>>Since John Burgeson is looking for an argument ... ;-)
Good deal! Arguments sharpen our thinking!
Mine may need it! <G>
Loren responds to my argument for "no non-natural causation in science, as
follows:
>>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.
Two points. First, I will assert that a vast majority of practicing
scientists today (99% or more) will be found on my side of the argument. Second,
whether one is a theist or not probably has little or nothing to do
with the issue. One may be a theist and a scientist -- or an atheist and a
scientist. One might as well say "I don't think that bald people should
agree to those particular rules."
Loren goes on to say:
>>Science can operate JUST FINE with a limited degree of "intelligent
>>intervention" in its explanatory theories --- particularly in the
>>"historical sciences."
Phil Johnson would probably agree with you. Certainly
Norman Geisler does; his book ORIGIN SCIENCE is
an excellent attempt to argue this position. Outside the
Christian community, however, he has not had much success
(IMO) in selling the argument. But again, whether it CAN or not, the fact is
that
it does not.
I like Loren's next point:
>> 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."
Not an unlikely prediction. But the "scientific community" is hardly
monolithic. Some will still keep working on it!
An the atheists will continue to assert some version of Dawkin's
theory -- not "space aliens." (My prediction).
Meanwhile, it is 1995, not 2400. In 405 more years a lot is
going to happen!
Loren continues:
>> 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.
Maybe so. A prediction 405 years away is very hard to
disprove!
Burgy: