>But in the real world, science simply rules out anything that looks
>like teleology or theology. Consider a couple of citations from
>working scientists:
>
>"Science, fundamentally is a game. It is a game with one overriding and
>defining rule: Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can
>explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of
>purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."
>- Richard Dickerson, JME 34:277.
Glenn:
>You are ignoring the effect of the Big Bang and the anthropic principle in
>astronomy. Astronomers are seeing evidence of a creator in the big bang.
>"Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains
>that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join 'the First Church of
>Christ of the Big Bang." ~ Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, (Colorado
>Springs: NavPress, 1993), p. 20
>I know that Fred Hoyle has complained about the religion of the big bang.
>Tipler wrote a book in which he postulated that physics would become the
>new religion, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (New York:
>Doubleday, 1994),
>Somewhere these scientists are seeing some evidence that supports theology.
I agree. We can even add biochemist Michael Behe to this list. But see
below.
>"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis
>is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
>
>- Scott C. Todd, Nature 401:423.
Glenn:
>It is hard to exclude God when there is a big bang and no one can know what
>is behind that event.
I agree again. And let's not forget that it was the Judeo-Christian
theology that asserted time had a beginning long before modern
science was born.
Me:
>If science was truly open to explanations that invoked God, we would
>be able to find some articles published where these cases were being
>made and debated in the scientific literature.
Glenn:
>WE do, see John D. Barrow Frank J. Tipler THE ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL
>PRINCIPLE New York: Oxford University Press, 1986
>Paul DAvies, The Accidental Universe
>Such books do discuss the possibility of a divine observer.
Yes, but these are books. That is, any teleological or theological
conclusions one gets from science must be explored in something
analogous to an "alternative press." And while many science books
are published, the true arena of science is found in the scientific journals,
the scientific meetings, and the universities. It is here where you will
find the censorship. Do you know of any journal article where a theological
or teleogical conclusion is proposed in the discussion section? Do you
know of any scientific meeting where papers are presented outlining
data interpreted in light of teleology or theology? Do you know of any
Ph.D. theses that were granted from a science department that draws out
theological or teleological conclusions? Like I said, it's not a question of
how things ought to be. Nor is it a question about the personal judgments
arrived at by individual scientists. It's simply a matter of observing how
scientists go about doing science and the game rules are indeed as
Dickerson and Scott outline.
>Quantum leads one to either need an ultimate observer or a belief (equally
>based upon faith) of a many-world's hypothesis.
> "If we remove the problem of observership in quantum mechanics by adopting
>a Many-Worlds interpretation as may be mandatory if one is to interpret
>quantum cosmology without introducing the 'Ultimate Observer', then it is
>possible to reduce the Strong Principle to the Weak one." ~ J. D. Barrow,
>"Patterns of Explanation in Cosmology," in F. Bertola and U. Curi, editors,
>The Anthropic Principle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 9.
This nicely illustrates my point. As you note, both the Ulimate Observer
and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis solve this problem. Now, guess which
one *science* favors.
Mike