From A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash
Mr. Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design.
His attempt at humor came with an edge:
“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”
“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith.
"1. I question your definition of faith - "...requires that you believe despite evidence that directly contradicts your claim.""
ReplyDeleteFair enough. What is your definition of faith? (Sincere question here).
"2. What are the "assumptions" you suggest are necessary for science?"
The main assumption is that we should pursue natural explanations for everything that happens and has happened in the universe. It doesn't meant that there was not supernatural intervention at some point (even many scientists are open to the possibility of the existence of gods), but science addresses itself with natural events only.
Creationism (or ID), by postulating a supernatural event, takes itself outside the realm of science, and therefore is not suitable for teaching in schools. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of gods; when creationism claims to, it fails to be science.
"3. I'd be interested in your grounds for how you can trust your assumptions are "reasonable" if you do not hold a theist position... for naturalism is logically self-defeating."
I guess it depends on the assumption. I don't understand what you mean when you say that naturalism is "self-defeating."
"Would you provide me your definition of "evolution"?"
ReplyDeleteI don't have my own definition of it; when I talk about it, I'm referring to natural selection as an explanation of why different species have developed as they have. The origin of life itself is an open question, for which there are theories, but insufficient evidence.