Ed: We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for theology. For Smith, it better comports with atheology; for Craig, it better comports with theological realism. Regardless, both agree that theology and science are not two non-overlapping spheres, but different knowledge traditions whose claims may overlap at some points. But this is not surprising at all. For example, there are internal disputes in evolutionary biology about a whole array of issues, but no one would conclude (as you have correctly noted on occasion) from the different inferences drawn from the same facts that either scientists dispute evolution qua evolution or that the facts and the inferences are two different subjects. The disagreement between Craig and Smith is a real disagreement about the same subject. Consequently, I look at that disagreement differently than you do. Second, drawing non-scientific inferences from scientific facts (as you understand those terms) occurs quite often in the literature published by some of your allies. You may not agree with these folks; so I don't want be presumptuous in concluding that you do. However, many of us, rightly or wrongly, read these works and are not convinced that folks on your side are holding up your end of the science/non-science bargain. Here is what I mean. Robert T. Pennock writes that ³[S]cience rejects all special ontological substances that are supernatural, and it does so without prejudice, be they mental or vital or divine,.² Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism 324 (MIT Press 1999). But he writes elsewhere that ³Aristotle had held that all species were characterized by some defining essential characteristic that differentiated them from other species, and Darwin¹s discoveries overturned this view forever.² Id, 156. But to say that a particular metaphysical position is overturned forever is to prejudge all future arguments as unsound, that is, to embrace a prejudice. In addition, one cannot reject all non-natural substances without prejudice unless one knows either that non-natural substances cannot in-principle count against Darwinian accounts of the natural world (but that can¹t be, because Pennock says that Darwin¹s discoveries overturned them) or that non-natural substances cannot exist by definition (but in that case, there was nothing for Darwin to overturn). Third, if one draws an inference from scientific premises, and the premises are true and they strongly support (or deductively demonstrate) the conclusion, why would it matter to call the inference "scientific" or "non-scientific"? It seems to me that one would have a good argument that provides support for a conclusion that is more likely true than not. If knowledge is seamless, then the term "science" carries no actual probative strength. Fourth, I don't think you properly characterize ID, though I suspect that there are proponents who have fallen into the errors you note. Many of the charges you raise, I believe, have been adequately responded to by Del Ratzsch, J. P. Moreland, and others. I have to prepare for the new semester that begins tomorrow. Take care, Frank On 8/21/05 3:40 PM, "Ed Brayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frankie Beckwith wrote: > >> Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time? >> Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an >> interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend >> support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends >> supports to first cause arguments. Suppose that a devout theist on a school >> board realizes this and suggests that an intro to science text book mention >> the Big Bang theory (Imagine, ironically, that its absence is a result of >> young earth creationists getting it removed because it is inconsistent with >> their view of the earth's age, which is, by the way, a view many of them >> hold.). Imagine further that it were discovered later that the inclusion of >> the Big Bang was motivated by religion, even though the purpose of the >> inclusion is secular because it is the better scientific theory and students >> ought to learn the better scientif theory. This tells us two things: (1) >> motive and purpose are conceptually distinct, since the former is a belief >> held by minds and the latter, when it comes to statutes, is a property held >> by texts; and (2)clearly, the better scientific theory could be the more >> religious one in comparison to its rivals, but that seems like a less than >> good reason to prohibit teaching it in public schools. >> > > I think a distinction needs to be made between an idea that happens to > comport with a religious position, or that informs one's religious > position, and an idea that is inherently religious. Lots of scientific > theories are viewed as informing or supporting even opposing religious > opinions. In your example above, for instance, while William Lane Craig > argues that big bang cosmology supports Christian theism, Quentin Smith > argues that big bang cosmology denies Christian theism and supports > atheism. So is big bang cosmology theistic or atheistic? Neither, of > course, it's just a scientific explanation for a given set of data. The > same is true of evolution. Creationists argue that evolution conflicts > with Christian theism, while Christian scientists like Ken Miller argue > that evolution informs and strengthens his faith. So is evolution > theistic or atheistic? Neither, of course, it's just a scientific > explanation for a given set of data. A distinction must be made between > a scientific theory and the non-scientific inferences one might draw > from it. But in the case of ID, we have an inherently religious idea > that is being stated - dishonestly, I argue - in scientific terms. If it > was a genuine scientific theory in the same manner that evolution and > big bang cosmology are, it wouldn't matter that some believe it has > theological implications in one way or another. But for the 10,000th > time, there simply is no ID theory. ID is not a theory - it makes no > positive predictions, it has no model for the natural history of life on > earth (the very thing it is allegedly intended to explain), it contains > no testable hypotheses (and no, irreducible complexity does not count > because it's an entirely negative argument - it's a test of the ability > of evolution to explain something, not a test of ID as an explanation of > anything), and it has spawned no actual research that might confirm or > disconfirm it. ID is two things: a set of criticisms, most of them > dishonestly stated, of evolution; and a god of the gaps argument - "if > evolution can't explain this, God must have done it". The fact that it > discusses science doesn't make it scientific. If it was a scientific > theory, it must meet certain criteria and it meets none of them. > > Ed Brayton > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05 > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
