Faith Well Grounded

Nicely done, dogg. I’m actually glad you brought that up, as the Newtonian translation adds much to the discussion. But before going there, let’s judge ID against the criteria of my quotes and yours, as gathered from "Edge of Science." (Edit: Make that "SOUL of Science", I've been reading both of late so, my bad...)

Newton: “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

ID science: “The universe (including life) could only have come from the counsel of an intelligent designer.

Newton: Scientists “deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical.”

ID science: “As scientists, we deduce that natural selection is an insufficient cause to produce the vast array of diversified life we see in the world.” (ID's positive induction is considered separately below.)

Newton (as attributed by dogg and the quote): “We should leave ‘ultimate explanations’ out of science.”

ID: (See Behe, 2nd edition “Darwin’s Black Box, chapter “Science, Philosophy, Religion”, p 251, note that he actually speaks to Newton’s choice not to name the cause of gravity):

“How then will science “officially” treat the identity of the designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with the explicit statements that “God did it”? No. The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored. The history of science is replete with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner. For example, Newton declined to explain what caused gravity…”

It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.

One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s. Yet, we must still query the translation that dogg provided. Let’s have a closer look…

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.

Fair enough.

For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

A closer examination shows that Newton barred not the supernatural, but that which is not deduced from the evidence. As a matter of fact, he is opening the door to anything that the evidence points to, including that which is “metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities”, for he lumps them all together as equivalent and makes only the judgment as to whether they are deduced from the evidence. He seems to explicitly deal with the “supernatural” in science and far from bars it. He seems to indicate that it is fair game as long as the evidence leads there. Further…

In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

He proposes finding the specific and inferring to the general. Now, it is evident that inference is not a perfect logical manifestation, but it has precedent in science (see the 2nd law of thermodynamics), and is actually the bedrock of science—i.e. the scientific pursuit depends on an order and inference to the general to define its laws. So, if ID sees known specified complexity as designed and infers design into organic specified complexity, one would conclude from Newton’s quote that he would have viewed this as scientific.

Do you disagree with the results of the inference? Fine. Gnaw on the bone and have it out in discussion. But call it unscientific? Not by the definition in use for the greatest part of the history of science.

In closing…

One should be careful in trying to confine ID as a non-science, because the neo-Darwinian pet axiom may be thrown out with the scientific bathwater. If you disallow ID’s positive claims to a designer, you must then disallow neo-Darwinism’s negative argument against it. Further, you’ve thrown out the naturalist’s positive claim that natural selection occurred via strictly natural processed without the input from a guiding hand. If ID’s voice to such absolutes is pseudo-science, then so is neo-Darwinism’s. But oddly enough, we see such statements in textbooks and journals routinely.

Again, when trying to define ID out of the scientific arena, be careful because neo-Darwinism goes out with it.

Take care all…

PS: Note—dogg, by clicking: (http://books.google.com/books?id=6lyoiNuypCUC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22sou...), one can find the quote you offered and read it in context. I am taking for granted that you got it here (or a hard copy, or any other place where you could have read it in context?) and thus realized that the context of Newton’s statement concerning “ultimate expressions” was a response to the Cartesians and their accusations that he was relying on occultic, mystical affinities.

He was arguing that gravity is not a mystic throwback, but based on observable principles. The paragraphs immediately following your quote define the context that Newton’s science worked within—that of an observable order that is imposed by God. Thus, by observing Newton’s quotes within the context that he made them, and from within the mindset that he formed them, we are safely able to escape a schizophrenic account from one of the fathers of our modern scientific process. This last quote safely resided within the larger mindset that science is the pursuit of God. (I mean, gosh... It was only two paragraphs later that started with the sentence, "Gravity thus served an apologetical purpose for Newton". :^) )

I noticed the link has the first chapter in its entirety. That’s a great chapter. It’s packed with great history and philosophy of science, and was the source for much of my passing claims concerning Christianity’s place of esteem in the modern scientific process. I have the book and would be happy to lend it to you if you are interested.

<--peace-->