It looks as though there was a slight run of creos and ID theorists coming in and boldly bragging, only to then avoid any direct conversation, before bowing out.
Percy asked if evo criticism of creos was justified. While I still feel the logical answer lands more in the "no, since these are actually two different systems of knowledge", there seems to be a practical answer of "yes, because they refuse to address points of debate openly."
I thought it was made very clear by Faith's answers that indeed creos are attempting to remove modern science and resurrect "old" science. They eschew advances in techniques of logic and handling evidence made over the last 300 years, and argue to go with the scientific methodology of Plato and Augustine.
This is even more evident within the ID movement and the admissions can be read quite openly in much of Demsbki's writings. He specifically denounces the enlightenment period, praises the style of science practiced in Greece and the early church, and demands that Occam's Razor and the Argument from Ignorance fallacy be thrown out.
He even appears to embrace Paley, without (seemingly) recognizing that Paley lost.
I give credit to those within the ID movement who at least admit, or have the ability to recognize they want to change (and indeed must change) science itself, not just evolution. And I think more criticism should be lain on those creos and ID theorists who pretend (or do not put in the time to understand) this is not the case.
At least if we had the subject out in the open it could be debated honestly and without some of the bottlenecks we continually get into when creos and ID theorists pretend that their definition of theory matches the current definition of theory.
If it were out in the open, we could discuss what it might mean to change science, and weaken methodology. We could also discuss the importance of science in supporting faith. Or rather, ask if it is important to use science to support faith, when faith is by definition trust in something beyond what can be proven with evidence.
At one time it was thought important to distinguish between Faith and Knowledge. That is what the rules which have been constructed were meant to do. It acted as a filter on beliefs, such that we knew if we could credibly say we "know" something.
The equation between "being able to say we know" and "truth" is a metaphysical concept which has already been shown to perhaps never be attainable. This was worked out by the same people that gave us the tools of modern science and logic. Thus there should be no problem with people of faith, in not being able to say they know in a scientific sense... or feel that admiting scientific knowledge does not support their faith, means that they are inherently admitting it is less true.
Yes, the fact that evidence and science might conflict with a faith, would test one's faith. And perhaps there are reasons for questioning or abandoning a faith with little evidentiary basis. But that is another argument altogether and does not, or should not, reflect badly on the process of gaining scientific knowledge.
Weakening the rules to allow faith to creep into what we can say we know, or to argue that scientific knowledge must reflect "truth" rather than just "what we can say we know", opens the door for belief to supercede knowledge. That is what we consider knowledge to be now, with all of its rigorous testing, would be less valued than "any old theory" we might want to believe.
I don't see that as a good thing.
Am I just rambling? Maybe. But I guess I wanted to see if any on the creo or ID side are willing to admit they are asking for a change in science itself, and whether they think that really is a good idea for humanity? Do they not see that while it will be a bit more flexible, that flexibility would ultimately undercut knowledge... real knowledge... and thereby promote less critical thinking and general ignorance?
I don't see a necessary role for faith within science.
™ Version 4.2