"Of course, some scientists, being also activists for their own world-views, openly proclaim that they will purposefully deny any evidence that interferes with their beliefs."
Such as Ken Ham who has repeatedly stated that no amount of evidence could ever convince him of either evolution or even an Old Earth. AiG is the only "scientific organization" I know of that has a statement of faith that all their "scientists" must adhere to in which any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs is by their definition "wrong".
“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
The key words here are ''because it is not naturalistic''... if all the data pointed to the existance of an inteligent designer we would probably have to accept it as being very probably true, but it would still not be science by definition... science by definition CANNOT deal with the supernatural, just as music by definition does not deal canvases and paintbrushes. The existance of a supernatural creator could be established beyond a shadow of a doubt and it would still not be science, because it simply does not deal in this subject... clear?
Clear indeed: you restrict science in the here and now and also in the future. If “all the data pointed to an intelligent designer” science would evolve to deal with the newly evidenced nature of reality. It may be of interest to read Omni-Science which elucidates Scott C. Todd’s remarks.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
"Of course, some scientists, being also activists for their own world-views, openly proclaim that they will purposefully deny any evidence that interferes with their beliefs."
ReplyDeleteSuch as Ken Ham who has repeatedly stated that no amount of evidence could ever convince him of either evolution or even an Old Earth. AiG is the only "scientific organization" I know of that has a statement of faith that all their "scientists" must adhere to in which any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs is by their definition "wrong".
“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
The key words here are ''because it is not naturalistic''... if all the data pointed to the existance of an inteligent designer we would probably have to accept it as being very probably true, but it would still not be science by definition... science by definition CANNOT deal with the supernatural, just as music by definition does not deal canvases and paintbrushes. The existance of a supernatural creator could be established beyond a shadow of a doubt and it would still not be science, because it simply does not deal in this subject... clear?
Clear indeed: you restrict science in the here and now and also in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf “all the data pointed to an intelligent designer” science would evolve to deal with the newly evidenced nature of reality.
It may be of interest to read Omni-Science which elucidates Scott C. Todd’s remarks.
aDios,
Mariano