|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: One of the objections towards ID is that science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong. Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons. Science can consider any phenomena of the natural world, which means anything we're able to detect. To the extent that you can detect God and his causal actions on the universe, he is natural. So the argument that you were attempting to summarize isn't that science cannot, by definition, deal with God. It's that science cannot, by definition, deal with undetectable phenomena, and we have not so far been able to detect God using any scientifically devised experiments or observations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Percy wrote:
While I do agree that God is scientifically undetectable, your comment caused me to think of "phenomena," if I may, that science actually does deal with, but which are still empirically undetectable. For example, scientists are often concerned with: It's that science cannot, by definition, deal with undetectable phenomena, and we have not so far been able to detect God using any scientifically devised experiments or observations. ” absolute zero” action at a distance ” gravity waves ” neutrinos ” dark matter ” speciation ” abiogenesis These may be considered fair game for scientists as relevant theories, but not yet qualifying as natural "phenomena" (I am often bothered by the question of whether or not phenomenology is the best paradigm for today's science). My own opinion is that Occam's razor effectively "deals with God" by shaving Him off the face of science as both theoretically and empirically unnecessary. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
If you read back in the thread you'll see where Randman and I agreed upon a definition of "detectable". It doesn't refer only to things that *have* been detected, but to everything that *can* be detected given time and appropriate technology.
Looking through your list it looks like in some cases you're just unaware of what science has actually accomplished, and that in other cases you're confusing indetectable phenomena with phenomena for which we haven't yet detected an actual instance in nature, but were one to occur it would be perfectly detectable. Reviewing your list:
So after going through your list in detail, it doesn't appear that you included any accepted scientific phenomena that are indetectable.
My own opinion is that Occam's razor effectively "deals with God" by shaving Him off the face of science as both theoretically and empirically unnecessary. Given currently available evidence, I agree. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Percy, we do detect God, however, by detecting design in the universe. It is clear that some sort of Intelligence is involved in the creation of the universe. We also have evidence that without consciousness for observation, according to guys like Wheeler, the building blocks of matter cannot take on form, and so the universe cannot exist without Intelligence.
This discovery within QM is predicted by ID or design theory. In other words, we see design which from everything we know stems from intelligence, and we would predict that prior to any physical form, if there is a God, Intelligence must exist, and lo and behold, we find that Intelligence and Consciousness are prerequisites to the formation of matter. The fact we cannot perhaps directly observe God does not change that we indirectly do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons. You believe that percy? You really think evos are not saying God is off-limits to science a priori? You want me to go through some posts here on EvC or statements elsewhere to demonstrate that evos do hold this position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined:
|
I genuinely believe if you would divorce yourself from the beliefs these discussions entailed, you would see I have acted better, not worse, than my critics. It seems, however, you are bent on ignoring an objective view of the facts, as I tried to show in getting you to see where the exact same post was lauded by a poster that wanted discussion and other posters immediately criticized it and started down a path of ridicule, hostility, rules-breaking, unfounded accusations, etc, etc.....all without censure, as is normal.....I did not reply in kind, but it made no difference in ameliorating these guys wanting to make things personal because the issue isn't my posting style or my attitude. The issue really lies with coddling evo posters that feel justified and empowered and indeed are empowered, to continue the worst behaviour possible with only a few facing any serious moderation whatsoever.
