Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 152 (236358)
08-24-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LauraG
08-24-2005 2:58 AM


LauraG writes:
Without even getting into the ethical issues potentially raised by this, what effect do you think it would have on creationists' belief that humans were specially created?
As of now, the general reaction by creationists is one of disdain. They view it as just another failed attempt my science to rule their god out of the equation. Since the technique calls for pieces of existing genetic code they don’t view it as on par with creation. In the end though, they are blinded by their defensiveness from seeing what great benefits this could mean for mankind. It just becomes another great example of how the religious mindset stymies mankind’s advancement IMHO.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LauraG, posted 08-24-2005 2:58 AM LauraG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 2:53 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied
 Message 117 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 9:19 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 152 (236366)
08-24-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
08-24-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none. The building blocks are there and it's that fact that needs to be addressed. Analysing an existing thing and being able to modify it and make other things or even copies of it is not creating anything.
If what is happening says anything, it is this: that which constitutes life is a very complicated thing. And it takes the full powers of a lot of very intelligent people working over many years - just to be able to make copies of it.
It may in fact add to the creationists argument which holds that if the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and other bits and pieces using existing building blocks, then to believe that blind chance came up with the original is farther-fetched than once thought.
Although this rational is valid, I think you are failing to give enough credence to the fact that the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and stitch pieces of code together right now. A year ago we couldn’t even do that. As science advances, we will be able to do more. Being able to accomplish creating new life by gene-fiddling really shows that genetics are the driving force for the diversity of all life that we see and lends substantiation to the theory of evolution. If stitching together a couple of pieces of DNA can create a new life form then mutation surely can.
iano writes:
For science to be able to objectively eject the need for a creator, only one thing is required:
Design an experiment in which a self-replicating entity is formed out of an unknown mixture of chemicals and conditions in a completely undirected way. The experiment could be a stepped one where discrete stages on the way to the the life form are inserted into the next step of the experiment.
Given that 'undirected' and 'unknown chemicals and conditions' form such central elements, it is unlikely that any such experiment will succeed. Assumptions as to what was sloshing around in Darwins 'warm pond' and assumptions as to athmospheric conditions at the time are just that - assumptions. Assumptions means the experiment is being directed by intelligence. Which is not how abiogenesists see it. The creationist, I suggest, can rest easily in the knowledge that science will never be able to formally eject God from the equation
While I concede that abiogenesis is far less supported than the ToE, and this would definitely be very strong evidence in support of abiogenesis, it is not necessary in positing it’s viability as a reasonable theory. As science marches on just how well supported a theory will be seen. Thus far it has been premature to assign things we do not yet fully understand to a god. Instead we should continue to bring science to bear on these matters and seek real explinations.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 09:51 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 9:26 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 10:58 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 152 (236423)
08-24-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by iano
08-24-2005 10:58 AM


Stepping on philosopher’s toes
AEA writes:
While I concede that abiogenesis is far less supported than the ToE, and this would definitely be very strong evidence in support of abiogenesis, it is not necessary in positing it’s viability as a reasonable theory.
iano writes:
Reasonable theory? I'm not debunking science here (which I think is a fantasitic enterprise) but when it comes to abiogenesis, what we have are unfounded assumptions about what was happening then. That isn't science, it is science fiction. A viable theory cannot be based on presumptions which can never be tested.
Although I am no expert in abiogenesis, I do realize that the theory (I should say hypothesis to be more accurate) is based on more than presumptions. Aside from the fact that it has historically been shown to be premature to posit a god as the reason for natural observations, abiogenesis (when looked at in detail) is a very rational hypothesis. Once science advances further it will be put it to the test. I'm sure there are ambitious scientists trying to reproduce at least one of the steps involved in abiogenesis right now. Like other natural observations where science has been forced to state we don’t know it’s merely a matter of time before we have a better understanding of whether abiogenesis is a solid explanation or not. Based on current related fields of study (such as the ToE) it is a rational and plausible explination.
AEA writes:
As science marches on just how well supported a theory will be seen. Thus far it has been premature to assign things we do not yet fully understand to a god. Instead we should continue to bring science to bear on these matters and seek real explinations.
iano writes:
Science should not assign unknown things to God. That is not it's remit. But neither should it comment on God on way or the other. That too is outside it's remit. Science is a narrowly defined entity. It can only attempt to explain the natural. It must remain silent on anything else. It must not, when it reaches limits pre-suppose that a natural cause will be found although it may look - otherwise it becomes a Religion. What it can say is "We do not know yet"
Yes, ultimately science does not speak to any philosophical entity, theism included. It can however seek out natural expiations where theism has happened to place it’s philosophical assertions. In this case science is unwittingly treding on theism’s philosophical assertion of special creation. Although it is not science’s intent or purpose to refute the philosophical assertions of theism, if a natural explanation is found which has better explanatory power and advances our understand of the universe then so be it. The theistic philosopher will have to reevaluate their beliefs lest he become out of touch with reality. If the theist’s god is placed safely into another gap of knowledge for now then that is the business of the theistic philosopher. Science cares not about god.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 03:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 10:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:23 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 152 (236425)
08-24-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
08-24-2005 11:13 AM


Lack of supernatural narrow?
