DT But the cost of this principle is to generate new "gaps" - problems
which are not being solved despite immense research effort. Is
"science" forever condemmed to go down these various cul-de-sacs?
Surely there's a better way!>>
The Geisler book (ORIGIN SCIENCE) argues this well.
(In David's favor, of course).
What we have here is a standoff (IMO) -- with possibility for
major error no matter which way we choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>> JB 2. It keeps the occult out of science.
DT This also applies to science based on God's providence. This reason
cannot only be claimed by a science which only allows naturalistic
mechanisms.>>
Cannot agree here. Your argument has to be more precise.
>> JB 3. It allows people with wildly varying metaphysical assumptions
coming from many cultures to agree on a common set of ground
rules.
DT Of course! If we all accept naturalism as the basis for science,
then we have a common set of rules. But if everyone accepted the
providence of God as the basis for the consistency, predictablity and
reasonableness of the created order, that would also provide a common
set of ground rules. These ground rules will have a "religious"
character. I know Christians differ on this - but I will argue that
Christians who adopt naturalism as their "ground rules" are shooting
themselves in the foot.>>
Cannot agree -- several points. The "providence of God" is certainly
different for my Hindu colleague -- and for my atheist colleague -- and
certainly for my pantheist colleague! Etc. No way we could get together
on a set of presuppositions! Definitions of words are a
difficult task at best; this makes the job impossible!
Why scientists who are Christians are foot shooters escapes me.
>> JB 4. It works well.
DT I could argue that the only scientific philosophy with a good track
record is based on Christian presuppositions. This would see the
development of the scientific revolution in Europe as a fruit of a
biblical worldview. When in history does the track record of
naturalism start? I'm not sure I can answer that - as numerous
scientists in this century have been willing to associate themselves
with the Christian worldview.>>
It is perfectly OK for a scientist "to associate himself with a Christian
worldview." And numerous have done so. But not as part of the "science game."
The "track record of "scientific MN" began 300 BC or so.
>> JB 5. It is so commonly accepted that those who flaunt it are
liable to be ignored or ridiculed. This is just a fact.
DT There is no doubt that naturalistic scientists form "the
establishment" in contemporary science - and are vociferous in
defending their position. I see no reason why this should affect our
thinking. This is not a reason for accepting the status quo and
working within it - our task is to promote what we consider to be
right.>>
First, I misused "flaunt," meant "flout." Thanks to one reflector lurker
who knows English better than I! <G>
Second, we have here a system that works a certain way. You are
free to go at the problems of science anyway you wish.
If the Geisler/Phil Johnson arguments get enough attention,
that will happen. Such attention (WITHIN SCIENCE) is
not very likely. Such attention OUTSIDE SCIENCE, i.e. in
Philosophy, happens all the time.
The arguments of the ASA in the TEACHING SCIENCE book
are (IMO) right on target. They need to be understood and
distributed.
The arguments of Dwkins, Gould, Sagan, etc., who
transfer the MN of science to a philosophical MN
need o be examined and argued against as such. Because
science is done under the MN presupposition, it is
simply not able to say anything meaningful about the
purpose(s) of humanity -- about God (or no God). And
the students need to understand this.
Burgy