I could convince Berlinski who is an agnostic. Or we could see that Anthony Flew who was an atheist recognized design in the structure of cellular life and then became a believer.
Well, you phrased that right - he became a
believer. I believe too, but not because of science.
Right. I was willing to agree with you that you had refuted my test. But I posed your example back to you regarding evolution.
Well, if your test is not valid for design, why would it be valid for evolution?
My question was to you to prove that your definition of science was correct. The simple answer is that it cannot be done since you rely on a definition that was created by consensus and that there is no one correct definition that can be proven scientifically. In other words, the notion of “what is science” is a philosophical proposition which can be subject to change. The definition of what is science cannot be validated as true regarding something in reality that says what science is. It’s a subjective category.
If you decide that you want to use a definition different than that used by scientists, you will have a real hard time getting them to accept that what you are doing is science. If you want to convince them, you have to play by their rules. If you don’t, don’t be upset when things like ID are not considered science.
That was my question. We have authentic, credentialed scientists who say that ID is science. Why am I not free to agree with them?
You can agree with whom ever you wish. It doesn’t make it true, but you are certainly free to do so. You can even agree with scientists who agree with AIG’s statement of faith that says “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” Of course, their “statement of faith” that members of AIG must agree to also says “The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.” Not something a Catholic can support.
But beyond that, I don’t see why the study of astrology cannot be done as a scientific investigation. It’s a matter of studying if one’s birthdate has a discernable effect on personality, etc. That is as much science as many other aspects of psychology.
Sure it is. How about palm reading? Tarot cards? Are they sciences as well?
The fact is, much of science is human interpretation of evidence. That’s evolutionary theory itself. There’s room for debate. Some scientists believe that ID is truly science. You don’t for your own reasons, but I’m not the only one who disagrees with you on that.
Actually, all of science is human interpretation of evidence and of course there is plenty of room for debate. That debate, however, cannot take place if one side of the debate has no evidence to support that side.
Again, you will likely claim that there is evidence, but you haven’t produced any evidence for design. You have suggested ideas that might show design, but no evidence for actual design.
You’ve mentioned this a few times, but I don’t see it as a political issue primarily. Could you explain this more?
The goal of ID is to get creationism back into the science class. From the “Wedge Document”:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
I see that as a contradiction. God used his divine intelligence to create the human soul. Thus, the soul is not a product of natural materials accidentally combining to evolve. This is certainly an element of ID theory that is not reflected in Darwinism.
The soul isn’t something that science can address because it is supernatural. I know of no scientist that has claimed to have developed a test for the soul.
Peace
Tim
