|
hellohellohi -> RE: ID is not science (6/14/2008 10:35:15 AM)
|
Basically, there is nothing wrong with believing in ID, even as a scientist. Nonetheless, what experiments does it suggest? One can practice science as a believer full of awe at creation, but science is about asking questions and testing them.
Yes, certain claims of Creationism might be falsifiable, such as the earth is 6,000 or so years old. Many would say that has been convincingly falsified. It's still worth looking at all the evidence for oneself, of course, though.
On the other hand "God" in general is not falsifiable. But I'm not sure I'm interested in making this a question even of whether ID is falsifiable. You see, some who believe that evolution is a done deal, so to speak, might not believe it is falsifiable either (however, its premises must be, such as traits are reliably heritable -- there might be a factor which can intervene between genotype and phenotype that can trump genetics under special circumstances and itself cause evolution of species. I'm not saying this is a very educated hypothesis but... take "handedness" exhibited by organisms. It's not apparent that this is genetically controlled, yet it can play an important role in survival. There is some example involving snails with either left-handed or right-handed spirals and the crabs that feed them. I'm not trying to be fanciful or unscientific, I just think it's interesting.) But the TOE does suggest possible experiments.
Design is a valid metaphor for what we see in nature. And it might also be true (personal belief aside). But does it contribute to inquiry or stop it? Awe, gratitude, humility, and other Godly motives can propel one's scientific studies, but science will not occur unless one is also either curious about how things work or doubtful about current explanations.
All I'm saying is science is asking questions, and one cannot ask questions of a "black box." That doesn't mean that a black box isn't out there, it's just that it is unscientific to proceed under that assumption.
Basically, I am saying science is, you could say, a NEGATIVE enterprise. It proceeds out of questions, rather than striving for absolute conclusions.
If one is struck by the glory of God in nature, that perception is itself a gift of God and the Holy Spirit; however, it is incidental to science (perhaps not the scientist though, you see).
I think swan42 and maybe others were making a point that design could be seen as the distal cause of everything, and one which is never falsifiable, while science is only concerned with proximate causes. If the perspective of ID is having a healthy awe for complexity, science has difficulty in asking holistic questions, because experiments become impossible n larger and larger scales -- simply from a practical standpoint -- and it instead tends towards reductionism. Nevertheless, I believe our minds are built to make large scale connections, and perhaps one day some "big" questions can be asked. Until then, a Christian scientist may be blessed with a sense of awe at the nascent understanding of the complexity of God's creation, but, to be a scientist, it seems s/he must be humble enough to be content with reductionism.
One might write a "natural history" of which one believes God to be the author -- and it would be an amazing one if it looked at ALL the available scientific data, or, you know, some editing would have to take place, but, I would hope, it wouldn't have an agenda rather than a hunger for the truth and a healthy awe and passion for the subject matter. The religious aspects of it, of course, would not fall under the category of "proof" but rather testimony.
|
|
|
|