>This ought to stir up some responses. :-)
>
>Allen Roy
>
>IMPACT No. 293 <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-293.htm>
>
>
> SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM AS SCIENCE
>
> by Larry Vardiman *
>
> Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021
> Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469
>
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation" November 1997
> Copyright © 1997 All Rights Reserved
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Current Attitude
>
>The current attitude in the academic and scientific community is that
>science and religion are completely incompatible. It is believed that
>science is a system of knowledge based on experimentation, observation, and
>logic. Religion, on the other hand, is viewed as a system of faith based on
>myth, culture, and self-delusion. A researcher is allowed to have a personal
>religion, but he should never permit it to affect his work or he will no
>longer be considered a legitimate scientist.
>
>In a recent court case involving the right of the ICR Graduate School to
>teach science from a Biblical perspective, a physics professor from
>California State University at Long Beach testified that if Isaac Newton
>were on the school's faculty today, his position on creation would prevent
>the school from being recognized by the State of California. This professor
>objected to statements such as the following in Mathematica Principia
>where Newton said:
>
> This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could
> only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
> powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of
> the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He
> is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.1
>
>When questioned how this professor could make such a statement about one who
>is recognized as possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, he replied
>that if Isaac Newton persisted in maintaining a creationist position as he
>did in Mathematica Principia, knowing what we know today, he would not be
>recognized as a credible scientist.2
>
Well, I'm afraid I cannot resist saying something in
defense of Sir Isaac ;-).
There is no doubt that Newton was a creationist.
Whether he would be so today is another question
entirely of course. There is also no doubt that
Newton was everything that the ICR is not and
using him as some sort of ICR supporter is
really repulsive.
Anyway, Newton considered his scientific work to
represent a much clearer argument for design than
the biological contrivances of the Paley type
argument and he encouraged the use of his work
in apologetics. In a letter to Richard Bentley
Newton wrote:
#"When I wrote my treatise upon our Systeme I had
# an eye upon such Principles as might work with
# considering men for the belief of a Deity and
# nothing can rejoice me more than to find it
# useful for that purpose"-- Newton
But unlike the approach being suggested by Vardiman,
Newton kept theological and metaphysical beliefs
separate from the science, for example he wrote:
#"Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly
# according to certain laws; but whether this agent
# be material or immaterial I have left to the
# consideration of my readers" -- Newton
Also, the quote of Newton given by Vardiman above
comes in a very short section at the very end of
the <Principia>. A couple of pages over from the
quote given we find (actually its the next to last
paragraph of Principia):
#"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the
# cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena,
# and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not
# deduced from the phenomena is to be called an
# hypothesis; and hypothesis, whether metaphysical
# or physical, whether of occult qualities or
# mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
# In this philosophy particular propositions are
# inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered
# general by induction." -- Newton
Now, I can well imagine that modern philosophers of
science might find this statement rather naive :-),
<"What does philosophy got to do with measuring
<anything?" -- Galileo
but the point I'm making here is that Newton would
have been very much opposed to the approach to
"science" that is suggested by Vardiman in this
article.
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University