GAW-Snow writes:
Pardon me for disagreeing, but some of us absolutely have never experienced anything beyond the natural and are convinced that there is nothing beyond the natural. Thus, to us science is hardly narrow.
To the naturalist science is definitely not narrow as it deals with everything in the universe. There are some, however, that will argue the validity of the supernatural to which science is excluded. The problem is that if there is such a thing, it lies outside of the natural universe, and therefore reality as we know it. If you are going to lend viability to the supernatural then you will have to lend credibility to believers in unicorns, and leprechauns. None of these things have evidence of their existence for the same reason that any supernatural entity does not. Ultimately, science has proven itself to be a great tool for the advancement of mankind’s knowledge and has contributed to everything you use in your day to day life (such as the computer you are using right now) whereas positing a supernatural explanation has not.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 11:44 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2005 11:13 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 152 (237304)
08-26-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
08-26-2005 6:21 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
Science is great I agree. But it cannot comment on anything outside the boundaries it sets itself. Typically: objective, observable, experimental explaination of the natural. Period. (Not that it doesn't speculate wildly at times)
What is the reason whereby we should believe objective is all there is. It might be a well founded theory but a theory is not truth. What reason have we to think that natural and objective are all there is (a reason that doesn't rely on circular reasoning I mean)
If supernatural, then science cannot measure it or observe it. It must be silent on things which may lie outside its self-imposed boundaries.
Science never seeks to prove or disprove the supernatural. What we were discussing was that grey area where theistic philosophy makes assertions about the natural universe. This becomes an overlap where science may hold an opposing assertion to theistic philosophy.
The real question becomes, when is it unhealthy to hold onto a philosophic belief in light of scientific evidence to the contrary?
The OP touched on an assertion that I’ve seen made by theistic philosophers before. Namely that god is necessary to create new life. It is one of the reasons these people reject the ToE (Theory of Evolution). Once science advances far enough to be able to create new life without god then isn’t it prudent to reevaluate your belief at that point?
I understand that there will be grey area where science has yet to offer enough compelling evidence to sway theistic beliefs in a certain area. The question becomes what is reasonable and what is simply cognitive dissonance.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:30 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 152 (237467)
08-26-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by iano
08-26-2005 2:53 PM


Re: The appliance of Science
AEA writes:
In the end though, they are blinded by their defensiveness from seeing what great benefits this could mean for mankind.
I think they may be worrying about the downside:
atom bombs
anthrax
global warming
obesity
cancer
intensive farming
deforestation
thalydamide
over consumption of world resource etc, etc, etc, etc,
I think they may be worried about what has happened every time a Pandoras box is opened by science. What happens is not always the fault of scientists (although the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Zyklon B cannot be sepatated from the scientists whose goal was to kill them) but once opened the box has proved impossible to close again
Working from that rationale they should denounce fire too. They were merely rejecting the idea of man creating new life because it threatened their fragile belief system, nothing more.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 2:53 PM iano has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 152 (237475)
08-26-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by iano
08-26-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
I'm sure there are too. And I'm pretty sure given enough intelligence/time/money applied that they may very well succeed. The only problem is that abiogenesis requires no intelligent input. Chance, blind chance is how it had to happen. No one knows what conditions existed then - nor will they ever. Whatever 'chance' conditions scientists use in their experiments to create say, a piece of self-replicating RNA - they are 'chance' conditions designed by what intelligence finds it needs to create this life.
I can see the headlines now "We have abiogenesised life under X-conditions. Thus X were the conditions that existed then!!" And said without a trace of irony too I'll warrant. Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Mark my words this is how it will happen
Although it is not science’s intent or purpose to refute the philosophical assertions of theism, if a natural explanation is found which has better explanatory power and advances our understand of the universe then so be it
Science does what science does and it should not worry about who it threads on. It must be blind and it must be impartial. It goes whereever it's journey takes it. I wish it well. Before Science, man was at the hub of a wheel and knew nothing except "Goddidit". There was nothing else to explain it. Since then, Science has ventured out from the hub along many spokes - only to find (so far) that every spoke ends up joined to a single rim to which every other spoke appears to attached. And at the rim: mystery, silence, no explanation. (eg: first cause, abiogenesis unprovable). At these nodal points, the non-humble elements within the body Science depart from good, sound methodology: experiment, observation, evidence - and enters the realm of poorly supported theory. They speculate and dress it up as science (see: Headlines above). This however is not science, it is science fiction.
