Hi, Rob.
What we have, are commitments to a particular philosophical view on both sides of this debate.
Well, I certainly see commitments to a particular philosophical view on one side of the debate. I certainly cannot figure out the behavior of creationists and IDists except that they have a commitment to a particular philosophical view point. In fact,
they even tend to admit that they have a commitment to a particular philosophical viewpoint.
On the other hand, the people engaged in the biological and geological sciences span far too wide a range of religious, political, and philosophical view points to claim that they are committed to
a particular view point. And I find it hard to believe that they can come up with such a remarkably consistent version of history if their work was so biased toward their many, diverse view points, unless their work was somehow accurately describing reality despite their view points. It's possible, I suppose, but someone is going to have to come up with a better demonstration that this is the case besides just complaining that the scientific consensus contradicts their own beliefs.
Having had some experience in the sciences and knowing many people who work in the sciences and about what motivates people to go into the sciences, I find it hard to believe that so many different people with so many different view points and so many different backgrounds and so many different personalities are all so biased that they cannot tell when the data indicate a very different reality than the one in which they believe. Again, I suppose it could be true, but someone is going to have to do more to demonstrate this than just complain when the scientific consensus contradicts their beliefs.
-
The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be appearent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer.
I don't buy this. Some people claim this, but I don't believe it, if for no other reason than I have never come across a definition of "supernatural" or "spiritual" (as opposed to the "natural" or "material") that didn't have some sort of inherent problems. Something either exists or it does not. It either has effects on the portion of the universe that we can observe, or it does not. It's effects either exhibit some sort of regularity or it does not.
Science merely recognizes that the world operates with some degree of regularity, and uses this regularity to come to some conclusions as to how the world works. Science operates on the hypothesis-prediction-observation model. One makes a hypothesis, then makes predictions of what she will observe if the hypothesis is true, and then makes the necessarily observations to see whether the predictions are borne out.
And this is just common sense, this is just how people act in real life. People are constantly (and sometimes unconsciously) changing their ideas and beliefs based on what they see and experience (even if some of it is second-hand); when those experiences are contrary to what they expect, they naturally analyze those experiences to see whether their beliefs and assumptions need to be adjusted.
I mean, how else can we come to any conclusions about the world around us? Divine revelation? Even Gideon required further testing to be able to distinguish true revelation from madness.
"Methodological naturalism" does not exclude a designer -- the hypothesis of intelligent (but material) alien beings artificially creating earth-based life and seeding the earth is well within the purview of "methodological naturalism".
Science does not exclude a "supernatural" designer. If the "supernatural" (whatever that is) does exist, then it presumably has an effect on the "natural" universe, and these effects can be studied, and conclusions may be drawn from them.
The reason these hypotheses are not considered by scientists is that they aren't really hypotheses -- there is no hypothesis of any kind of intelligent designer that makes predictions of definite, distinct phenomena that can then be tested.
-
We infer design because the existence of certain systems are explainable in terms of analogous systems created by human intelligence elsewhere.
Sure. Just as Thor's thunderbolts and earthquakes were inferred by analogies with known human actions and reactions. The question isn't whether one can make up an analogy, the question is whether there are distinct, observable phenomena that are predicted from the hypothesis. Without being able to test the hypothesis, we are just making stuff up.
-
Why is that not a legitimate inference even without the exact material causes, when methodological naturalism is assuned to be valid without the material causes?
It's not a
scientific inference. And, in my opinion, without being grounded in observation, it it just making stuff up; it is irrational to insist on its truth so strongly without having any real, objective evidence to back it up.
Researchers in abiogenesis are doing research right now, right this minute. Do you think that they are just watching soap operas all day? They are performing experiments to actually test which of their ideas are viable and which are not and to come up with new ideas. Do you think that they just dump random chemical in test tubes and heat them up? They design their experiments based on actual theories about various stages in the formation of life. Where do you think they get their money? Their grant proposals have to explain the theories they are investigating and how their experiments will refine their understanding of the underlying processes.
I know that you believe that scientists are all biased to some sort of world view, and this bias somehow prevents them from recognizing simple reality; I also know that there is nothing I or anyone can say that is going to change your opinion on this. But I simply do not believe this (and you can chalk this up to my biases, I suppose). There are too many people working in these fields, and they come into these fields from too many different social and cultural backgrounds, and with too many different philosophical and religious beliefs for me to believe that they can all be so thoroughly biased to force some sort of common "materialistic dogma" onto the data, and to come up with such a consistent yet false picture of the world. I believe that if abiogenesis was such an unviable possibility we would have heard all about it by now from the very people in the field, not just from those with
an axe to grind.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
™ Version 4.2
