Centuries old? That seems odd, since the mandate is recently formed, around the time of Darwin as a matter of fact.
Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
The judge is not a very good historian, since he doesn't seem aware of the philosophic leanings of the fathers of modern science-- from Copernicus to Newton, between and beyond...
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
This point denies a "dualism" between ID and naturalistic evolution.
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Here, he describes the dualism that he just claimed doesn't exist.
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
So, basically what we have here is that point one chose one philosophical view over another (possible in part due to a huge misunderstanding of science history?) In any event, point one chooses one philosophy over another.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Point (2) denies a dualism between the two philosophies.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
Point (3) reaffirms the choice between the two because the chosen philosophy doesn't accept the philosophy in question (i.e. a definition of the duialism that point 2 denied).
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).
Overruled!
Centuries old? That seems odd, since the mandate is recently formed, around the time of Darwin as a matter of fact.
Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
The judge is not a very good historian, since he doesn't seem aware of the philosophic leanings of the fathers of modern science-- from Copernicus to Newton, between and beyond...
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
This point denies a "dualism" between ID and naturalistic evolution.
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Here, he describes the dualism that he just claimed doesn't exist.
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
So, basically what we have here is that point one chose one philosophical view over another (possible in part due to a huge misunderstanding of science history?) In any event, point one chooses one philosophy over another.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Point (2) denies a dualism between the two philosophies.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
Point (3) reaffirms the choice between the two because the chosen philosophy doesn't accept the philosophy in question (i.e. a definition of the duialism that point 2 denied).
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).