Now we are getting closer. We both agree with this statement. The question is this: why, exactly, is he biased to find 'natural' explanations? I would argue that within the grounds that train scientists, one is taught that they MUST evaluate evidence, and MUST do so exclusive to any other forms of inquiry.
Your average scientist would, gently, point out that evidence for miracles does not exist, has never existed, and all scientific investigations of miracles have produced inconclusive evidence at best, and proof of fraud the vast majority of the time. Miracles can't be disproven, yes. But evidence for them doesn't exist at all - given the premise of how one defines the scientific method is agreed upon, and I speak in that general sense.
Unless I miss my mark, two types of science exist: that kind exploring stuff that is happening now. And forensic science ... stuff that happened then, but the cause is no longer present. I.D. is forensic science ... they don't credit God. I'm comfortable with I.D., b/c I'm full aware that the Universe is a big place. And I.D. doesn't EXCLUDE God either.
But, I think I can now see where we are going, for I had said:
"By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?"
And your reply:
Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
This connects to a thread I posted earlier:
Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’ .... "...if it became part of science" .... to finish Provine's comment.
When I posted this thread, what I was really looking at was how weak the MSM sounded regarding the position of the scientists. Now, I'm actually relooking at the 'death' of science ... and what does that imply happens to the 'scientists'? I had thought the death comment was ridiculous hyperbole. But now I am not so sure.
It is one of the few times within the fight the MSM sounds alot like a religion I practice - born again Christianity. There, death as a word is used a lot. But being born again is spoken of too...; but the scientists don't see that part. That is why many of the sidebars of the major news outlets have 'Science', 'Sports', 'News', 'Entertainment' ... but not 'Religion'.
Faith and Reason were decoupled, curiosity, when roughly? Mid 1800's? Your comment about what a scientific idea tangibly is is based upon the recent idea that the decoupling was VALID.
You have fully accepted the arguments about what science actually should consist of, and what it should exclude. How did this happen to you exactly? (and for my own frame of reference, I am asking myself what exactly happened that I overrode my own decoupling, and recoupled them? That happened in July 2001 - for if on a rational basis, all that happened was that I suffered a mental collapse into irrationality, well then some clever scientists should have written about what 'causes' that too...; and I'm open to looking at that).
Anyway, I think we're getting into positivism and neo-positivism now, btw; but maybe not.
In short, it seems to me I.D. simply cannot be called 'science', as 'science' is currently defined, according to you.
So, the ID/Evo fight seems to me to be a political fight over who has sovereignty over what the word 'science' means, in the end.
It is going to be interesting, very interesting to see what the courts say about that sovereignty. But I can guess ... they'll apply the same rationale they applied in RvWade.
This means, in the court rooms at least, scientists have little to fear about I.D. being taught as 'science' in the public classrooms of the USA. These 11 'parents' are going to win this fight. Roberts himself said it: his 'faith' is decoupled from his reason, so the good Democratic senators have nothing to fear. And look at the votes he got! (I think I'm in the minority in my concern about him ... for now.)
Let's hope so! Kids have enough crappy teaching to wade through without having to deal with things like ID, Phrenology and Astrology in their science classes.
Because finding the natural explanations of natural phenomena has proven extremely useful. Inovking the supernatural is, in a sense, giving up on finding a natural explanation. This is dangerous, however, because you can't ever rule out the possibility that there is a natural explanation you haven't thought of. If you simply throw up your hands and invoke the supernatural, you risk missing an important discovery.
I would argue that within the grounds that train scientists, one is taught that they MUST evaluate evidence, and MUST do so exclusive to any other forms of inquiry
I agree, expect with one proviso: this only applies to knowledge about the physical world. Metaphysics is an equally important area of study, to which the scientific method is wholly inapporpriate.
Miracles can't be disproven, yes. But evidence for them doesn't exist at all - given the premise of how one defines the scientific method is agreed upon, and I speak in that general sense.
I don't know if that's true. There are plenty of phenomena that have occurred in the past (Lanciano, Lourdes, etc) that have some scientists convinced they are miraculous.
But in a sense, I see the point you're getting at. A scientist should never simply accept a supernatural explanation and should continue searching for a natural one.
However, I would argue that this attitude is only there for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. You want scientists to only look for natural explanations because you never want them to give up. It is very much possible that a phenomenon thought to be miraculous will turn out to have a natural explanation which has lots of practical applications. On a personal level, however, when considering whether to accept a religion, I think it is wholly appropriate to take seriously the fact that certain phenomena do appear to be miraculous, though it would be dangerous to make them the sole basis of one's faith.
I'm comfortable with I.D., b/c I'm full aware that the Universe is a big place.
Are you comfortable with the fact that IDers accept common descent of man and apes and a Universe billions of years old? The ID models proposed by Behe, Dembski, and Denton are no more compatible with a literalist reading of Genesis than is standard evolutionary theory.
And I.D. doesn't EXCLUDE God either.
Neither does Darwinian evolution. Note, I say Darwinian evolution, because most ID models postulate an evolution of sorts as well.
Faith and Reason were decoupled, curiosity, when roughly?
I don't think they were ever decoupled, at least not among Catholic and non-fundamentalist Protestants.
You have fully accepted the arguments about what science actually should consist of, and what it should exclude. How did this happen to you exactly?
I see that the modern definition of science produces results, and I see how introducing supernatural hypotheses like ID into science can discourage research.
BTW, I think I was a bit imprecise about the scientific acceptability of ID. The IDers do make some claims that are scientifically invalid, such as their claim that an irreducibly complex biological system cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. This assertion has in fact been disproven in the lab.
I would say that science cannot disprove (indeed, can never disprove) the proposition that the unvierse is designed, or that God guided the process of evolution.
I'll leave you with just two thoughts:
First, don't confuse methodological naturalism with philsophical naturalism. Scientists only seek out natural explanations in their methods simply for the pragmatic reason that it's always useful to keep searching for one. This does necessarily imply that the supernatural does not exist. At most, it merely implies that supernatural events are rare enough so that a natural explanation is very likely to exist for the vast majority of the phenomena we see, and hence it is always worthwhile to continue searching for the natural explanation.
Second, reason and faith cannot be decoupled and cannot be in opposition. Yes, science and faith are decoupled in the sense that the scientific method cannot investigate supernatural phenomena. (Of course, they are not decoupled in the sense that scientists must adhere to certain ethical standards, which faith has a great deal to say about). However, it is essential to note that science is not the sole means by which we use reason. For example, metaphysics and moral philsophy are extremely important areas of inquiry for which the modern scientific method is wholly inadequate. These are areas where both faith and reason are required and cannot be decoupled.