JUST FINE with a limited degree of "intelligent
intervention" in its explanatory theories --- particularly in the
"historical sciences." For example, I could imagine: in the year 2400
the scientific community throwing up its collective hands and saying,
"Look, we've been working on this abiogensis problem for 500 years now,
and we just can't get the sums to work. It's a complete wash. Let's move
on to some other problems. You theists may believe that God intervened;
you atheists may believe that well-hidden space aliens planted the seeds
of life. Whatever. Let's just move on to something else." Now of
course, the scientific community would (quite properly) try to figure out
every "naturalistic" step before, during, and after the "intervention"
step. And of course, scientists (theists and atheists alike, I hope)
would always keep that particular question in the back of their mind,
thinking that just MAYBE some future insight will lead to some
"naturalistic" explanation. (But in the same way, commonly accepted
"naturalistic" explanations for OTHER historical processes might also
become unhinged by future insights.) However, the scientific community
CAN say, provisionally and in certain cases, "This particular step
frustrates every naturalistic scenario we can imagine and strongly points
towards intelligent intervention." The game of science would go on quite
happily.
Hypothesizing intelligent intervention as a cause --- when the scientific
and/or theological data strongly warrants it --- is not the same as giving
up on the game of science; rather, it is playing the game by a different
set of rules, a set of rules which might possibly be a good deal more fun,
more productive, and more true to reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our favorite games are the ones |
we don't understand." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu