Replies

So it's a "scientific" theory that makes no predictions, and has no explanitory power past "god did it," without knowing who's god or how, and can't answer the "when" question even to within *6 orders of magnitude*!!! I hope I've got that straight.>>>

So, IF physical evidence points to a non-empirical entity (not arguing that point at present, just laying down the supposition), we should reject it because by definition the non-empirical entity is beyond the scientfic method? Who slipped that assumption in while I was not looking? This is prejudice, cold and solid, and has nothing to do with science itself. It is a rigid insistence that reality be defined as ONLY that which is observable, quantifiable, and explainable. Hold that if you wish, but don't ask me to call it "science." It ain't.

No, not that *reality* be defined by that which is observable, quantifiable, and explainable, but that *science* be. Going on your assumption again that creationism turned out to be true by some miracle, what should then happen is that origins part of biology be removed from science and be studied elsewhere. For the same reasons we don't study history or philosophy in science class, not because it isn't true, but because it can't be addressed using the scientific method.

This wouldn't mean it's wrong, it would just mean that because it involves something unknowable, it is outside of science, too big for science to ever grapple with, so it is dealt with elsewhere. Plenty of things are beyond science... science isn't the center of all knowledge, it is a limited and well understood process to studying things within its realm, but inapplicable outside its reach.

So, IF physical evidence points to a non-empirical entity (not arguing that point at present, just laying down the supposition), we should reject it because by definition the non-empirical entity is beyond the scientfic method? Who slipped that assumption in while I was not looking?

It's probably just your eccentric use of terminology, but either I'm confused, or you are.

Science, including the variety which you seem to think is rigidly wed to invoking only "empirical entities," in fact invokes non-empirical entities (even if to explain empirical facts) all the time.

It's damn near standard practice to propose a scientific mechanism well before there's the slightest direct, empirical evidence its physical embodiment. For instance "genes" were proposed, and widely accepted by scientists, years anyone knew what they actually were in a physical sense, and before DNA was even discovered, let alone before it's structure was understood. And genes were entirely useful even when they were nothing but an idea. Ineed much of basics of the science of genetics was worked before anyone could point to a gene.

There are also scientific mechanisms which have no physical embodiment strictly speaking. Natural Selection itself would be an example.

I think you're confusing scientific methodology (and even there only very limited aspects thereof are solely "empirical") with the "entities" that science invokes.

In short you can invoke any kind of "entity" in science whatever. There really aren't any rules about that. It can be as prosaic or as wild as you like. The important factor is the functional characteristics of the theory or principle in which the entity (or mechanism, or whatever) is embedded. Does it explain the relevant phenomena? Does it explain facts that competing theories don't? Is it "fruitful of knowledge" in that it functions effectively in delineating and framing new problems for research? Does it have deducible implications as to what facts (ideally as yet unconsulted) must be the case if the theory is true, and what factual observations would indicate that the theory is false?

And so on. I highlight the bit about "deducible implications" as this is the main problem with your desire for "non-empircal entities," by which you seem to really mean entities which are non-natural, that is not constrained by the laws of nature. If your theory includes "entities" or mechanisms which can act pretty much in any way whatever, how do you deduce particular implications?