UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 6 to Talk Back 86
I disagree with the current 'definition' of science

by: Rob Lockett

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

JT, you are correct in your analysis that ID is not science. That's what I said. There is no misrepresentation on my part.

And until that definition is changed, a judge has every right to deny ID as science. I was not arguing otherwise.

And that is exactly why I disagree with the current 'definition' of science.

Not because I want things 'unscientific' to be swindled in, but because as you admitted, we cannot (or should not) have 'a preconception that natural causes are the underpinning of everything'.

Since you agreed with the article, you must also agree that the current definition is from the 16th and 17th century.

When we say natural, what we really mean is the 'physical' or 'empirical world'. And clearly there is a physical dimension to nature where the laws of physics control the aspects of cause and effect. But it isn't the 16th century any longer. We now know of a 'super nature' we call the quantum.

So, the super nature is part of the equation (ie. John Polkinghorne the quantum professor at Cambridge).

I openly advocate changing the definition of science. Not for preconceived notions of realities nature, but for observable and obvious ones.

We do not live in the 16th century. And trying to explain some things with natural causes is fine and good, but the origin of life and the origin of nature itself (the universe) are not part of natures domain. Natural science can only tell us what they do, now that they exist in the physical dimension. Those questions cannot be presumed to originate wholly within the nature part of the equation. And that is precisely what the TOE does. And the same 'natural' evolutionary origin is applied commonly to cosmology as well.

I'd love to see how you rationalize such ambitions