Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: general_re
The limits of natural science are those of the perceivable, tangible universe. However, if naturalism, which assumes the non-existence or non-relevance of a higher being, is a procedural assumption for a given scientist, has that scientist not started out with a bias? If some evidence exists that indicates that a higher intelligence is necessary to design life forms, is the naturalist not faced with the same dilemma as the young earth creationist who finds evidence that indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
816 posted on 12/21/2004 5:57:25 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies ]


To: Wallace T.
However, if naturalism, which assumes the non-existence or non-relevance of a higher being, is a procedural assumption for a given scientist, has that scientist not started out with a bias?

It's a methodology, not a philosophy. There is no declaration that the universe is an impersonal place, only that it should be treated as an impersonal place unless and until that assumption leads to some contradiction or otherwise proves inadequate. In large part, this is because ascribing material effects to non-material causes doesn't carry much explanatory power along with it. You can easily say "God did it", or "because that's how God wants it" about virtually any aspect of the natural world, but that doesn't really tell you anything you didn't already know. If the question is, for example, "Where does lightning come from?", and the answer is "God did it," well, you're done - your investigation is over, because there's no hook to investigate material causes for this material phenomenon, and hence you don't ever learn anything about the material world beyond the bare fact that it exists and that God is responsible for said existence.

Now, when I said much the same thing on another thread, someone pointed out that you could undertake to investigate how God did these things, and thereby come to investigate the material world. Of course, such an assumption of an external entity does not appear to me to be necessary, nor do I find it plausible that such an assumption would necessarily result in better science, but I think you can do that and still be an honest scientist.

It's a hell of a narrow road to walk, though, because science demands a certain amount of objectivity and intellectual honesty, which may or may not be conducive to maintaining your particular worldview. If you, as a scientist, set out to discover how God brought about the diversity of life on earth, and it begins to look to you like "evolution" is the answer to your question...well, at that point, it may be decision time for you - revise your worldview, or abandon science. Or maybe your worldview is such that evolution being the "how" isn't a problem in the first place - personally, I don't like to tell God what he can and can't do, but that's just me ;)

If some evidence exists that indicates that a higher intelligence is necessary to design life forms...

Here's the problem with all such hypotheticals in this area - nobody has yet managed to explain what the hypothetical evidence would look like. How do we know evidence of ID when we see it? How do we spot intelligent design - especially nonhuman intelligence - in biological structures?

It's one of those questions that looks easy enough to answer at first, but upon closer examination, it proves exceedingly difficult - intractably difficult, in my personal opinion. Maybe you'll have better luck, but the track record thus far is not promising.

824 posted on 12/21/2004 6:35:24 AM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson