[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

then science would no longer be science - it'd be philosophy and/or theology and/or navel-lint contemplation.

Exactly my point, King! I suspect the far majority of scientists just want to do their work and have no motive to do politics, ideology, philosophy or theology under the color of science.

But then there are the Pinkers, Singers, Dawkins and Lewontins who press the philosophy of naturalism beyond methods to metaphysics:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar 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. - Lewontin On this forum - and among conservatives, the far majority to which I belong, believe that God exists, that His only begotten son - by whom and for Him everything was made - was enfleshed, died on a Cross and was resurrected on the third day and even now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven - that all of this heaven and earth will be replaced by the new heaven and earth.

We also mostly all believe He turned water into wine, made the blind see, healed the sick, raised the dead, was born of a virgin, walked on water and so on.

Considering all of these miracles which we believe, why we we doubt other miracles recorded in Scripture?

Moreover, in my case, since I have walked with the Lord for nearly 50 years now and know Him personally - why would I ever entertain a philosophy which denies His existence on "practical" grounds?

[King Prout]

those who believe in fluffy pink unicorns can believe whatever they want, philosophize however they want, without need for corrupting empirical science to suit their fancy.

that is the point: they already have their own little stomping grounds.

empirical science is rooted in rigidly following the evidence. that is its central definitional axiom. Another is that a specific chain of events will produce consistent results through repeated iterations. A corollary of that second axiom is that if a specific chain of events produces an anomalous result, that anomaly is evidence of a cause which can be empirically ferreted out and brought into scientific understanding.

These defining axioms lead to little things like "an object at rest or in motion remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an external force" and "energy output never exceeds energy input", and a myriad other such little things like that which allow us to understand how physical systems work in an applicable manner. Things which neither philosophy nor theology have never managed to accomplish.

and that is ALL that science aspires to do: explain the function of physical systems.

"Miracles" of the sort to which Lewontin refers, if they ever occur, are by their nature not vulnerable to empirical study. There'd be no point in attempting to explain them because -again, assuming they happen- they'd be in direct violation of the second naturalistic axiom listed above.

And, dismissing the charitable assumption, there is no evidence that such miracles in fact occur.
Plenty of testimony and apocrypha, sure.
Much of which is sincere. A lot of it faked. A lot of it contradictory.
Roswell with a halo, if you will.

Unless and until there is *evidence*, science must treat miracles as unsubstantiated assertions. What science must NOT do is allow anyone to get lazy, to insert "and then, some unknown event of unknown character at an unknown location and time caused untraceable and unevidenced effects which led to such-and-such observed result" any time the empirical process stumps them.

Philosophers, theologians, and navel-fetishists have that luxury.
Scientists do not, and must not.
Cewrtainly not just to make anempiricists all snug and comfy in their respective fantasies.

The insistence that empirical science abandon its essential nature to suit their sport is not simply stupid, but rude, vain, and greedy.

[xzins]

Excellent reply, sister.

Why would I deny my King who saved me? There is no reason to...certainly not from the likes of Lewontin. (What a great quote; another of those that shows clearly that there is a group that sees science as antithetical to faith.) I realize that most do no see such a disconnect, but it is important to note the radical materialists when they show themselves.