"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I like the ET example but it is slightly different from what's going
on. ETs should be physical beings that could be proven scientifically.
Many people say they won't believe there is a god unless you can prove
him scientifically then they go on to say that science can only
consider things in the material or natural world. But what if it's true
that god is outside of nature (supernatural)? By definition their
science cannot consider it. To say they won't believe until he is
proven scientifically means it'll never happen. Not very open minded.

I think you're mixing up two different ideas, Gus, and generalizing about
people. It's true that science is about natural explanations to natural
phenomena, and doesn't consider supernatural explanations. But that doesn't
mean that a scientist can't be a believer. Lots of scientists have been and
still are. They do tend more toward deistic, rather than theistic beliefs
(basically, typical deists believe that God wound the world up at the time
of creation and then let it run on its own). But they can be devout
believers.

As scientists, though, they're dealing with a system of thought that is all
about natural explanations. That's how science has developed and it's on
that basis that it produces all of the discoveries we have from science.
Often it's confronted supernatural beliefs and proven them wrong. It doesn't
stop pushing in that direction: it is not anti-theistic, but a-theistic, in
the sense that it ignores the question. The question is not relevant to its
internally consistent system.

You seem to be asking a reasonable question that many devout believers ask:
What if science is wrong? What, indeed. Firstly, asking that question is
challenging science itself as a system -- a challenge that will be dismissed
by most scientists because the proofs and evidences of science have gotten
us where we are now. In other words, science works, and a supernatural
explanation would be an assertion that it doesn't work.

However, in an absolute sense, it's legitimate to question whether science
can produce certain answers. But you should do that from *without* science,
because you're questioning fundamental axioms of science itself. You're
proposing a system that asserts itself as an alternative to science.

There's nothing wrong with making the challenge. It can be argued from
outside of science, as a matter of reason and evidence, or on whatever terms
you wish.

What is grating about ID is that it is trying to masquerade as science
itself, undermining the system by pretending to be part of the team. It's
not an honest challenge. It's trying to become a mole.

--
Ed Huntress