I have no problem with science per se being concerned with the "non-miraculous." The division of the world into the "natural and supernatural" as though the natural world just chugs along on its own is a product of rationalism, not science. I believe that the majesty of God is exercised (in fact, I believe it is DEMANDED) by the complexity and order of the universe. This was the world of some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known.
I object to scientists attempting to do a bait and switch and talk about issues outside their domeain and call it "science."
Please see my response to Thatcherite for a slightly more treanchant statement of that point.
I have no problem with science per se being concerned with the "non-miraculous." The division of the world into the "natural and supernatural" as though the natural world just chugs along on its own is a product of rationalism, not science. I believe that the majesty of God is exercised (in fact, I believe it is DEMANDED) by the complexity and order of the universe. This was the world of some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known. Generally, I agree with you. Notice, however, that the above in no way conflicts with Darwin's theory. Nor does the above imply what people like Dembski and Behe call "intelligent design."
I object to scientists attempting to do a bait and switch and talk about issues outside their domeain and call it "science."
I agree, though I think most scientists do respect the boundaries of their discipline. The Dawkins of the world are a tiny minority.
Please see my response to Thatcherite for a slightly more treanchant statement of that point.,
I'd like to take a look at it. Would you mind giving me a post number?