Daniel Smith
Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2007,20:48) | At any rate, your position is that God is the author of the world, including the biological world, in all of its detail, complexity, and apparent design. I appreciate that frankness; so often advocates of ID are coy to the point of dishonesty about the commitments that motivate their position.
However, that isn't a notion amenable to scientific investigation, because God can do anything, in any order, at any time, outside the constraints of natural law, and hence no empirical test can be devised to put this notion to empirical test. This simple fact leaves us no choice but to pursue biological and evolutionary science within the constraints of methodological naturalism, regardless of the personal spiritual beliefs of the investigator. Fortunately this powerful epistemology has yielded countless active and productive lines of research that daily increase our understanding of the history and nature of the biological world - including the facts we all find quite astounding. |
I sympathize with your frustration over my "goddidit" explanation. I feel the same way about natural selection: Often NS is presented as if it can do anything and everything. If something works, it's because of natural selection; and since pretty much everything works, natural selection becomes this all-powerful entity that can build anything - a lot like God. In fact the two are essentially interchangeable - they both explain everything and therefore explain nothing. What's needed are direct observations. But since we cannot directly observe God or macroevolution, we must look at what we can observe and see if it matches the evidence. Fortunately for us, natural selection can be observed. Natural selection needs to be put to the test to assay it's capabilities in the real world. This is why I have so much respect for scientists like Leo Berg: he spent years, up to his waist, in rivers and streams, observing natural selection in action. He felt that it was not up to the task. How many scientists today experimentally verify the ability of NS to produce or conserve innovations? Probably not many since most take it's capabilities for granted.
Also, when people say that science cannot investigate God or the supernatural, that's not entirely correct. Science can (and does) investigate claims of supernatural activity - so long as the supernatural activity is supposed to have affected the physical world. If for example, someone claims that "a ghost" is moving a chair, science can investigate and see if the evidence fits the claim. More than likely, science will find that some other force is actually moving the chair (if it moves at all), but sometimes they might find no natural explanation. They can then conclude that the evidence does not rule out the ghost explanation - though they can never actually verify that it is really a ghost. The same goes for design theories. If these theories make claims that God affected the natural world, the evidence (the natural world) can be examined to see whether or not it is consistent with such claims. One thing that design theories pretty much all do is use the most observed designer - man - and his designs as a template for what they expect to find when looking for design in nature. That's what I do. Of course, if the design theory postulates a God of infinite intelligence, it would expect to find designs that are infinitely more sophisticated than man's. This is what I expect as well. So when I examine the evidence, is that what I find? Yes, that is exactly what I find. I find complex intricate systems analogous (but far superior) to power plants, factories with automated assembly lines, communication networks, super highway systems, waste management (with recycling!), and on and on. Does that mean that science has proven there is a God? No, it only proves that the physical world is consistent with the design theory and that it cannot be ruled out. Are such systems within the capabilities of RM+NS? You tell me.
-------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|