quote:
What I mean is the question about whether the thought of an intelligent designer "adds anything" to scientific inquiry AT ALL is different from whether or not it adds anything to MN specifically.
MN is a form of scientific inquiry. It is criticized by IDers and other Creationists as being inherently biased and so "bad" as a form of scientific enquiry.
MrH has been defending MN as a valid form of scientific inquiry in another thread.
This thread is to allow critics of MN to explain what other methods act as forms of valid scientific inquiry, especially based on results. MrH used the term "supernatural" as that is the only other popular term. If you believe that the supernatural and natural are one in the same that is fine. Call yours the MSNN.
Now cut to the chase. MN has proven itself a valid form of scientific inquiry because it has produced results. What benefits have been produced by MSNN and so indicate it is a more valid form of scientific theory, or even equal to MN?
Your examples of Newton and DesCartes are exceedingly problematic. Other than indicating a belief in a supreme being provided MOTIVATION, there is no indication that this added belief altered their use of MN. Clearly where DesCartes departed from MN, his natural philosophy lost utility.
And given your hypothesis, one must also discuss nonXian scientists. Islamic and Pagan (Chinese) scientists provided some of the most important scientific discoveries the human race has ever enjoyed. Without Arabs and Chinese Newton and Einstein would not have gone anywhere.
Does this indicate then which God or Gods are more valuable to scientific inquiry? Conversely, if no Gods show any greater value to scientific inquiry, then what is the value of bringing in theology at all?
------------------
holmes