Replies

I cannot say that S&T News is any kind of friend for ID, nor that it ever would have been. I tried it out and found it resolutely opposed to the very notion of Theology having any dependability for any question whatsoever. The magazine appears designed to destroy whatever credibility theology might have ever had. It should really be named Science trumps Theology News.

You are missing the point completely.

Science is the study of what happens when God does not intervene.
Theology is the study of what happens when God does intervene.

Inteligent Design might be true, but it can never be Science. It is by definition Theology. Therefore is shold never be taught in Science Classes.

If people want to be honest and add Theology classes to public schools, that would be OK with me, but don't debase science.

So9

Inteligent Design might be true, but it can never be Science. It is by definition Theology.

I hasten to quibble. Although I'm highly confident that ID, or anything similar, will never be a useful and successful part of science, I disagree with ruling it out, especially "by definition".

It was once widely agreed, for instance, that "occult forces" involving "action at a distance" were inherently unscientific (or "unphilosophical," this being before the term "science" had been invented). And yet Newton appealed to just such a force -- gravity -- which was rapidly accepted because it demonstrably worked in explaining nature and stimulating new research.

Now I can't imagine how "non-natural" forces or causes could possibly work in natural science. How can you possible deduce empirical consequences from a theory which includes a mechanism that is basically unconstrained, or at least very weakly constrained, in the effects it can produce?

But maybe, just maybe, someone might be able to DEMONSTRATE (anti-evos please note this is what is required!) how such a theory might work and produce genuinely useful results. However unlikely I won't define the possibility, or any similar possibility away.

My philosophical position is that there is no fixed or predefined "nature of science," nor certain set of characteristics to which scientific theories must adhere. (Or rather the characteristics are operational rather than definitional, regarding how theories function as opposed to their inherent characteristics.)

The "nature of science" is determined by the content of science. Before Newton is was part of the nature of science that theories involving the transfer of force appealed exclusively to physical impact between bodies. Newton actually changed the nature of science by producing ideas that were so useful that they had to be accommodated despite their novel character.

I believe you have missed my point completely. I am in total agreement that Theology cannot be falsified by Science, nor can Science be proved through Theology.

What I am saying is that this journal DOES attempt to verify theology using science and that it does so on the presumption that science will trump theology whenever the two are perceived to conflict. I find this prejudicial and possibly bigoted, certainly unintellectual.

Do we still disagree on any point?