Science has no high priests. I already covered this: no Pope, no bishops,
either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this statement doesn't
offend me at all, and it will fit very nicely into a philosophy course,
maybe into philosophy of science. In those courses, it can be talked to
death, as it (apparently) is in this news group. It does also state, quite
clearly, that it is not science although it discusses meta-science. It is
about science, a philosophical approach.
What it doesn't do is teach us how to recognize anything in evolution data
or theory that cannot be explained by natural science and therefore must be
due to the influence of an intelligent designer. What are such criteria?
The mere fact that we don't currently know the natural explanation for
something does not prove that we can't learn the natural explanation. No
one claims the theory of evolution is all wrapped up with nothing left to
learn. Neither is gravity, or continental drift, or nucleogenesis, or stem
cells, or superstring theory or .... In your philosophy class you can also
discuss the nature of scientific theories, what is provable and what is not
provable, as well as religious infallibility. Be sure to discuss which
religion is infallible. Since different religions, by definition, have
different credos, tenets, rites, doctrines, ..., only one can be absolutely
correct and infallible and the others must fall short of perfection. Man,
you will have such a great time!
Clearly philosophy. Thanks for your effort in preparing these words. I
have to go make sawdust.
Steve
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Steve Peterson wrote:
SNIP
So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher should
use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other scientific
theory, has met an impasse, and cannot advance without invoking an
intelligent designer? How about the first lecture of an 8 week section?
I still wait with bated breath. You still the one that wants ID taught
in school? How about giving those poor teachers a little help?
OK:
Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe. It
explains the observed Universe with the *assumption* that it has no
overarching purpose or design and, of necessity, can only be understood
at a detailed mechanical level. One consequence of this is that, when
faced with a non-demonstrable/verifyable
verifiable
theory such as interspecial
interspecies
evolution, today's Science assumes that the indicidental
incidental
evidence
supporting such a view will (in principle) be explained in entirely
reductionst terms in the future. In summary, Science today never
looks outside of the materialist/reductionist methods to explain
what exists.
True. Science is the study of phenomena that exist in nature, that arose
from natural causes and lead to natural consequences. As soon as you
include something that isn't natural you have left the realm of science.
This approach to Science has yielded many practical and demonstrable
benefits. However, it creates an inherent inability for Science to
*ever* speak to the question of "How did it all begin?" There are,
Brian Greene suggests that string theory may address this question. Read
"The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos." These works won't
even tax your mathematical abilities.
however, some meta-Scientific proposals about how we might answer this
question. "Meta-Scientific" usually (but not always) refers to systems
of thought that *accept* the methods of Science as far as they go, but
propose additional ideas about the nature of what brought the Universe
into being initially. Several common Meta-Scientific explanations
include:
- The Universe is itself everlasting - it had no beginning and will have
no end. This position is held by very few people.
- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.
- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it
into being
by an intentional act of creation. This position is suggested (but not
demonstrated) by the vast complexity required to create and sustain life
on Earth. People who hold this position argue that such complexity
could never be achieved by random selection processes and that the
complexity itself is prima facia
prima facie, by my dictionary
evidence for the presence of a
"designer." This position is consistent with most traditional religious
and philosophical schools up through the 20th Century. It is enjoying
a resurgence in the 21st Century as serious questions about the
sufficiency of the materialist/reductionist assumptions of Science have
been raised. There is great resistence to this idea in traditional
Science.
Now - YOU tell us, why on earth this is so doggone offensive to the
high priests of Science defending their educational turf?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/