Replies

When Lewontin says,

We take the side of science in spite of ... Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

he is simply a scientist admitting two things that many religionists have known for a long time. FIRST, that evolution vs. creationism is NOT science vs. religion: it is one religion against another. SECOND, that scientists are consummate hypocrites about the first.

First, for Lewontin & Johnson to call it "materialism" is a bad choice. Johnson has said that "naturalism" is synonymous with what he calls "materialism", so I'll use that term. Naturalism really only means the lawfulness & fundamental consistency & predictability of nature. After all, a miracle is precisely the suspension of natural laws, presumably by a person who lives in some kind of "super"-natural realm with the power to suspend the laws of nature in our lumpen universe.

Even with just the one paragraph you & Johnson are quoting, it looks like that's precisely the point that Lewontin is making.

So, Kyrie, if natural laws could be suspended by these otherworlders whenever they feel like it, then what would happen to science? This would happen: Only wizards would be the "true" scientists. Proper science would consist of knowing the right incantations & prayers to the right supernatural people needed for us to suspend natural laws when we need them to be.

There is no other form that true science could take if naturalism were false. What other form could science take if Johnson is correct?

So, Kyrie, if natural laws could be suspended by these otherworlders whenever they feel like it, then what would happen to science?

Did you even read the entire article? Nobody has suggested that the laws of nature need to be "suspended". What Dr. Johnson and others are contesting is the view that nature and ONLY nature is capable of and responsible for biological diversity.

So, Kyrie, if natural laws could be suspended by these otherworlders whenever they feel like it, then what would happen to science?

I don't see the problem here. If the natural physical laws are changed, the scientific theory would have to change in order to describe the new properties of the phenomena in question. (assuming these changes in laws don't make the universe fly apart and kill us all) Moreover, good scientists can't make definitive, incontrovertible claims about universal law, as natural science is a tentative, inductive endeavour, much like engineering and invention.