If Jesus Himself was posting here and took the same arguments I have made, I suspect you guys would say he wasn't a nice guy either and would have a lot of problems with Him as well, accusing Him of intellectual dishonesty, a bad attitude, etc..... You basically have a very partisan moderation group with a couple of less active creationist posters, as far as I can tell, but at least with Buzz I can say this....His stance, like many Christians however, is that the Christians and IDers and creationists should behave better than the others to win them over. That is all fine and well and good. However, it should not lead to varying standards where effectively one side in debate is given leeway to make false accusations and personal insults and attacks all day long, as is the case with evos here, and creationists and IDers are considered somehow to blame. I am not saying that buzz is contributing to that, but I do think it is a risk considering his beliefs. What would be better is to see a creationist of ID moderator e given the leeway someone like Nosy has, who routinely moderates so biased as to be near laughable. Not saying the IDer should be biased liek Nosy and some others, but if they were to weigh in continually to force evos to behave and be given leeway to do that, you might see an improvement. I have noticed that when you have had creationist posters in the past moderate an evo, it often as was the case with me, it led to their dismissal. Imo, this is once again evidence that it's not the creationists here causing the problems, but rather the coddling of evos being given a pass to falsely smear and attack their critics on a personal level. It's no accident that most well-reasoned critics of evolution are eventually forced and harassed from this site. It isn't that their arguments are ever defeated, but that they are harassed by the biased moderation and false accusations, and just to be clear, although this is not "nice", you are empowering this and undermining your stated goal of "discussion" in a civil tone by continuing to blame IDers and creationists rather than the evos that are actually igniting and driving the poor tone, lack of civility and personal attacks. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Percy wrote:
OK, the operational idea here is detectability. Given that, you agreed with absolute zero but you disputed action at a distance:
If you read back in the thread you'll see where Randman and I agreed upon a definition of "detectable". It doesn't refer only to things that *have* been detected, but to everything that *can* be detected given time and appropriate technology. Looking through your list it looks like in some cases you're just unaware of what science has actually accomplished, and that in other cases you're confusing indetectable phenomena with phenomena for which we haven't yet detected an actual instance in nature, but were one to occur it would be perfectly detectable. I assume you're referring to what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", and what we know today as quantum entanglement. I don't know why you've included this one in your list because the phenomenon is detected all the time. Quantum entanglement is beginning to form the basis of practical applications, such as secure communications, and the principle is the foundation of quantum computing.
I'll have to agree. I knew about quantum entanglement, but I was not entirely sure if that qualifies as "action at a distance." And if it does how is it detectable? Can it be observed microscopically? (Or is that question too reductionistic for quantum theory?) Macroscopically, perhaps? Re: gravity waves, which I had in mind concering the question of gravitational action at a distance, and also re: neutrinos and dark matter, I was unaware that they are considered detectable. Thanks. However, regarding speciation, I still don't think the event itself is detectable, while I do agree that the result certainly can be detected. Finally, concerning abiogenesis:
The fact that the abiogenesis event that resulted in us occurred about 3.8 billion years ago when we weren't around to observe it directly doesn't mean it is an indetectable phenomenon.
I disagree with you here. For one thing, I don't think it is a fact that abiogenesis occurred on Earth. Given what little we know about it, abiogenesis could have occurred somewhere else and life could have arrived here by way of panspermia. For another, as with speciation, I don't think scientists know enough about abiogenesis to detect the event itself. But of course they can detect the oucome. What is the temporal criterion for detectability? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: Percy, we do detect God, however, by detecting design in the universe. That isn't an accepted idea within science. As I said in the For Herepton and any others interested thread, and you agreed, the task before intelligent design advocates is to design sets of experiments and/or observations whose results can help build a consensus for their ideas across the community of scientists.
We also have evidence that without consciousness for observation, according to guys like Wheeler, the building blocks of matter cannot take on form, and so the universe cannot exist without Intelligence. Even if Wheeler believed as you think (and I don't he did, but that's a different discussion), this isn't an idea that has much acceptance within the scientific community today. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons. You believe that percy? You really think evos are not saying God is off-limits to science a priori? You want me to go through some posts here on EvC or statements elsewhere to demonstrate that evos do hold this position? I have no doubt that the argument is often misstated, but you said that one of the objections against ID is that "science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong." I answered, "Well, yes, of course it's wrong..." It's not a valid rebuttal because it misstates the position of science on issues for which no evidence exists. Last time I checked I wasn't omniscient, omnipresent or all-powerful, so there is little I can do to counter misstatements of the nature of science other than to correct them when I encounter them in discussion. The way you often see science's position on God stated, and it's been expressed this way at EvC Forum many, many times, is that science cannot say anything one way or the other about God. Science cannot say that God exists because there is no evidence, and science cannot say God does not exist because absence of evidence cannot be construed as evidence of absence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Well, at least when all is said and done you'll be able to say you did it your way.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The way you often see science's position on God stated, and it's been expressed this way at EvC Forum many, many times, is that science cannot say anything one way or the other about God. I'd say it's half and half......half the evos say this, and others ridicule this concept. Brenna, for example, was critical of Dawkins over this basically, and Crash insisted that the only reasonable inference is hostility towards faith in God or some such. But maybe most are like you here....we'd have to poll folks. More significantly, the shapers of evolutionism have essentially taken the opposite view of your's and held to the belief that Darwin's significance is to discredit the concept of a Creator God. When asked on the Charlie Rose show for example, Wilson and the other guy (just forgot his name) made that abundantly clear and ridiculed any scientist having faith, one of them saying they knew of no scientist, and I assume they mean credible scientist that believed, and the other corrected him, if my memory serves me correct, and they admitted they knew one. Rose confirmed it was Charlie Rose. Personally, I think these esteemed evo gentlemen's remarks ought to be eye-opening and that rather than try to defend those remarks, I think it's important for you and others to see that indeed they do believe science disproves the existence of God. I agree that this is an absurd and nonsensical position, but I also believe they understand evolutionary theory much better than you do, and they are rightly communicating it's heart and logic in their denunciation of the concept of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Hoot Mon,
I think you're still missing what detectability means. Wherever abiogenesis takes place, whether here or elsewhere in the universe, whether now or billions of years in the past or future, it is still thought to be a physical and chemical process that is eminently detectable. Whenever and wherever it occurs, if there's someone there then they'll be able to monitor the process. I think you're hung up on some kind of "If a tree falls in the woods when no one's around did it make sound" misunderstanding. Things that happen when no one's around aren't indetectable phenomena, they're merely unobserved phenomena. Imagine there's a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy where a lightning bolt suddenly splits the night. That's not an indetectable phenomena. If there's intelligent life on that planet then they'll detect it just fine. But it is a phenomena that we here on earth will never observe. Another way of defining natural is anything that can have an effect on the universe in which we live. Naturally there are tons of things going on this universe that we'll never actually observe ourselves, but that doesn't mean they're not natural. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: When asked on the Charlie Rose show for example, Wilson and the other guy (just forgot his name)... Oh yeah, that other guy, discoverer of the double helix and author of the timeless book by the same name, good old Nobel Prize winning what's-his-name. Continuing:
...made that abundantly clear and ridiculed any scientist having faith, one of them saying they knew of no scientist, and I assume they mean credible scientist that believed, and the other corrected him, if my memory serves me correct, and they admitted they knew one. Rose confirmed it was Charlie Rose. I don't think you mean that Rose said it was himself. I think you meant to say Francis Collins. Collins is a convert to evangelical Christianity. He believes in a personal God. That's why I made the point in that thread that Wilson and Watson's comments about God's existence were in the context of a personal God. Had they had in mind scientists who believe in a God of any type, including an impersonal God who perhaps set the universe in motion but otherwise lets it run its own course, then they would have been able to name many, many scientists, some of them very well known such as scientist and author Paul Davies. So what Wilson and Watson were saying was that they believe that Darwinian evolution makes it impossible to believe in a personal God. Watson's fellow Nobel Prize winning scientist Stephen Weinberg likes to say that science didn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just made it possible to not believe in God. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Oh yeah, that other guy, discoverer of the double helix and author of the timeless book by the same name, good old Nobel Prize winning what's-his-name. Civility? I waa aware to a degree of his accomplishments.....just couldn't think of the name for a sec, and yes I saw the smiley. Oh, and really the thing that they only were talking of a personal God is a stretch. If that was the case, why not say that? Moreover, there are plenty of other scientists that believe in a personal God. What they were saying and did say is that they believe science and Darwin's discoveries exclude belief in God. If you want to whitewash it and claim they only meant the Christian or Jewish God or a personal God, it really makes no difference at all for this discussion. It's still nonsense and yet that nonsense is the very heart and soul, or as they said the primary "significance", of Darwinism.
So what Wilson and Watson were saying was that they believe that Darwinian evolution makes it impossible to believe in a personal God. Which just shows that it's possible to make an advance in a field of science without having a clue about what science actually is, it's significance, nor what reasonable logic is either. I suppose this is the result of the specialized nature of science, but it's still quite pathetic and delusional on their part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
That's what you should expect intelligent, independent thinkers to do....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024