Friday Quote: The Limitations of Science
by MikeGeneHere's a timely essay from an ID critic. SMU professor, John Wise, writes:
Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.
Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.
I'll address the rest of his essay later.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I would agree for the most part with what is written above. We do not test for God's existence. At most we can state that what we observe is consistent with our theological understanding. The same essay contains this sentence:
This is where the author goes off track. What is required of ID is an accumulating body of empirical data that supports ID claims. ID claims do not extend to documenting supernatural causes and effects. Wise's position amounts to an assertion that a being, having supernatural properties, could not interact with the universe in such a way that would be detectable. That's an entirely different argument than asserting a capacity to discern the supernatural. The scope of God's capabilities would encompass both supernatual and natural causation.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2007 @ 10:23 am
May 8th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Hi Mike,
You once said that you "listen" to the voice of scientific community by looking at the peer-reviewed papers.
Although I can understand that there is no better alternative for evaluating papers in a world where knowledge is fragmented, I would very much like to see your comments on this essay by Robert Higgs.
Peer Review, Publication In Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, And So Forth
Comment by inunison — May 8, 2007 @ 3:20 am
August 28th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Hi Mike,
not only is science limited as a method, it is also limited by the ones using the method, people. One limitation, definitely not the only one, is that scientist tend to look at details or at just one cause for one observation/phenomenon. Using this approach, scientists loose the required overview to judge what is going on.
I see the same happening with ID proponents, in that they start to argue against Darwinistic interpretations of how life evolved. In case we have a designer, as opposed to the combination change and selection, one should find that not single genes or combinations thereof are designed, but complete ecosystems are designed. When we assume that a designer made this world, planned it carefully, not on the level of cells or genes, but as a complete system, with interacting components that slowly evolve and cope with varying environmental conditions, we should look at the building blocks again, and from this perspective judge how well it was made. Obviously, we would need to know something about the goals of the designer, before we can pass judgement on a design. For example, we humans have several weakenesses. We can either say that this means the deign is flawed, or we can ask the question,' suppose humans would have had even less physical restraints, wouldn't humans have dominated the world in a much earlier era, to the detriment of the whole ecosystems?' This type of questions is very hard to answer using standard science methodology, but I believe it will open up a whole new way of looking at creation, and should offer ID proponents a whole new bunch of arguments against Darwinistic interpretations of the natural world. ID should not only be busy with looking at the details, but should also change it vantage point and look downward to evolving eco sytems.
Comment by dusschoten — August 28, 2007 @ 4:24 am