Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality? (was evolution archive list)

Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:11:02 -0600

Steve Jones (I think) wrote:
>But this chain of reasoning depends on *metaphysical* naturalism as a
>basis for its first premise. That science can study only the natural world is
>no reason why science cannot study the *effect* of a supernatural
>Intelligent Designer on the natural world. Science can and does study the
>effects of intelligent design on the natural world, e.g. anthropology,
>forensic science, and SETI. Naturalism even has its own intelligent
>designer origin of life theory called Directed Panspermia!

>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.

studying things like anthropology, forensic science, and SETI presuppose an
intelligent designer against the backdrop of a natural, undesigned world.
That's how Paley could distinguish the designed pocket watch from the rock
to the left of it and the starfish to the right of it.

If the entire universe is designed, it would be undetectible because there
would be nothing undesigned to compare it to.

Sorry, Intelligent Design of the universe is still a religious artifact.

Susan

----------

"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/