On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:52:46 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>SJ>...So you don't claim that "science must be methodologically
>naturalistic to be science at all"?
LH>Nope. MN is used by most science most of the time, but I do not
>think it is a _necessary_ feature of science. It wasn't in the
>past, and it need not be so in the present or the future. I've got
>half a dozen posts in the archives talking about this in greater
>length and more carefully.
Good. I will call upon you as an ally when I get told by your TE
colleagues that:
"Science qua science seeks naturalistic explanations for all natural
processes...for better or worse, we have inherited a view of science
as methodologically atheistic." (Murphy N., "Phillip Johnson on
Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin," Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith, 45, March 1993, pp26-36).
>LH>...When a scientist says that evolution is a "mindless,
>purposeless process..." she has stepped outside the bounds of
>science. When a scientist says that evolution is a "system which
>God designed, sustained, and guided..." she has stepped outside the
>bounds of science.
SJ>Not if "science" is defined as your National Academy of Sciences
>has defined it, namely "naturalistic":
LH>I'm working on that! Give me a chance! ;-)
OK. But let's backtrack. If "MN is...not...a _necessary_ feature of
science" then why is "When a scientist says that evolution is a
"system which God designed, sustained, and guided..." she has
stepped outside the bounds of science"?
SJ>I repeat: I do not claim that all "SCIENTISTS" believe that
>"evolution is a mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process"
>but that "THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING of evolution is that it is a
>mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process".
LH>All scientists would agree that the "... stochastic process ..."
>description is a scientific understanding. NOT all scientists would
>agree that the "... mindless, purposeless ..." description is
>scientific. I dare bet MOST professional philosophers of
>science would agree that the "... mindless, purposeless ..." description
>is BEYOND scientific.
This is focusing on what *individual* scientists believe. The point
I am making is that "THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING of evolution" ie.
the official view of science as a whole (as evidenced through their
peak representative bodies (eg. the National Academy of Sciences),
is that evolution "is a mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural
process".
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------