Re: “God works within, rather than without, the realm of natural law.”
- While I agree, this sort of thinking can be problematic (as you may already know). Far too often ‘natural law’ is construed as the type of laws that mankind discovers – under these circumstances some are led to believe that God is beholden to gravity and relativity, etc. Mankind cannot even begin to comprehend the full extent of the natural, celestial laws that God is beholden to. He is obviously not beholden to gravity as we know it, and He is not limited to the speed of light as relativity supposes. Because of this problem I no longer say that God follows natural laws. I like to say that He is the law and that His ways are not our ways.

Re: “By way of clarification, in the following I will use “creationism” as shorthand for both the creation science and intelligent design movements, even though they differ somewhat in their approach.”
- You really should delineate between the two rather than grouping them together. I am with you on saying that many IDers are closet creationists, but there are undoubtedly many IDers who are not creationists. Putting them into the same category is a bit like calling Mormonism a Protestant religion – they were both reform movements, but there are more differences than similarities.

Re: William Dembski
- Yes, those two lists of premises and corresponding conclusions are saying the same thing. I have a big problem with Premise 4. Events of small probability do happen by chance. Just ask anyone who likes to play roulette tables. An improbable event is improbable, not impossible. He got this one wrong. This Dembski stuff is pretty weak – I hope it isn’t your straw man.

Re: Sokal’s hoax article.
- Your reliance on Sokal is a bit troubling. While I disagree with much postmodernist thinking, it was wrong for him to publish a bogus article in a postmodernist journal. This is a bit like publishing an article in Nature with bogus fossil and anthropomorphic data just because one disagrees with evolution.
Here is some syllogistic reasoning (pun intended):

If you are a true scholar, then your will be honest when disagreeing with others
Sokal was dishonest when disagreeing with others
Therefore, Sokal is not a true scholar.
(Here we denied the consequent – modus tollens – so it’s all good)

Re: “We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.”
- Can I get that in plain English please?

Re: “The SSK movement arguably began with Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn”
- Was SSK an outgrowth of Kuhn & Popper, or were Popper and Kuhn committed to the SSK agenda? This is an important distinction. I do not see Kuhn and Popper as being postmodern thinkers. You are correct to say that Popper’s views are too idealistic, but let’s make sure that we do not confuse him with postmodern thinkers. Kuhn, on the other hand, pointed out that science is a social endeavor – scientific progress is not a simple case of “here are some new facts and how to interpret them; okay everyone is on board now.” As far as I can tell, he never rejected absolute facts, he just pointed out that the cold hard facts alone do not drive scientific progress. (If I were to take a tactic out of the evolutionist playbook right now, I might say, “You are not qualified to speak on Kuhn because you have not read his whole book, nor have you taken a class in the philosophy of science.” This is, of course, complete nonsense. And you don’t have to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to comment on Kuhn, or read Conjectures and Refutations to comment on Popper.)

Dave, you are an eloquent writer, and I respect your views. But after reading this post I am left asking, “Where is all of this going?” Is this post an attempt to discredit humanists and social scientists who dabble in natural science issues?

I agree that God is always right, but this doesn’t imply that the scriptures should always be literally interpreted. A literal interpretation of the scriptures is a result of our European culture. The KJV says the earth was created in 6 days. Why did the scholars use the word “day”? Creationists say that word means 24-hour days. Many GA say that word means periods of some undefined time. What did the person who actually wrote the first Hebraic manuscript mean by his description? Our European culture has us interpreting that story literally, but did the author of the first manuscript mean it to be interpreted that way?

I like the statement by our GAs who say their mission is to bring people to Christ and they leave science to the scientists. I thus read the scriptures with an intent to learn more of God and to bolster my faith, the why of things, and I look to science for the how of things. I think that people who read the things in the scriptures that pertain to this earth and its origin are not leaving science to the scientists but are leaving science to their European culture.

Such relativism shows up when creationists claim that mainstream scientists and creationists are simply interpreting the data through a different set of assumptions–as though all interpretations of the data are equally legitimate.

I do hold to Scripture, in spite of Talmage’s trouble with it.

I find it amazing how those who believe the worldly concepts produced by “science falsely so called” quote the half of GAs that suit them. Considering the division of the GAs on the subject this is a pointless activity other than to bring out a particular point.

The Scriptures tell me that man was “the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.”

God was there. He ought to know. God has always been right in everything I have been able to investigate.

Our science is continually proven wrong. – by science, what’s more.

I have watched countless irrational conclusions being come to by so-called “scientists”.

Why would I believe the world in this discrepancy?