Replies

While I appreciate the concern for my gastronomic weaknesses, the issue can't be waved away that easily. "Science" today constantly erogates to itself the right to make cosmological statements on the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the mechanism by which life has developed. All one has to do is listen to the stuff coming from Dawkins and some of the Dawkins type wannabees here or in any internet discussion to see this is so. These scientists DO need an epistemological spanking, and their arrogance is just ALMOST (although not quite) up to that of some fundamentalists who should know better than to argue about things beyond their ken. Just like a fundy will think himself ready for the fray after reading a Jack Chick tract on "evolution," a big sector of the "science" community insist that they have a right to define the phisolosphical substrate which limits the boundaries acceptable models for the above areas simply because they are scientists.

The DIFFERENCE between the two statements you quoted above is that one of the two will admit that the naturalistic presuppositions of many scientists are not demanded by science itself. There is NO scientific reason why the world cannot be explored from a presupposition that the supernatural is reldolent in it, and sometimes has broken forth into it. Within that viewpoint, there would not be the kind of mocking sneering caustic assumptions about, for example....., sweet little me.

If you want to follow us by pointing out that if Christians really beleived what they teach they would be honest and humble and gracious in discussions like this, I would probably get a bit red in the face and admit you are right.

However, when we get thru the ad hominems, it is all about whether science demands naturalistic presuppositions in its attempt to define the world, life, origins, etc. I say "NO" it does not. And to insist that it does is not "science" at all.

"Science" today constantly erogates to itself the right to make cosmological statements on the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the mechanism by which life has developed.

That's because natural sciences are willing to look at historical evidence, and exptrapolate backwards in time. We call this process induction, and it is fundamental to all natural sciences, and almost all practical reasoning. Are you also down on astronomy and geology? What sciences ARE you going to allow us to keep? Crystal healing theory and crop circle theory?

All one has to do is listen to the stuff coming from Dawkins and some of the Dawkins type wannabees here or in any internet discussion to see this is so.

Dawkins, or anyone's, opinions on the subject of metaphysics are not part of the curriculum vitae of science.

The DIFFERENCE between the two statements you quoted above is that one of the two will admit that the naturalistic presuppositions...................

You should re-read what you wrote a little more critically--neither of the scientists you are invisioning have made intrasigent naturalistic shutout claims, just as would be the case with about 99+% of any scientists you might actually query. Scientists you might actually query, would point out that science makes no assumptions, good, bad or ugly, about indetectable metaphysical explanations. Science does claim that it is only about proximate physical causes for events, because that's all science is capable of, since science can only operate on detectable evidence, not indetectable evidence. Whatever the means by which you might investigate indetectable evidence, science does not have a negative, or positive opinion about it, science only knows that it isn't within science's sphere of competence.

However, when we get thru the ad hominems,

A relevant insult is not an ad hominem, an irrelevant insult is.

it is all about whether science demands naturalistic presuppositions in its attempt to define the world,

Well, this is entertaining, at least. Pray tell, what manner of science is it you think you can do regarding metaphysical phenomenon for which there is no tangible physical evidence? What do you think science can operate on, other than evidence? You are aware that being unable to explain something is not an open and shut demonstration that it is a metaphysical phenomenon, right? Maybe not.

life, origins, etc. I say "NO" it does not. And to insist that it does is not "science" at all.

That's utter hogwash. The Big Bang, gradual abiogensis, and the details of the origin of the earth are unexceptional grist for the science mill, just as is plate tectonics, stellar evolution, and the existence of dinosaurs. Just because something happened far in the past doesn't make it automatically a scientificlly inaccessable trespass on metaphysical or theological territory, your pouting about it to the contrary notwithstanding. If there's morphologically coherent evidence we can read as a vector back into the past, that's a science, and not a particularly unusual science, either.