I absolutely agree with Art's view of science.
I love science because I hunger to understand the beauty of creation.
It is a powerful tool. But I also am starting to understand the limits
of science. If it can only tell us about mechanism, then where
mechanism doesn't exist it will not enlighten us about the universe.
Even though I don't believe the universe is at all mechanistic, I of course
accept that it often appears to be. Further investigation of phenomena
often reveals more and more appearance of mechanism (which is to me just
consistency on the part of God). To avoid confusion here, let me just
assume that the universe is some mixture of mechanism and non-mechanism.
(My contention that the universe is completely non-mechanistic is
a theological one, and not particularly important here).
In the case of evolution, it appears to me that there is very little
evidence for mechanism. However that is just an opinion. At some point,
maybe science will discover more convincing evolutionary mechanisms.
The fact that it hasn't until now, doesn't mean that it won't in the future.
It might be possible that science could arrive at the conclusion that
there are aspects of the universe which *cannot* be mechanistic. However
it could not say anything more. It will have reached its limit, and
others must take over, as Art suggests.
I am starting to agree with scientists who believe that they
are being pressed by `creationists' to admit something to science
that is incompatible. I think that is *just* what *is* being done.
The `problem' is not what science teaches about the universe, but
what people believe about science. This is a problem which cannot
necessarily be fixed within science classes. I would rather leave
science as it is and teach about *what* it is elsewhere. The debate
about mechanism versus non-mechanism is beyond the limits of science
anyway.
***
At the end of my post, I said something a little convoluted:
> If we are right, then Science will never arrive at the truths
>that are essential to me until it falsifies itself.
What I meant was that science might be able to reach the conclusion that
the universe is in part non-mechanistic. This is a critical recognition,
because it would be an admission that something more than just mechanism
determines what happens in the universe, and that science can not fully
demystify reality.
Although in principle science might be able to demonstrate that the
mechanistic view of reality is false (or incomplete), I don't actually
expect that it will. There will always be the hope that some as yet
undiscovered mechanism will breach the barrier. Faith in a mechanistic
universe is hard to shake. But then, so was faith in a deterministic one.
--Dave