Joined: June 2006
|Quote (franky172 @ April 23 2007,10:29)|
Dr. Dembski is upset with the ASA's choice to concern itself with young earth creationism. He opines:
|If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe,|
But Dr. Dembski has already missed the point. The problem with young earth creationism is not that it is off in it's estimation of the age of the earth. The problem with YEC is that it propogates apologetics in the name of science, and that it makes conclusions not based on the scientific evidence available to it, but based on what it's proponents consider proper biblical readings. Succinctly, the problem with YEC is not that it is wrong, the problem is that YEC is not even wrong precisely because it lacks an underpinning of methodological naturalism.
|the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.|
Methodological naturalism is a tool that forms the underpinnings of scientific inquiry - it is not a philosophical position on the nature of the universe. I do not know why Dr. Dembski finds this so difficult to understand.
Yeah, Dembski mistakes methodology for philosophy, and compares it to empirically falsified non-facts. He's basically saying, "The YECs may have their empirical facts wrong, but scientists have their metaphysics wrong!"
But of course, philosophy is all that Dembski knows. When all you have is a hammer, it's hard to understand the idea behind screws.
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot