s: Usually, "ism" at the end of the word indicates a philophical bent to me. If there is confusion with some people about what Naturalism is, it's probably because they have not done any study of the subject. That's not Naturalism's fault.
quote:
m: I can appreciate this. Evolution, then
, would be more accurately expressed as "evolutionism."
No, Evolution would be more accurately expressed as the scientific Theory of Evolution.
Unless, of course, you would like to start puting "ism" at the end of every scientific theory, such as "Atomic Theoryism", "Theory of a Heliocentric Solar Systemism, or "Germ Theory of Diseaseism".
s: So, are you suggesting that supernatural explanations for phenomena would benefit scientific inquiry? How so?
quote:
m: That's not necessarily what I'm suggesting. Just as the definition of science should not be made to require the assumption of creationism, the definition of science should not be made to require the assumption of naturalism.
So, yes, you are suggesting that supernatural explanations should be allowed.
s: Naturalism says that, "all there is, is nature."
Science says, "use naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena." It doesn not make any comment about the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.
See the difference?
quote:
m: I see the difference, always have. The difference that I have a hard time getting naturalists to recognize is that they are promoting an unprovable metaphysical philosophy as science.
For the umpteenth time...
The philosophy of Naturalism and science are not the same thing. I have explained this to you several times, you say you understand, then you go ahead and say the same thing over again.
quote:
If there is no God, then their lack of objectivity is a mute point. If there is a God, and if his handiwork (i.e., creation) has left evidence of HIS nature, it could never be acknowledged even as a hypothesis to be examined, given the assumptivist philosophical basis of the current gatekeepers of the definition of science.
Incorrect.
If the supernatural left evidence, then it would be incorporated into science.
Of course, you would first need to identify what this evidence would be, and then all sorts of questions about the nature of the Designer/God would need to be addressed. So far, the IDists have done none of this.
quote:
m: "Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).
s: All of science is materialistic. It does not address the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.
quote:
m: But it doesn't deal with the material in an objective manner. Objectivity would leave the issue of ultimate cause open,
Ultimate cause is left open, in that science says "We don't know". No determination has been made because none can be made because the evidence isn't there.
quote:
ideas springing from physical evidence (complexity, possible "design") would not be ruled out from the onset as they are now.
So far, no compelling physical evidence has come forward which suggests Intelligent Design, let alone the existence of God. Complexity can be explained in naturalistic ways. The main arguments the ID folks have are Arguments from Incredulity ("I cannot fathom how this could have come about, therefore Godidit"), and God of the Gaps (Science doesn't understand X, therefore Godidit").
Both are logical fallacies.
In addition, since ID makes no predictions and doesn't provide any positive evidence, it is only a philosophy, not science.
s: What Naturalists do with scientific findings in their "crusades" is irrelevant to the validity of the science.
quote:
m: Then most of our textbooks and public TV documentaries on the subject are irrelevant to the validity of the science, a destructive influence in many ways.
Please provide a Biology textbook quote which states that "Nature is all there is". I do not think it exists, and I certainly deny that "most of our textbooks" proclaim anything of the sort.
quote:
m: And constructing a definition of science that couldn't make room for God even if God exists (due to favoring the contrary metaphysical philosophy that "nature is all there is"), is not rational.
s: Why isn't it rational? Why wouldn't the study of nature restrict itself to the natural?
quote:
m: Is it rational to conclude, at the onset (before the scientific journey is begun), that there is no Creator,
Science DOES NOT DO THIS.
You seem to have trouble understanding that IGNORING something is not the same as CLAIMING THAT THIS SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST.
quote:
OR THAT it is impossible for physical evidence to imply the work of a Creator?
Sure, it is rational to restrict the study of the natural to naturalistic explanations.
The alternative is to allow scientists to say "Godidit", which explains nothing.
OTOH, I personally know several scientists who look at the "amazingness" and wonderfulness of life and the Universe and see God in it. However, they do not for a minute think that it would be a good idea to change the scientific method of inquiry. They understand the difference between science and philosophy; between what you can demonstrate and what you like to believe.
Do you fault science for not explaining aethetics, or morality? Science does not comment on these things because it is not in it's scope of inquiry. The same is true of science and the supernatural.
quote:
It's grand to say that we're limiting our study to nature because we want to be objective, but it is illogical to paint oneself into a corner (via a commitment to naturalism) when the possibility exists that there is a Creator.
It is only illogical if you expect science to tell you anything about the supernatural. It doesn't, because it isn't designed to or meant to. That's what philosophy and religion is for.
There may be a Creator, or many Creators. Or not.
Science is the most powerful predictive and retroductive tool we have for understanding the nature of our Universe. It is powerful in large part BECAUSE it restricts itself to the natural.
What would happen if we all decided a few years ago that Behe was right, and that blood clotting was a sign of Intelligent Design because it was Irreducably-Complex (nobody knew how it evolved, or could have evolved)
Would any study into the evolutionary pathways of a blood clotting mechanism be ended because we decided Godidit, so no more questions need be asked? Would research be allowed to continue and then when an evolutionary path was found, as it has been, would we all decide that maybe this system wasn't actually Irreducably Complex and could have occurred by naturalistic means?
Do you see the complication to research, and the real posibility of a chilling effect to inquiry once we start ot use the God of the Gaps fallacy?
We used the God of the Gaps fallacy when we decided that Apollo drove the sun around the horizon every day. You are suggesting that we go back to that kind of "thinking".
quote:
Evolutionism is correct only if its unprovable metaphysical assumptions are correct--just like creationism.
Science, Biology, and the Scientific Theory of Evolution, like all other scientific theories, are considered to be the best explanation of the current data if they survive repeated tests, if their predictions and retrodictions are borne out, and if they agree well with independent lines of evidence from other scientific fields.
Creationism, by contrast, agrees only with itself and an ancient religious book.
s: You are also continuing to make the mistake of stating that science says that "nature is all there is", which I have already told you several times that it expressly does not do this!
quote:
m: Then, let's get those textbooks and documentaries rehauled in order to make it clear to people that creationism is every bit as philosophically valid as naturalism (given the incomplete nature of our investigations).
Naturalism and Science are NOT SYNONYMOUS, as I have stated over and over again.
ALso, you made the claim about the textbooks, so please, let's see some quotes which state that "Nature is all there is, and God doesn't exist."
Even if all the textbooks were wrong, it still wouldn't make denial of the supernatural a tenet of science. It would simply mean that it was being taught incorrectly.
Do you think that events in history did or didn't happen if they are or are not taught accurately in history class?
s: Science, when asked about the existence of the supernatural, says "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, so no determination can be made."
This is entirely and completely different from saying, "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, therefore nature is all there is".
Do you see the difference now?
quote:
Of course I do.
I don't think you do, because you keep making the same mistake of confusing naturalism with science over and over again.
quote:
I think most people do, even those yec creationists.
Wait, didn't you say several posts ago that many people think that Naturalism is science; the study of nature? Now you say that most people understand the difference. Which is it?
quote:
Would it have been consistent to add the following to your response above: "There is no positive evidence to discount the possibility of the supernatural, so it may be that our universe was created"?
Since science deals with
positive evidence, saying that there is no evidence which counts against something that has no evidence in it's support in the first place is a little labored, don't you think?
It might be that our universe was created. It might also be that it has always been here. It might have been created 15 minutes ago, our memories of the past intact. It might have also been belched up from the belly of the Great Galactic Goat. Who knows?
When you start listing unsupported possibilities that science doesn't have any evidence for, they you can go far beyond the Creator of your preference, because the possibilities are endless.
quote:
m: It's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation.
s: Sorry, that doesn't make it a theory.
All it means is that people are confused.
quote:
I am sorry also, especially since children are being brainwashed to make the same error of confusion that governs school districts' decisions about what is good "science": the assumption of a self-existing universe that must rule out at the onset the possibility of a Creator and of a superior divine meaning to human life.
You keep saying this but providing absolutely no evidence that this is happening.
Please provide those texbook quotes which state that God doesn't exist.
Again, ignoring the supernatural is not the same as declaring that the supernatural doesn't exist.
Again, Naturalism is not the same thing as Science. amd science does NOT state that the supernatural does not exist. Science is silent on the subject; it neither confirms nor denies.
Again, how would letting scienctists use the supernatural as an explanation for natural events benefit inquiry?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
™ Version 4.2