FloydLee
Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
Okay, let's also bring up another major topic today.
Back on page 2, Someotherguy asked,
| Quote | | doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible. In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology? |
To which I replied,
| Quote | The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.
You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science. You won't see public claims of:
"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."
"Physics is a completely mindless process..."
"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."
"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."
No. No sir. These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. |
And of course, that remains true. Nobody was able to find a meteorology/physics/chemistry/astronomy/etc textbook that denies teleology. Such textbooks are silent on the issue. Only evolution publicly preaches NT-NCF. All the time, too.
So the rationale then offered, were various statements to the effect of:
| Quote | | Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. --- Reed |
| Quote | | .....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman |
Now, notice what is happening here. This particular line of argument does NOT deny---(check it out for yourself baby)---this particular line of argument does NOT deny that the Big Five Incompatibilities are true regarding evolution.
Instead, the idea is to water down the force of the Big Five by claiming that "all of science" does the Big Five as well.
Now, as we've seen, that claim can NOT be established by going straight to science textbooks and searching for Big Five pronouncements therein, so the only other move left to make is to try to establish the claim via methodological naturalism, as summarized by (for example)Reed's and Deadman's statements above.
******
But there's a problem. Do you really KNOW that "supernatural causes" are "automatically excluded" from "all of science"?
The answer is: Nope, you do NOT know that. At all.
| Quote | "In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.
"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.
"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."
--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149, |
******
And there's something else. Reed's and Deadman's statements absolutely depend on using the philosophy of methodological naturalism to define what science is.
The next post shows why that dependence is wrong.
FloydLee
|
