Eddie's Defense of Natural Theology

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@dga471

Only if you insisted that science, by its very nature, forbids all design inferences, would we have disagreement – and that disagreement would not be over how current science functions (which I agree, is as Daniel says), but over what science at its best and richest could be.

This statement encapsulates exactly why I’ve been particular about demarcating disciplines in this thread - here we have a philosopher arguing that science could be “richest” and “best” if it were to slightly change its metaphysical assumptions and methods. Now, I’m not against this at all. Maybe Eddie’s suggestions are useful.

To be clear, science does make design inferences all the time. It just rejects ID inferences because the science behind them, as we have seen them, is demonstrably in error. Even if they are not in error, science cannot make divine design tractable. I know ID tries to treat divine and creaturely design the same, but this is not grounded in either science or theology. So the problem is not design inferences. The problem is ID.

Now @Eddie, i though all you cared about was natural theology, even if it wasn’t in science? You are deviating from that sentiment in all this. Why not stick to your word:

@Eddie

I am inclined to place on whether a particular truth is “scientific” or “philosophical” or “theological”. I’m more concerned with whether statements are true than with what university department they ought to be taught in.

Just give up on calling it science. That is an argument you are going to lose, and you say it isn’t even your goal. So drop it. Let’s get back to something you know about. Theology of nature, right?