john jones's opinion in the intelligent design case is interesting and intellectually ambitious. but as you may know, i disagree.for one thing, the idea that it's the federal government's job to "forbid the mention" of anything, anywhere, is disgusting and that it can is an index of authoritarianism. but let me raise an objection to the approach of the decision to the definition of science. science, on jones's view, consists of seeking naturalistic explainations for natural phenomena. naturalistic explanations are physicalistic explanations. this makes science into a metaphysical theory, an assertion of a materialist ontology. and thus it places science in direct opposition to all religious interpretations of the universe, among others. now if science is indeed at root a metaphysics, it is faith-based. one cannot justify materialism on scientific grounds, surely, especially when you define science in terms of materialism. that is, materialism on this view is a completely unjustified assumption on which science rests. furthermore, such a view makes it obvious that every religious believer must oppose science: they simply cannot be compatible. understand me: i am myself a materialist and an atheist. but one cannot pretend that there is scientific evidence for those views, if jones is right. on the other hand, if science is defined simply methodologically - a la popper for instance, in terms of hypothesis and falsification - then of course it can in principle end up positing supernatural entities.
re-writing textbooks (11.04)
