>Therefore, if there is no real limitation of science to study the *effect*
>of an
>Intelligent Designer on the natural world, but Intelligent Design continues
>to be ruled out of consideration anyway, then what is really being maintained
>is not methodological naturalism but *metaphysical* naturalism.
but in order to study the effect of an intelligent designer, you have to
presuppose one such exists. And then you have to figure out how to define
and detect inteligent design. Then you have to figure out how to test for
that effect. Have the proponents of intelligent design been able to do that?
>This is exemplified by leading biologists like Harvard's Richard Lewontin
>dropping all pretence and stating dogmatically in the New York Review of
>Books that an *absolute* materialism must be maintained. . .
>". . . .
>Moreover, THAT MATERIALISM IS ABSOLUTE, FOR WE CANNOT
>ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.
yes. If you can say "the fairies did it" you don't have a reason to inquire
further. Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
pending new evidence. "Divine feet" tend to be pretty final. The earth can
cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period."
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/