CHRISTIANITY
Christianity
Apologetics
Bible
God - Theology
Jesus
Miracles
Inspirational
Unbelievers Compliment Christianity
William Lane Craig
ATHEISM
Atheism
Project-Answering Atheism
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Dan Barker
Daniel Dennett
Bart Ehrman
Bill Maher
PZ Myers
Quentin Smith
Michael Shermer
New Atheists
Atheism’s Public Relations Problems
Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards
Atheist Child Rearing
ExChristian.Net
PositiveAtheism.org
Evilbible.com
The BOBA Digest
The Wedgie Document
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)
Baha'i
Islam
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Catholicism
Unitarian Universalism
Misc. Religions
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism
Morality / Ethics
Rape
Meaning and Purpose
Homosexuality
Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.
Gospel of Judas
The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Pop Culture and Politics
Science
Cosmology
Evolution
Francis Collins
RESOURCES
Audio
Books
TFT essay "Books"
Debate
Links
Video
Find it Fast - Fast Facts
Visuals - Illustrations and Photos
Recommendations for the Month
"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