Here is an abstract for a paper.
Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science
cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic
worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently
beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are
questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may
ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a
priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This
conclusion challenges the rationale behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning
the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the
official statements of two major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science
educational policies in the United States. Given that science does have implications concerning
the probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not be excluded a priori from
science education simply because they might be characterized as supernatural, paranormal, or
religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science education when the evidence does not
support them, regardless of whether they are designated as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’.
Here.
8 comments:
"This
conclusion challenges the rationale behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning
the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the
official statements of two major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science
educational policies in the United States."
That's not true. Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience. Science can certainly examine the question of ID. That doesn't mean that it should be presented as a valid scientific theory. Science tells us otherwise.
If science had no ability to examine supernatural phenomena, it would never have been able to progress from the dark ages, when everything was regarded as supernatural.
Victor, to construe this piece as "Trashing the basis for the Kitzmiller decision" is trumpeting hyperbole. Certainly no trashing although it does question some of the assumptions underlying the judge's consideration. The outcome of his judgement however is a correct one [though I do not endorse ends justifying the means]; Intelligent Design rightly cannot be taught in science classrooms as its competence as an expository mechanism has been methodically and extensively debunked.
In the main, it seems on the balance of probabilities, Intelligent Design will inexorably go the way of alchemy and astrology.
"If science had no ability to examine supernatural phenomena, it would never have been able to progress from the dark ages, when everything was regarded as supernatural."
And Captain Dumbass strikes again, with another breathtakingly stupid ignorant sentence.
That's right. Time after time, science has looked at what was thought to be supernatural, and upon seeing the evidence, determined that it is not supernatural after all. This has been happening for centuries, with an unbroken record of success. Not once in all of history have the ignorant views of the superstitious been upheld by science. NOT ONCE.
Oh really? The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," which assumes that there WAS a beginning. But was once thought essential to science that the universe be regarded as eternal and beginningless. The steady state theory of matter, the oscillating universe, etc. etc. etc., was brought forward because the universe just HAD to be beginningless. But the Big Bang Theory says it had a temporal beginning. The fact that atheists have decided they can live with a beginning of the universe doesn't undermine the fact that they all considered it beginningless before the Big Bang took hold.
Determinism was thought to be an essential component of a scientific understanding of the world. B.F. Skinner said "You can't have a science about a subject matter that hops capriciously about. Perhaps we can never prove that man isn't free; it's an assumption. But the increasing success of a science of behavior makes it more and more plausible."
To which I can only say "Tell that to the scientists who developed quantum mechanics." Scientists have historically thought that they had to be determinists to be scientists, but last I checked no one wants to keep quantum mechanics from being taught in public school. Again, naturalism can be reconfigured to permit quantum indeterminism, but religious people typically reject determinism, but scientists insisted on it.
See my remark in the other thread.
But just to be clear about my first comment, the judicial decision in the case was that ID is religion masquerading as science, and therefore teaching it would be a violation of the establishment clause. That decision is not undermined in any way by the notion that the topic can be examined scientifically.
But the judge concluded based on the fact that ID was more likely to be true if theism true than if theism is false, that it therefore couldn't be science. But the same would be true of naturalistic evolution. It is more to be true if the atheist religion is true than the theistic religion is true. And yes, in this context, atheism is a religion.
"But the judge concluded based on the fact that ID was more likely to be true if theism true than if theism is false, that it therefore couldn't be science."
The court heard a lot of testimony, and the decision was based on far more than that. And Jones was not the sole arbiter. The court has a panel of judges. Jones was the presiding judge.
"And yes, in this context, atheism is a religion."
No matter how hard you try to make non-religion seem like a religion, you are just playing with words. ID is unlikely to be true precisely because the evidence doesn't support it. The fact that your religion disagrees with the evidence doesn't imply that science is a religion. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on evidence. Sometimes, the evidence may support a particular religious belief, and sometimes it won't. There are various other religious beliefs that also disagree with the evidence. Science is different from all of those, because it is based on the evidence.
Post a Comment