>Susan;
>>Neither you nor Stephen have answered
>>my question about what immaterialist-supernaturalist science would look
>>like. For example: what if you wanted to find out what lightening is and
>>what causes it. How would you use the idea of "design" or "immaterialism"
>>to investigate the phenomenon?
>
>Hi Susan,
>An ID scientist would go beyond an explanation of how lightening happens, and
>seek explanations of what purpose it serves in keeping the earth healthy and
>functioning.
this does not even come close to answering my question. So what? Do you
really think climatologists don't already do this? I want to know what an
immaterialist scientist would do to discover how lightening works. I want
to know what would be different.
Let's assume that you, Johnson and Stephen all get your wish and science is
no longer conducted with a materialist-naturalist bias. I want to know how
a scientist would then go about discovering what causes lightening. Any of
you other ID theorists can jump in here and help Bervan out. What would
non-materialist science look like?
>One big difference between ID science and materialist science would be that
>ID science wouldn't have much use for the terms "junk" and "random",
>believing that each piece of nature is an integral part of the whole -- a
>rational part of the design.
woopie. "Junk" DNA is used ironically, it's not intended as an insult. You
don't think scientists aren't already doing this? Figuring out how the
whole thing works together? They are already working on it.
>Also, ID scientists would probably be content to
>leave abiogenesis research ot the materialists.
of course. They are hoping that the darkness of ignorance will leave a
place for their religion to hide. They can no longer say "God throws the
lightning bolts" because we understand very well where lightning comes
from. But they can still say "God created the first prokaryotes" if we are
still ignorant of that subject.
I could probably think of
>other differences. Would you be content to allow to everyone to pursue their
>science according to their individual philosophy?
It would be such an easy out for you to believe that science was trying to
"supress" a viable scientific theory. I think you would prefer jackbooted
thugs pounding on your door to simply being wrong.
>Or are you determined to
>"stamp out" ID? I have no desire to "stamp out" materialism.
The only way either idea can be "stamped out" is to be proved wrong. ID
will never be stamped out because, although it isn't much (in fact it's
nothing but a rhetorical device) it's all the Creationists have got.
and your p.s.:
>A materialists scientist seeks to answer how things happen. An ID scientist
>would seek to answr "why". Materialists don't believe there is a "why".
"materialists" don't care about "why"--other than in the sense of "why does
lightning seem to always occur when there are clouds"--the "why" I assume
you are talking about is a religious, not a scientific question. Answers to
the religious "whys" cannot be verified in any way. They can only be
believed or not, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 03 2000 - 15:21:14 EDT