" 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."
No disagreement from here. Except that I would add the words "based
on natural causation" to statement (c).
BTW, my training was at Carnegie Tech -- in the years 1949-53, followed
by graduate study at Florida State University. The "natural causation"
rule was (as my memory tells me) emphasized. Of course, it is not
always followed; thus we have many many instances of "god-of-the-gaps"
thinking over the years. The principle seems to have ebbed and flowed with the
years
since the Epicureans formulated it (attribute nothing to the gods) in about
200 B.C. and has flourished since the Enlightenment. It is a valid issue, I
think,
as to whether it is a "good" rule to follow in science; I think it is, but my
friends at ICR, as well as Phil Johnson and others, think otherwise.
It is not a valid issue, IMO, as to whether the vast majority of practicing
scientists adhere to it today; they do,
David also wrote: "I'm not comfortable with the way supernatural causation is
specifcally excluded from consideration."
I understand. But that's the rule. Only for "science." Not for Philosophy,
History,
Law, or, indeed, most other interesting human activities.
BTW, I am a Christian, currently worship in a mainline Presbyterian
congregation; have been a Southern Baptist deacon, also past
membership in several other communities (due to many company (IBM) transfers).
On the origins issue, while friends with ICR's Morris & Gish, have debated
with them for many years on the absurdity (to me) of the YEC position. I am
probably classified as a PC rather than a TE, but I am always ready for more
data on either one.
David also writes: "It is not unscientific to postulate an intelligent cause to
explain phenomena that cannot be explained mechanistically."
Again, no disagreement. The arrowheads my son found on our Texas ranch
were most certainly made by intelligence. However, NATURAL intelligence;
no god was involved.
David continues: "William Paley's "argument" for a existence of a Designer was
never falsified - the new alternative explanation of Darwinists
was considered to be preferable."
And the reason it is more "preferable"? I think it is because the
Paley argument requires the supernatural. If Phil Johnson prevails,
it may be the argument will again become popular. If SETI experiments
begin reporting success, this also my tend to change things.
David also writes: "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'".
Good example. Note that Sagan does not invoke the non-natural.
David also writes:
>>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".
I would rather opt to point out that science, bound by its own rule
of "no non-natural," can never penetrate to root causes. It is
the job of philosophy to do this!
>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.
Well, some certainly seem to be. Gould, Sagan, Dawkins, etc.
But hardly all. As a scientist, I consider myself a naturalist.
That's by definition. As a rational thinking human being, not
"practicing science," not so.
>It is important to realise that the naturalistic world view is
>a matter of principle - not a principle of science.
Here we must disagree. 100%. I think 99% of all pracicing scientists
would agree with me. Phil Johnson wants to change this; he is
making a valiant effort.
>> Consciously or subconsciously, they can afford to be
>>complacent about their own "gaps".
I think it is mostly subconsciously. I attribute no malice to Gould, Sagan or
Dawkins.
Only a shoddy view -- mistaking "science" for more than it is.
Appreciate the dialog.
Burgy