MissileMan
Senior Member
- Sep 11, 2004
- 2,939
- 224
- 48
mom4 said:The pivotal question in the debate between ID and atheistic evolution is: Is it science? Atheistic evolutionists will answer with a resounding No! While ID proponents respond, Of course it is. Thus it behooves us to investigate the definition of science.
The American Heritage dictionary defines science as:
science (s ns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
The NAS states that "cience is a particular way of knowing about the world [whose] explanations are limited to those based on observations that can be substantiated by other scientists" and is a "quest for understanding" to find "better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena". But it goes on to state that "the job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena."
(Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, National Academy Press, 1999)
ID proponents are puzzled by the arbitrary inclusion of the phrase "natural explanations." Why must this be a part of the definition? In fact, it is only in recent decades that it was deemed necessary. Throughout the history of science, scientists were free to arrive at whatever conclusions the data indicated. But now, we must arbitrarily outlaw one possible explanation BEFORE any data are even collected.
AEs urge the acceptance of the idea that ID is not observable or falsifiable. However this is not true. The data for both ID and Evolution are the same. It is merely the conclusions which differ. Therefore, ID and Evolution are equally observable. ID does have the ability to be falsified, whenever future investigations uncover natural laws which better explain the observed data.
There are at least three areas in which ID can offer an explanation, where AEs are stymied: the information contained in the genetic code, the origin of the first cell and replicating DNA system, and irreducibly complex structures. http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nasreview.htm
Scientists like Melvin Morse have found themselves the objects of scorn in the scientific community, even though they are not themselves believers in God. Morse investigated the nature of the near-death experience, taking care to include every physical or psychological explanation for it. His extensive work was ridiculed, not for its methodology, but for its conclusions. Morse states, I admit that the older I get, the more important the spiritual dimension of this is to me. But Im deliberately holding back from dealing with it. Because I know that, once I cross that line, I am no longer a scientist. So Morse despairs of ever finding an explanation for near-death experiences. (Spirited Away, Randall Sullivan, published in Rolling Stone and reprinted in Readers Digest, Feb 2006, p.165) But why is he no longer a scientist?
Even ardent evolutionists like Richard Lewontin admit that supernatural explanations seem to be the most logical in some areas. But he refuses to submit to this, not because of investigation, data, or observation, but solely because of his personal philosophy.
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 an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp
It is obvious that the inclusion of the phrase natural explanations is a stumbling block to true science, stymieing investigation, and stifling debate, and that the reason for this inclusion is subjective and arbitrary, not scientific.
Science is about things that can be measured and observed...always has been, always will be (well, except in Kansas, where they redefined science). Religion was invented specifically to fill the holes in man's knowledge. As that knowledge has increased, religion's role has moved from explaining the mundane to providing a moral compass and a hope for an after-life. IMO, until the divine can be measured and observed, it should remain separated from science, especially in the classroom. Otherwise you wind up with the following type scenarios in school:
Teacher: Class, today we are going to study the flammability of different substances. Touch a burning match to a piece of paper, then touch it to a piece of glass. What have we learned today?
a. Paper is flammable and glass isn't
or
b. Paper and glass are both flammable, but there was an angel keeping the glass from burning.