-------------------
As Walter ReMine and others have recently pointed out, discussions about
science, evolution, and creation are often held on shifting sands of
definitions. So I should immediately begin with my definition of
"science."
I believe that science, as practiced by scientists, is more than just an
intellectual game which restricts itself to methodological naturalism. In
addition, science does not always restrict itself to hypotheses which are
testable and falsifiable. (What is and is not testable often changes as
technology advances.)
I believe that science (like other areas of human scholarship) _is_ a
pursuit of ultimate truth. However, science (like other areas of human
scholarship) restricts its area of inquiry. Science pursues the truth
about
(1) the physical properties of objects and systems,
(2) the physical behavior of objects and systems,
(3) the physical history of objects and systems.
(Please note, I am merely trying to DESCRIBE science. I am not
trying to proscriptively say what science _should_ be. [*1])
If you accept this definition of "science," and if you accept the
_possibility_ that supernatural events occured in the past, then it
follows that science must include the possibility of supernatural
(mechanistically unexplained) steps in its explanatory models.
The rest of this post is an elaboration:
------------------------------
To investigate the questions of physical properties, physical behavior,
and physical history, science uses the methods and tools which have a
successful track record. Certain methods have proven to be broadly
useful: "methodological naturalism," constructing physical models,
constructing mathematical models, isolating from outside influences as
much as possible, designing hypotheses which make testable predictions.
However, I believe that none of these methods should be considered as
_universally_ applicable to _all_ of science.
Consider two possible outcomes from attempting to reconstruct the
_physical_history_ of an object or system:
A) Scientists might conclude that a "naturalistic" history --- one which
relies solely on the known physical properties and behaviors of the
constituent elements (plus a reasonable inference about the initial
conditions) --- can adequately explain the data. [*2]
B) Scientists might conclude that a "naturalistic" history --- one which
relies solely on the known physical properties and behaviors ---
CANNOT adequately explain the data.
Outcome (B) suggests the following possibilities:
B1) Human intelligence, methods, and/or tools were used.
B2) Supra-human intelligence, methods, and/or tools were used.
B3) Supernatural intervention occurred.
B4) An incredibly improbable coincidence occurred.
B5) Some unknown physical process took place.
Conclusion (B1) is a special case, applied to anthropological artifacts
and to objects like the "Piltdown Man" (a case of scientific fraud).
Conclusions (B2), (B3), (B4), and/or (B5) are, IMO, properly "scientific"
conclusions when (A) and (B1) are ruled out. The reconstructed "physical
hi[Astory" will include as many "naturalistic" steps as possible, but also
includes one or more mechanistically _unexplained_ steps. In this case:
--Scientists would still work to improve their "physical history,"
refining their understanding of the "naturalistic" processes which
occurred before, during, and after the mechanistically unexplained
step(s), and narrowing the scope of the "unexplained" steps as much
as possible.
--Each scientist will have an opinion as to whether (B2), (B3), (B4),
or (B5) is probably true. However, those opinions would mostly or
entirely be based upon extra-scientific criteria. [*3]
--All scientists, even those who believe (B2), (B3), or (B4) to be
probably true, would be open to the possibility of new physical
processes being discovered which might explain the data.
---------------------
It could be argued that (B1), extra-terrestrial-(B2), (B4), and (B5)
should be included with (A) under the category of "methodological
naturalism" -- thereby excluding (B3--supernatural intervention). I
disagree with this arbitrary distinction! Whenever they are included as
part of a scientific theory, "extra-terrestrials," "improbable
coincidence" and "unknown physical process" are FUNCTIONALLY identical to
"supernatural intervention." (All four serve the same function of
introducing a process into the physical history which is not explained in
terms of known physical properties and behaviors. All four remain open
to the possibility of discovering NEW physical processes.)
---------------------
Unfortunately, its not always obvious when something belongs in category
(A) or category (B). The present-day theories of Abiogenesis and
Macroevolution are in just that situation. Most scientists believe that
abiogenesis and macroevolution ARE explainable in terms of known processes
--- it's just that the details haven't been worked out yet. But a
sizeable minority of scientists believe that the known physical processes
are utterly INadequate to explain abiogenesis and/or macroevolution.
These scientists, in turn, disagree about (B2/B3/B4/B5)
(extra-terrestrials/supernatural intervention/improbable
coincidence/unknown physical process).
This disagreement, in turn, raises debate over what should be taught in
public school classrooms, the university classroom, and textbooks. I
would like to suggest the following be done:
1) The data in support of (A) (purely naturalistic) should be clearly laid
out. (This is usually done pretty well.)
2) Sound scientific objections to (A) should also be included in the
cirriculum. All scientific theories have their weak points, it is simply
a matter of scientific honesty to admit this. Students should learn where
those strong points and weak points are. It should be made clear that
these "weak points" are areas of debate and research. (This step is
almost NEVER carefully done.)
3) If the first two steps are done well, it should be a simple matter
(even in the current atmosphere of strong church/state separation) to tell
students that some scientists believe B2/B3/B4/B5. All four possibilities
should be mentioned.
----------------------------
[*1] This description of "science" distilled from from VanTill, Young, and
Menninga, _Science_Held_Hostage_.
[*2] Note that successful construction of a "naturalistic" history does
not PRECLUDE intelligent or even supernatural involvement. It merely
concludes that the "naturalistic" description is ADEQUATE to explain the
physical data.
[*3] Extra-scientific criteria such as whether or not one believes the
scriptures to be supernatural revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing more exciting than science. You get |
all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing | Loren Haarsma
down numbers, paying attention. Science has it all!" | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Principal Skinner (_The_Simpsons_) |