I totally agree. Which is why scientists like Richard Dawkins aren't thinking "scientifically" when they admit that some things in biology look designed but draw a conclusion contrary to the empirical evidence in saying that it couldn't possible be designed because "good science" always takes supernatural explanations off the table (ergo Dawkin's model of science is practical atheism).
They look designed because they were designed through natural processes. Things were designed through genetic variation and a form of selection to have a reproductive advantage in their environment. The vast number of species that have gone extinct is evidence for a natural process, rather than a process humans assume God "would" use based on their human "purposes" for design. Why does "design" have to be "supernatural" for it to be "designed"?
My agreement also leads me to question why you (and others) advocate for the suppression of empirical evidence of design in biological life forms in public school classrooms?
What empirical evidence is there for "supernatural" design?
Granted there are alternate hypotheses, so teach both.
Alternative does not mean equal in regard to scientific investigation.
When did science become about limiting knowledge?
When it started as a way to understand the natural world, it became a process that looks for natural explanations. It has been that way since it very beginning in ancient Greece. To this day in some universities and colleges the science department still says "School of Natural Philosophy".
I realize that this is the philosophical presupposition that you cling to and it is the prevailing philosophical presupposition that our current pedagogical culture adheres to. It is called philosophical naturalism and I think it is wrong.
No, it is called methodological naturalism. Precisely because the "supernatural" cannot be investigated with the scientific method.
As I pointed out to Lucaspa, the history of science in the west was nurtured in a theistic worldview and it is precisely that worldview that propelled scientists in history to seek out the intricacies of a world that was presumed to be logical and ordered because God created it to be logical and ordered.
That is a more current history. I am well versed in history as well. The original start of science came from the Greeks, as a way to explain the natural world, without relying on their impetuous God's to explain things.
I do agree that the Hebrew monotheistic concept of God does lend itself well to investigation into the natural world. Precisely because they assumed, since their God was unchanging, then his creation would be consistent as well. I know how this all came about. And you are overstating the case for theism lending itself to scientific investigation here.
You are not fooling me with that one.
Furthermore, if only naturalistic explanations will be tolerated, then science becomes unscientific, it becomes less about the search for the true cause and more about the search for the natural cause.
Tell me how you propose to verify/falsify a claim about the supernatural using the scientific method?
I think there is a misunderstanding present in your statement.
"Science" isn't right or wrong because "science" is not a personified, monolithic personality. "Science" doesn't "say" anything. Science is a field of study, not a person, or a body of doctrine, and within that field of study are "scientists" develop alternative theories and challenge one another's work. "Scientists" can be right or wrong. My hope is that we stop privileging the explanations of some "scientists" over and above the explanations of other "scientists" in the public school education of our children. If a prevailing theory is being seriously challenged, I think they need to know about it.
The scientific method is an inherent methodology for its goal. Its goal is to understand the natural world. Francis Bacon, who was also a Christian, pioneered the concept of empiricism as a way to falsify/verify claims about the natural world. He would have considered your attempts to sneak the supernatural in as "junk" philosophy.
What makes you think that the "religious" folks have the corner market on "group-think?"
I never said they did. Many other types of movements have done this as well throughout the history of the world.
Theists (not all theists, only those who use theism as a way to externalize their desires rather than a process of introspection) however, have an unverifiable method should they choose to corner the market on "group-think" and "mob mentality", because they can claim divine authority. And there would be little any opposition could do, once they have seized control of capital and government. That's why it took empiricism in science, and utilitarianism (which is actually the foundation of modern democracy) as a competing system of ethics to take control out of their grubby little hands. And there are some, like you, still trying to fight this. Precisely because you have an emotionally imbalanced authoritarian perspective on the world. And the claim of "divine authority" suits your purposes very well, as long as you can find a sneaky way to appear to align yourself, in the eyes of your peers, with God's purpose.
I can give you many examples of educators who have lost their positions for being even remotely associated with ID. Science (the academic journal) will publish critiques of Behe's work but not the work that is being critiqued.
Because ID is not any different than natural evolution through single common ancestry in regard to its explanatory power. Every time there is something attributed to natural evolution, all one has to do is say "Well God designed it that way."
As I said to Lucaspa, the current mob rule in science is one that constantly puts ID on trial without the privilege of mounting a defense.
Not so. Your agenda has been seen for exactly what it is. You might not like it, and you can whine all you want about it. But the reality is that you top "ID scientists" failed to show up and even testify at the court case that was your chance to make your case for the public. I wonder why that is?
You do realize that ID is a hypothesis that is just as falsifiable as Darwin's theory of evolution, don't you? Many attempts in scientific journals have been made to falsify the claims of ID therefore it a little late to claim that it is "un-falsifiable."
How is it falsifiable? How do you falsify the idea that "Everything that happens in nature is God's plan."?
Furthermore it has just as much explanatory power as evolution does.
Can you please support your claim here?
your approach is "party line" for mainstream culture.
