Which Religion?
The judge who decided the Dover intelligent design case said that I.D. was just a guise to introduce religion into the public school. Here's my Constitutional question: Which religion?
Catholicism? Lutheranism? Jehovah Witness? Islam? Mormonism? Anglicanism? Those are the religions the Founders were speaking of when they said that the Federal government could not establish a religion. I.D. favors none of these religions.
The implication of I.D. is theism, but that's not a religion. It's a philosophy. A general religious category.
I.D. establishes no religion in the Constitutional sense.
11 Comments:
AT Hope you are having a great Christmas mate.
Catholicism? Lutheranism? Jehovah Witness? Islam? Mormonism? Anglicanism?.......... what about scientology? or Alien cultism? :-)
I'm not really informed on the whole I.D. debate though.
I hope you're having a good Christmas too, and likewise you lionfish and you nilmot. Have a peaceful new year :-)
...dare I say a prosperous one? (note:joke value not guaranteed:-)
hey thanks guys .. much appreciated
hope all was good over Christmas and your new year is all you hope...
Nilmot
Theology is a science in itselt. the science of God
Biology is a science of the natural world we inhabit.
Phyisology is the scientific study of the mechanics of our anatomy.
ID is neither religion nor science: it is philosophy.
People will claim that ID is philosophy, not science, as if the two are mutually exclusive. So the argument goes somethign like this:
1. Whatever is philosophy is not science.
2. ID is philosophy.
3. therefore, ID is not science.
But I would challenge the first premise. Science itself falls under the category of philosophy. The scientific method is epistemology--it's one method by which we gain knowledge. Epistemology is a field of philosophy. Moreover, the scientific method depends on many philosophical presuppositions--the uniformity of nature, the reliability of sensory experiences, etc. So you could make the following argument:
1. Whatever is philosophy is not science.
2. The scientific method is philosophy.
3. Therefore, the scientific method is not science.
But obviously, the conclusion is absurd. It follows that the premise upon which it is based is false. I've already shown that the scientific method is philosophy (because it's epistemology). So the first premise is false. Since the first premise is false, you can't say ID is not science just because it's philosophy. You have to find some other reason to say it's not science.
Evolution is not science, it is philosophy. It has no place in a school science class. Evolution is just as much a religion as ID is, therefore it is a breech of the so-called separation of church and state rule to teach it in state run schools.
thats a bit broad i think ted... although i think i basically agree...
evolution (evolutionary materialism) is a religious commitment and thus all science viewed from such a position is forced into an evolutionary framework...
therefore evolutionary materialism is much more of a religion than ID will ever be...
ID is the inevitable conclusion the result of using the scientific method, minus the mindset of evolutionary materialism... coming up with the conclusion of theism is not a religious conclusion..
if as a result of their line of thought the IDers said that bacterial flagellum resulted in them endorsing the Westminster larger Catechism ?? well then thats ID as religion
My point was that If ID is ruled out of school science classes on the grounds that it is 'religion' then to be consistent we would have to rule out the teaching of evolution also because it is likewise a 'religion'. That would leave all real science (ie. that dealing with the real world) intact to be taught in school science class and evolution could be taught in philosophy class where it belongs.
sorry ive been away on a fantastic holiday...
i actually agree with you Ted but i think that we can take it further... my point is that ALL science is based on a philosophy of some sort... so should the philosophy of science be part of science class?
Hello AB Truth. I followed you here from the other blog that went quiet.
I would like to unquickly, comment on Nilmot's statements on this topic.
Naturalistic science is not the "self evident truth" that the naturalists seem to believe it is. In my opinion, it is the poor cousin of theism which has always been and (especially given our more thorough understanding of molecular biology since the time of Darwin), continues to be the position that agrees with the weight of the evidence. It is also a more intuitively obvious philosophy. Although that in itself doesn't count for too much.
The easy thing that scientific naturalism has going for it is that God doesn't just appear. But given the weight of evidence of design, science ought to be more willing to concede that the case for the existance of God is strong!
The scientific method was for many hundreds of years successfully pursued by scientists who were Christians and members of other religions. In fact science itself originated from the belief that since God had set up the universe to operate under rational laws, then rational thought and methods could be used to determine those laws. It is a gross distortion to hold that if theism were allowed into science it would result in a disaster for education, given that modern science is so heavily indebted to to the notion of a God.
"Science" should behave in an honest manner and state that "origins" is a field of study in which, the evidence seems to lead to a choice between naturalism or theism. Arguments can and should be made for and against each of these possible answers to the questions of origins, using all the technical know-how at our disposal.
Instead we get arrogance. Outright dismissal of creationism and mostly silly simplistic "refutations" of ID.
For a fine example of a technical debate concerning this topic, on both sides of the issue, see the 5 exchanges between doctors Max and Olsen at this address: http://tccsa.tc/articles/olson_to_max_1.html
By the way Nilmot, I partly agree with your viewpoint anyway, as science in general does not deal with the existance, or not, of God. It really isn't relevant for the majority of science. But it does certainly come into the origins debate. Although mainstream naturalists keep on denying the legitimacy of such a debate.
I am really only commenting on this statement of yours:
"When mainstream science decides that the evidence overwhelmingly proves that there is a God, then maybe you will have a case to teach that in the science class, until then lets leave Theology out of Science."
They just never will get around to even considering the evidence. Scientists who believe in God will consider it, and use Creationism & ID to do that. But the majority who are naturalists have mostly decided to either ignore or ridicule the issue.
High marks to those naturalist scientists who actually take the debate seriously.
thanks for the link.. will look it up.
how can scientists really do their job when being honest can get them fired...
Post a Comment
<< Home