<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Vision2020] Poll on Idahostatesman.com</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana">On 10/10/05 2:51 PM, "Tbertruss@aol.com" <Tbertruss@aol.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Baskerville Semibold">Ted,<BR>
<BR>
I just wanted to be clear that I did not give a definition of ‘science.’ I merely gave one necessary condition for something’s being a scientific thesis. I did not give a sufficient condition. Thus, I did not assert that anything which passed my criterion was a scientific theory, as you suggest in the first paragraph below.<BR>
<BR>
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say below. <BR>
<BR>
Joe Campbell<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">Ted Moffett wrote:<BR>
<BR>
It may be impossible to gather empirical evidence that decides with certainty the truth value of the proposition that the universe was created by an intelligent being. Even if a proponent of the proposition that the universe was created by an intelligent being gladly accepts the condition that if empirical evidence to the contrary is gathered, they will abandon the proposition, this does not make the proposition "scientific," especially when gathering conclusive empirical evidence to decide the proposition may be impossible. <BR>
<BR>
There are an infinite number of theories than can be generated to explain any phenomenon. The empirically testable theories that also have mathematical or logical consistency are theories that can become "science." Of course there are many daunting problems in philosophy of science that make this easy definition problematic. But I if a theory has no practical means of being decided by empirical data, or presents extreme mathematical or logical inconsistencies or contradictions, the theory will not be accepted as a current "scientific" theory, with some exceptions. Application of Occams Razor also is favored in the world of science to avoid the endless variety of possible complex speculative theories from creating, to put it simply, a big mess.<BR>
<BR>
If a theory is more speculative/imaginary than based on measurable empirical methods of investigation, or does not result in mathematical or logical consistency with other accepted theories, nor with itself internally, though it may remain possibly true, it will often not receive much attention from the scientific community. Science does have certain "biases."<BR>
<BR>
Maybe God created the universe and human life. Maybe aliens landed on Earth millions of years ago and genetically engineered human intelligence. Both of these theories are possible.<BR>
<BR>
How does a science class teach these theories decided by empirical means? What replicatable experiments or data gathering do we set up to scientifically investigate these claims? Is there such an abundance of disagreement regarding what sort of God may have created the universe (while we still do not even understand what our universe is), with such a wide variety of possible methods, that there is no well established theory as to how this could have happened that fits our scientific understanding of how the universe operates, to enable reliable testable means of scientifically deciding the matter?<BR>
<BR>
And consider, if speculative religious theories about the operation of the universe must be accepted as scientific theories in science classes, then shall churches teach materialistic empirical science as a religious theory?<BR>
<BR>
Maybe God is a fervent believer in empirical materialistic science, having created the universe to function according to these sorts of laws, with no "miraculous" intervention on his/her/its part after the creation of the universe! For this God to intervene in his/her/its creation would be sacrilege against the very laws of the universe this God established.<BR>
<BR>
I do not cease to be amazed by the hubris of human beings who imagine they can fathom the intentions and actions of a being (God) whom they assert created the entire universe, an act which implies a God-mind and capabilities beyond anything the human mind can conceive.<BR>
<BR>
This is like saying a spider understand the intentions of a human being doing quantum mechanics. The spider simply is incapable of understanding in this manner, as human beings, speculatively speaking, very well may be incapable of understanding the intentions and mind of a being that created the entire universe.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>