God is the rim of the wheel. Everything inside the wheel is created by him. Science has just proved to be a fantastic way to find out more about how Goddidit. I can't wait for the next installment myself
The crux of your argument is just one big non sequitur . Just because science doesn’t hold the answers to all the questions does not mean that goddidit. Only through the advancement of science will be find the real answers. Placing god in the gaps helps nobody.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 5:38 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 152 (237477)
08-26-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
08-26-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
aea writes:
Once science advances far enough to be able to create new life without god then isn’t it prudent to reevaluate your belief at that point?
See post 26 for what constitutes 'new life'. I think I am being fair too. If science does this, then I'll not only reevaluate belief. I'll eat my hat.
I don’t think you are being fair. I think you are merely trying to reason your god a safer gap. Creationists argue that every kind of animal was created individually by their god. If science creates a new kind then it's time to reevaluate their belief.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:30 PM iano has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 152 (237709)
08-27-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by iano
08-26-2005 5:38 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
Just because science doesn’t hold the answers to all the questions does not mean that goddidit. Only through the advancement of science will be find the real answers. Placing god in the gaps helps nobody.
There is no need to include God for explanations to natural observations...when those observations can be shown to be natural. What always happens though is that science pushes from one cause back to a prior cause, to a prior cause. A backward moving cascade to....what?
To the point where science meets philosophy. As long as there is empirical evidence to find and experiments to try it benefits mankind to seek the knowledge science can bring. Belief in your brand of god is a philosophy and its purpose is not to teach us about the material world. The material world is the domain of science.
Leave God out of it along the way by all means. There are no gaps that can't be by and large filled by a prior cause (except for theories - which are tentitive prior causes but no matter). The area of interest is when the prior causes dissappear into mystery. To presuppose that science will keep on pushing back forever and that mysteries will eventually be explained is as much a presumption as is Goddidit.
You are absolutely right. That truly is the area of interest. As I see it there are two camps of ideals on how to handle this area of interest. Science wants to uncover the mystery and advance our knowledge. Creationists want to posit a god and call it a day.
If you say otherwise and have no basis for it then you have the faith of a theist. Your god is science. Is it not?
I have no belief in god because I understand that it is someone else’s philosophy and not mine. I have the ability to think for myself and develop my own philosophy. Mine happens to not include your god and also happens to support the ideals of science. I would like to see mankind advance so that the world can be a better place for our children. These advancements come from science and not creationism. They come from biology and not belief in Intelligent Design. If my philosophy is considered, by you, to be my religion then you are entitled to that opinion since religion and philosophy seem to be synonymous to you. Science is a tool to and end supported by my philosophy, no more.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 5:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brad McFall, posted 08-27-2005 3:35 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied
 Message 67 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 6:00 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 152 (237943)
08-28-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Brad McFall
08-27-2005 3:35 PM


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Brad McFall writes:
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future.
I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
Can anyone help me translate this?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Brad McFall, posted 08-27-2005 3:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 11:16 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 152 (237982)
08-28-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Brad McFall
08-28-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Why dont you ask me?
Do you have a problem with that?
Because it doesn’t make sense to refer to the source of confusion for clarification. By all means Brad, if you can repost #55 with greater clarity it would be greatly appreciated.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 11:16 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 12:50 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 152 (237991)
08-28-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Brad McFall
08-28-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
This does not refer to a "source" but a "utility". They are not the same. Please give me something about either a part of that post or who "YOU" as in "we" you already posted are. What do you believe.
Do you really think that issues in quantum entanglement have NOTHING to do with ecological science? etc etc etc.
Of course it made sense. I dont know which part you cant on your own enlarge on.
That’s what I was afraid of. I’m sorry Brad but I am getting the impression that either English is not your first language or that you are in the middle of a drug bender. Either way I can not make any sense of what you are trying to say to me. I usually make it a point to reply to everyone that takes the time to address one of my posts but in this case I simply can not. Unless there is someone else that can help me decipher what you are trying to ask me then I’m afraid I will remain at a loss here. :-(

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 12:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 1:06 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 152 (237995)
08-28-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Brad McFall
08-28-2005 1:06 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
You said previously
quote:
To the point where science meets philosophy. As long as there is empirical evidence to find and experiments to try it benefits mankind to seek the knowledge science can bring. Belief in your brand of god is a philosophy and its purpose is not to teach us about the material world. The material world is the domain of science.
I am afraid you would need to investigate this point further.
I had said
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future.
I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
Time is not space.
The position of communicable thought is.
One can be a synthetic biologist and a creationist.
In fact it is probably EASIER for that to happen but not in the current research environment of US unis.
Okay Brad, I’m going to give it my best try to respond here.
