Science and ID
I'm currently listening to a series of lectures on the historical interactions between Western science and Christianity. The lecturer is Lawrence Principe, who's a professor in chemistry and history of science at Johns Hopkins.
Among the points he makes in the lectures are:
1. The "warfare" model of science-religion interactions is a product of the late 19th century and is historically inaccurate.
2. Intelligent Design does not add anything useful to science, even if one is a believer, and purely naturalistic science has not historically come packaged with atheism.
His take on ID was particularly interesting. He situates ID in the tradition of natural theology stretching back centuries and in attempts by "natural philosophers" (i.e., scientists) in the 17th century to come up with ways to distinguish between miracles and the normal workings of nature.
Principe points out that one of the claims of IDers is that ID has explanatory force regarding scientific questions. The problem is that "God did X" doesn't provide an explanation, at least not in the scientific or analytical sense. It's equivalent to saying that something was a miracle. If something was a miracle -- the direct work of a god -- then it's inherently beyond our analytical ability. It can't be broken down any further.
Even if we accept that, for example, the Christian god created the universe, that idea neither advances our scientific understanding nor hinders our search for explanations of natural phenomena.
EDIT: Some of the Q&A regarding the above post, from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb:
Theist: "Then why do evolutionist professors see the 'ID' movement as such a threat?"
Response: "I don't think science professors see ID as a threat. Certainly not as a threat to science. If anything, they see it as an annoyance. It's an annoyance because IDers fill (some of) their students' heads with the mistaken ideas that (1) ID deserves to be called 'science,' and (2) it's not taught in science class because of a conspiracy among 'secular humanist' scientists. They react to ID claims with the same exasperation that your doctor would display if you told him/her that, instead of taking the medicine s/he prescribed for your high cholesterol, you're going to have a shaman wave a rattle over your loins."
I'm currently listening to a series of lectures on the historical interactions between Western science and Christianity. The lecturer is Lawrence Principe, who's a professor in chemistry and history of science at Johns Hopkins.
Among the points he makes in the lectures are:
1. The "warfare" model of science-religion interactions is a product of the late 19th century and is historically inaccurate.
2. Intelligent Design does not add anything useful to science, even if one is a believer, and purely naturalistic science has not historically come packaged with atheism.
His take on ID was particularly interesting. He situates ID in the tradition of natural theology stretching back centuries and in attempts by "natural philosophers" (i.e., scientists) in the 17th century to come up with ways to distinguish between miracles and the normal workings of nature.
Principe points out that one of the claims of IDers is that ID has explanatory force regarding scientific questions. The problem is that "God did X" doesn't provide an explanation, at least not in the scientific or analytical sense. It's equivalent to saying that something was a miracle. If something was a miracle -- the direct work of a god -- then it's inherently beyond our analytical ability. It can't be broken down any further.
Even if we accept that, for example, the Christian god created the universe, that idea neither advances our scientific understanding nor hinders our search for explanations of natural phenomena.
EDIT: Some of the Q&A regarding the above post, from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb:
Theist: "Then why do evolutionist professors see the 'ID' movement as such a threat?"
Response: "I don't think science professors see ID as a threat. Certainly not as a threat to science. If anything, they see it as an annoyance. It's an annoyance because IDers fill (some of) their students' heads with the mistaken ideas that (1) ID deserves to be called 'science,' and (2) it's not taught in science class because of a conspiracy among 'secular humanist' scientists. They react to ID claims with the same exasperation that your doctor would display if you told him/her that, instead of taking the medicine s/he prescribed for your high cholesterol, you're going to have a shaman wave a rattle over your loins."
posted by iohannes | 12:37 PM
<< Home