ID is entirely about inserting religion into science classrooms. It comes in a reasonably clever disguise, but most people know what it is about.When you refer to ID, you continue to allude to the supernatural and religion, but the design inference is not religion-based.
Metaphysics isn’t part of science at all. You can’t make it a part regardless of how many times you repeat that claim. Science is pure and rational. Metaphysics is not pure and rational.For the moment, I will leave the issue about the metaphysical foundations for science. I would have asked you to read, “The Metaphysical Foundations Of Modern Science,” by Burtt, but that would be asking a lot, inasmuch as you have a prior commitment to methodological naturalism and are unlikely to consider another point of view. I wish you would, however, because you would learn why all the great scientists of the past insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” So, I will put this point aside for now and ask you to address the first two points.
Of course really smart people can maintain the necessary separation and still allow themselves to explore areas of mutual enrichment. Objectivity is a discipline that must be learned and perfected over time and really good scientists pursue an objective approach. That doesn’t exclude religion. it just maintains a separation in the formal science. Not many peer reviewed scientific journals are going to publish articles that reference God.Namesake, I understand your impetus toward the “two languages model”, keeping theology and science in hermetically sealed separate compartments. However, let me offer a counter argument.
This weekend I’m participating in a marvelous conference on cosmology and theology, with keynote speaker Father George Coyne, retired director of the Vatican Observatory. In his lecture this morning Father Coyne noted that he conducts his stellar cosmology according to the assumptions of methodological naturalism, just as his Jesuit biologist colleagues employ this assumption in their biological work with evolution. Science and religion are thus separate enterprises, and yet it is possible for them mutually to enrich each other, George Coyne and his Jesuit brothers find that their science is quite relevant to their prayer life as priests.
Petrus
I should hope they wouldn’t!That doesn’t exclude religion. it just maintains a separation in the formal science. Not many peer reviewed scientific journals are going to publish articles that reference God.
There was indeed sharing in the story but what were shared were multiplied by Christ. What is disgusting in the “miracle of sharing” interpretation is putting it against the “miracle of multiplying the food” and presenting it as if it is infallibly factual. That is simply diluting the sacred scripture.That’s exactly right.There is a “miracle explanation industry” out there. My ‘favorite’: Jesus didn’t multiply the loaves and fishes, it was about the “miracle” of sharing. Anything to get you to think that God, the Bible, Christ’s death and resurrection, and everything else in the Bible is allegory, symbolic (another ‘favorite’ of mine) and a bunch of stories with a few good ideas here and there.
Strangely, some people can accept the miracles Christ did, but forget He was there at the creation of the world.
God bless,
Ed
Yes, I know about Fr. Coyne. He was kicked out of the Vatical for his one-sided approach to the issue. I have provided a brief history of methodological naturalism on this site. As I pointed out, it is a recent aberration. I have yet to hear from you on this.Namesake, I understand your impetus toward the “two languages model”, keeping theology and science in hermetically sealed separate compartments. However, let me offer a counter argument.
This weekend I’m participating in a marvelous conference on cosmology and theology, with keynote speaker Father George Coyne, retired director of the Vatican Observatory. In his lecture this morning Father Coyne noted that he conducts his stellar cosmology according to the assumptions of methodological naturalism, just as his Jesuit biologist colleagues employ this assumption in their biological work with evolution. Science and religion are thus separate enterprises, and yet it is possible for them mutually to enrich each other, George Coyne and his Jesuit brothers find that their science is quite relevant to their prayer life as priests.
Petrus
You are misguided on this matter as is evident from the fact that you cannot even describe the methodology that you are criticizing. You simply parrot the politically correct lie that ID is faith based. What do you mean my claim was ridiculous? I WAS QUOTING THESE SCIENTISTS.ID is entirely about inserting religion into science classrooms. It comes in a reasonably clever disguise, but most people know what it is about.
Metaphysics isn’t part of science at all. You can’t make it a part regardless of how many times you repeat that claim. Science is pure and rational. Metaphysics is not pure and rational.
Your claim that all the great scientists of the past were “thinking the thoughts of God after Him” is ridiculous.
I would like to discuss their approach to the subject of evolution with them, but I fear they will not engage me on that matter either. Since they made certain definitive claims about ID, I was hoping to at least bring them out of their shell long enough to discover their rationale. On examination, I find that they have not yet investigated the matter, even to the point of understanding basic definitions and processes. Naturally, I was curious about how they can speak with apodictic certainty on a matter that they know nothing about. When I was doing my graduate work, the standard was to be modest even when one reaches a level of expertise, realizing that the deeper one goes into a subject the harder the questions get. So, I am somewhat flabbergasted to witness this phenomenon of dismissing and evading basic facts that can be easily verified or easily refuted.Alas! Stephen LB, the emperor has no clothes and he really ought to stop running around that way, he will catch his death of cold! Of course metaphorically he has. What evolutionist, true believers, can’t abide is the fact that they can’t sell their bill of goods to the public. Belief in the evolution myth is on the decline in spite of decades of brainwashing of a captive audience in the public schools. On the other hand, Creationism is gaining ground all the time. It has jumped from 42% of the American people to 51% in two years and will soon climb to at least 60%. Creationism’s greatest asset is the utter
irrationality, foaming at the mouth fanaticism, hypocrisy and sheer totalitarianism of evolutionists.