I think I’m getting the impression that you took my statement to mean that one can not hold a theistic philosophy and participate or agree with science. This is not the case. I am simply asserting that philosophy and science deal in different domains. Science is the tool which helps us gain knowledge about and learn to understand the physical universe we live in. Philosophy is the tool which helps us rationalize questions that are not the domain of the physical universe. It is important to note that I am not asserting that you have to use either or. A person can agree with or participate in science and still hold a philosophical belief. A theistic evolutionist is a prime example. The problem arises when people like creationists think their philosophical assertions about the physical universe hold more explanatory power than science does or will. This is simply not the case. It leads to the god of the gaps rationale and is the fundamental cause of the EvC debate.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-28-2005 01:22 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 1:06 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 1:29 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 152 (238000)
08-28-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
08-28-2005 1:29 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Ok- but I did take some "offense" to your USING the term "biology".
That is water under this bridge.
I take it then that you would be against the "logic" of
Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM
but more in tune with Gould's Magesteria concept??
Gould's crack in a church vault/spandrel
I would say that that is a fair assessment. As an agnostic atheist I share support the theistic evolutionists while I oppose the creationists and militant atheists. Science and philosophy are tools that have different domains of utility. They certainly do not overlap. Theistic philosophy has no business making assertions about the physical universe and science has no business making claims about god.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 1:29 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 08-28-2005 1:54 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 152 (238231)
08-29-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by iano
08-29-2005 6:00 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
To the point where science meets philosophy. As long as there is empirical evidence to find and experiments to try it benefits mankind to seek the knowledge science can bring. Belief in your brand of god is a philosophy and its purpose is not to teach us about the material world. The material world is the domain of science.
I agree with this. Science is great but limited to the material world. It's the philosophy that materalism is all there is which generates statements like God of the Gaps. As I commented to Yaro, objectivism and empiricism cannot be said to be the only way to know things - simple because that statement cannot be tested objectively and empirically. It's when we get to boudaries that the question of God arises. Not along the way. First cause of the universe, origin of life are two that spring to mind. And science has nothing to say here. Presupposing that it eventually will has no obejective or empirical warrant - and is thus as much a philosophical statement as is Goddidit. Science and religion aren't enemies - they just operate in different realms s'all.
I will agree to a point. I have no quarrel with people like theistic evolutionists. They understand that their theistic philosophy and science are separate and distinct entities. The whole reason there is a EvC debate in the first place is that there is a grey area that creationists are responsible for creating. Creationists like to make theistic philosophical assertions about the physical universe. The young earth fallacy is a good example. When science finds evidence to the contrary then the debate begins. Ultimately it is science that is the authority on matters of the physical world and not theistic philosophy. In matters such as this it is prudent for the theistic philosopher to accept the new knowledge science has brought to light and reevaluate their philosophy.
Creationists want to posit a god and call it a day.
In 1997 a survey in Nature magazine showed that 40% of scientists believe in God. I think this statement does those a disservice to those who are just as interested in how Goddidit as those who think he didn't. Whether God did or didn't do it is irrelevant to science which only attempts to explain the natural
I understand that a scientist can also hold a theistic philosophy. Those scientists understand that they are separate and distinct tools. It’s really the creationists that can’t be objective since their philosophy is diametrically opposed to certain sciences and overlaps in ways that can not be reconciled without reevaluating their philosophy. If they do not then they are prone to pseudoscience like Intelligent Design.
Science is a tool to and end supported by my philosophy, no more.
And there isn't a creationist in the room who would disagree with you. Their 'philosophy' seeks too to understand and enhance life for fellow humans via the vehicle of science. There should be no quarrel about what science does. This only occurs when folk (on either side) try to hijack it to undergird their philosophy.
Yet there is this great debate. I don’t see scientists overstepping science and making assertions about god. I do see plenty of creationists overstepping the boundaries of their philosophy and making assertions about the physical universe. That’s why there is a debate.
Long ago there were questions that man could not fathom science could be brought to bear on. Yet here we are having debate over creation and evolution. To believe that science can never answer questions pertaining to the physical world is naive and leads to the god of the gaps argument. Intelligent design is a perfect example. Although the prudent philosopher may reason himself a safer gap than others for his god, if this gap lies within the realm of the physical universe then it’s only a matter of time before science will be brought to bear on the matter. It’s happened before, it’s happening now, and it will happen in the future.
We have come far as a people but our knowledge of the universe is still infantile. You can’t even say that your god is the first cause of the universe because we may one day find that the universe has a natural cause and is a member of a vast collection of universes. We may one day find we are but one dimension in countless parallel dimensions. It is only wise to reserve judgment about what your philosophy does and does not seek to explain. You should leave your philosophical assertion at simply first cause. This affords you a constantly moving goalpost at least keeping your gap just out of reach of science.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-29-2005 09:12 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 6:00 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 10:37 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied
 Message 116 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 8:42 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024