I have not been reading my list email for some time so I am a bit behind on
this extremely interesting thread and I apologize if I am repeating something
which has been mentioned already but I have not yet read.
ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU writes:
Because the evidence is
overwhelmingly to the contrary, the theory is no longer viable
scientifically ... even though it still may be true.
Similarly, I can't tell you that an intelligent designer didn't just
make it all this way, but in this case I can go a little further. I
can tell you not only that it is not a VIABLE scientific theory, but
that it isn't even a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is because it rules out
nothing and, therefore, is invulnerable to evidence.
Still, it may be true.
It seems you are saying that
a) good scientific theories can be true
b)scientific theories with little experimental support may be true
c)non scientific theories may be true
Would you go so far as to say that truth may be discovered by non scientific
means?
I would, btw.
John again:
"He or she wouldn't be able to use supernatural explanations as
scientific hypotheses since supernatural explanations are by
definition, IMO, not scientific. But are you saying that this
scientist who DOES believe that supernatural events occur would,
nevertheless, NOT offer supernatural explanations for observations in
the lab? Why on Earth not? Doesn't that seem more than a little odd?
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona"
That does not seem odd to me. A Christian who is a scientist may believe
that science is a way of discovering truth (a very good and interesting way) but
not the only way. He or she may also believe that while supernatural events
do occur, they are not at all common events. Thus this scientist would
hesitate greatly to confer the status of supernatural to any event observed in the
lab (though they would likely not rule it out altogether.) Even if such a
scientist believed he had observed a supernatural event there is no way to examine
the event scientifically since there is no way to perform repeated
measurements (supernatural events are rare and even more rarely repeated!) The event
may have occured and be true yet not scientifically verifiable.
Michael E. wrote:
"In the end, eyewitness accounts that conflict with established science
are extremely suspect and accepting them as truth is indeed an act of
faith."
But that does not mean they cannot be accurate.
**********
I have been thinking about these ideas for some time. As a Christian who
believes in the Deity of Christ and the veracity of the Bible I understand that
there is more than one way to discover truth. I also know many Christians who
dismiss science out of hand and lend credance to the idea that to be a
Christian one must abandon reason. I don't purport to have all of the answers and I
have a sense that once I meet the great Designer of the universe in Heaven I
will say, "ohhhhhhhhh, now I get it." Until then I will do my best to be a
faithful teacher of science (its content and methodology) and a faithful
believer, honestly admitting what I believe and in what ways I am confused. Perhaps
this will give the athiest freedom to examine the claims of Jesus and the
religious student freedom to examine the claims of science without feeling
hostility from "the other side."