In
Message 307 Simple wrote:
Once you cite ommision of God you contradict the claim that science is true science.
Now, others have made such claims in many venues, and they've been asked to explain how science that admits God as an explanation might work. Every one has either ducked the question or failed to come up with a workable methodology.
Nobody's answered the core question: "How would that work?"
"God did it" can explain
anything and therefore explains nothing. As a concrete example, take cold fusion. Fleischman and Pons announced that they had fused hydrogen at room temperature. Their work was not replicated and their careers were ruined (not because they made a mistake but because of the way they handled it). (There are a few "true cold fusion believers" left).
Now, why couldn't they just have said "It used to work but God changed the rules and now it doesn't work any more"?
If God can change the rules arbitrarily at any time, there is no such thing as prediction or continuity or replication ... or science at all.
OF course, we cannot predict what God will or will not do or tell Him what to do; he's the boss and we're not. So "He just wouldn't do that sort of thing" is not an acceptable answer. We've all been told that we can't know the Mind of God, right?
OK, simple, lay out the methodology of science in which "God did it for reasons we don't now" is an acceptable explanation for
anything.
This message has been edited by JonF, 02-09-2005 07:52 AM
™ Version 4.2