|
Author
|
Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God?
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 3 of 506 (694588)
03-26-2013 1:56 AM
|
|
|
quote:
Ross writes:
Since the birth of the scientific method, science has been defined as the pursuit of systematized knowledge and understanding about the way the universe, with its governing laws and all it contains, operates. Such a definition leaves the investigation open to consideration of the causal agent(s) that may be responsible for these operations. P. 18 Ross reports that new definitions of science have been published which specifically exclude any investigation into the why questions humans often ask. Here are some examples:...
—designtheorist
That's not true that these are new definitions at all. The natural sciences have excluded the supernatural since the 16th and 17th centuries. I can refer to the expert testimony mentioned in the decision made in the famous Kitzmiller vs Dover case. Judge Jones:
Judge Jones writes: Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource, the free online library It's Hugh Ross who is trying to smuggle his favourite diety into science by redefining the word to what he wants it to be. He's being completely dishonest. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Goodness gracious me, designtheorist has been shown that he's wrong about Allan Sandage numerous times, yet he repeated his claim again. There must be some fancy psychological name for such completely abnormal and dishonest behaviour. As someone who's here to learn, I think I'll withdraw from this thread, as there's nothing new to be seen. Just repeated untruths. The words of John Derbyshire are in my mind. His words don't just apply to biologists.
John Derbyshire writes: I’ll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring. Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: John Derbyshire and Evolution Oh and designtheorist, please provide a source where Eugenie Scott claims that
designtheorist writes: She claims science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions. Can't find that original quote from her anywhere. Just creationists 'claiming' that the said that, all referencing each other. The original source please. I think that your not telling the truth here. Again. Edited by Pressie, : Added the last few paragraphs on Eugenie Scott
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 3:03 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Blue Jay
This is one thing I struggle to understand.
dt writes: Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose and many, many more have all written and spoken about fine-tuning and the appearance of design. The question is: At what point to we start putting this evidence together and start building a theory around design? There needs to be a way to do that scientifically. Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book. You know the book is not going to be what is generally understood as science when Stenger says things like "the moon might be real" and "we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be." Stenger has broken with the other atheists who all express acceptance of fine-tuning, but don't know what to make of it.
Why do so many creationists always want to quote from a few scientists who publish popular books or appear on tv? Why not rather quote from the scientific research of scientists? I mean, that's what science is about; research. You know, from thesises, research papers, etc.? As an example, I'll provide some US figures. Just in the US in 2008, there were 5000 people with PhD's in Astronomy/Astrophysics and 41 500 in physics. Living scientists. With PhD's. That's right, just in the US. This excludes the figures from the rest of the world. This also excludes MSc's, of which you'll find many, many more. Why are the hundreds of thousands of other specialists, with the same qualifications as the popular scientists, always ignored by creationists? Too much work to read more than a few creationist websites?
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
Re: Fine-tuning
DT writes: And what level of fine-tuning would you say is beyond random chance and chaotic natural processes (alternate hypothesis)? A puddle is perfectly fine-tuned to fit into the hole it's in. It seems as if you're setting up a false dichotomy.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
Re: Fine-tuning
DT writes: Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question.
No, you have not. You claimed things. That's it.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Dr. Adequate
Hey, DT, you're the one who claimed that those papers are available. Do you have the references to the scientific papers you read? Claiming that Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question. is not good enough. List them and let's discuss them all one by one. Could you provide references to them? Let's do it one by one. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Fine-tuning
Again, designtheorist, you answer doesn't make sense at all.
designtheorist writes: And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse.
A puddle is perfectly fine-tuned to fit into the hole it's in. It seems as if you're setting up a false dichotomy.
And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse. Puddles are testable. And they are 'perfectly fine-tuned'. And there's no 'intelligent designer' involved. Word salads won't change that. Doesn't matter how many times you deny that fact.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Regarding Stenger and Fine-tuned Universe
DT writes: A scientist will take a position and stick with it. Stenger was not able to do that. Can't believe that you wrote that. That's the opposite of science. Your viewpoint is religious, now you want to rub it off on science. In science conclusions can and are changed as new evidence comes along. That's one of the great strengths of science. Not sticking with a preconceived idea, but following the evidence. It's a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness. Hard to understand for some people, but changing one's mind as new evidence comes along is a strength. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
Re: Regarding Stenger and Fine-tuned Universe
Nope. You still dance around it. The fact is that scientific minds will change as new evidence come in. Unlike religion. That's why the scientific method works. Fortunately for humanitinty, you are not a scientist. That's why you can't even distinguish between religion and science. Imagine everyone thinking that changing one's mind is a bad thing. We'd still be travelling around on talking donkeys. Changing one's mind as new evidence come around is a virtue, DT. A virtue. Not changing one's mind as new evidence is found is a vice, DT. A vice. I know that it's very hard for you to understand.
|
™ Version 4.2