Philosophical naturalism--the easy explanation

In the book But Is It Science: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, proceeds through most of its length with no definition of what science actually is. It rules out creation science on the basis of an arbitrary definition, not on the basis of evidence.

You would think that in a book with the title, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, there would be an attempt to define what science really is. You can't tell whether or not something is science unless first you're clear on what really counts as science. This is actually a very difficult matter, because there is no one test that says "This one thing is science, and this other is not."

You have to be patient to reach the point, late in the book, when this question is finally addressed. Early on, though, the editor, Michael Ruse, gives a short answer. He quotes evidence he gave in court in Arkansas, where teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools was being challenged:

Q. What is science?
A. Science is an attempt to understand the physical world, primarily through law, that is, through unbroken natural regularity.

Now we can move to a surprisingly easy answer: by this definition, is creation science possible, or any kind of intelligent design? Not at all. A creation approach could never be science, because it hypothesizes a point (or points) at which natural regularity has been broken.

But where did he get this definition from? From the evidence in nature? No! This definition does not derive from evidence, instead, the evidence derives from the definition (that is, the evidence that they are willing to allow). Science must conclude there is no creator, not because it has discovered it from the evidence, but because evidence that points to a creator isn't (by this definition) science!

Let's compare this to the same tactic used in the past in a different context. The question in the United States at one time was, should African-American people be allowed to vote? There were some who thought they could solve that easily by declaring, "Well, they aren't really people after all, are they?" That was an attempt to define the opposing viewpoint out of existence. Not only was this horrible in its effect, it was also deeply flawed in its logic. Michael Ruse has tried to define his opposition out of existence, too.

This is the naturalism I have written of frequently here. Anything that points to a break in natural regularity must be tossed away, or reinterpreted (no matter how forcibly) to fit some idea of natural regularity. If you even suggest a creator outside of the natural order, you're breaking the rules and you'd better not call yourself a scientist.

Let me hasten to add that this is not the viewpoint of all science. It is fairly dominant in biology, where evolution reigns. In cosmology, in physics, in virtually all other areas, there are many, many who believe in God.

Posted: Sat - January 22, 2005 at 08:56 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Philosophical naturalism--the easy explanation

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson