the rules in science

I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from evolutionists when I explain them about creationism. And actually also some creationists don't get it.As is well known, in science it's not allowed to talk in terms of what ought and ought not. Since the start of science it has been understood that science does not answer "why" questions, where why is the reason for a decision. Science can't answer why because given the same initial condition, one or the other alternative may be decided on. Science only works for when there is no alternative, or to describe limits of freedom, or to pinpoint that a decision is made, but not why the one alternative was realized instead of the other.The way scientists since the beginnings of science have solved this problem, is simply to refer the subjective why questions, questions about what ought and ought not, to the spiritual realm. That leaves the material realm for everybody to be perfectly objective about.The meaning of objectivity is to pass on information, not changing it. The meaning of subjectivity is to decide information. Subjectivity creates new information that didn't exist before in the universe, the information which alternative is realized.I don't know what happened in science that now many evolutionists seem to think "why" questions are not acknowledged as spiritual anymore, but I fail to see any good reason to tamper with a system that worked, and still works.You can't talk about what ought and ought not as science, and that means that within science ought and ought not are not material, but spiritual.I wish for everybody creationists and evolutionists alike to enforce this rule, which means that it might be talked about in a lot of threads, maybe just as many threads as the scientific method is mentioned.So for example when somebody says science has to be objective, well then that is kind of false, because in science you have to be subjective about what ought and ought not.

The point is to make a clear distinction between ought and is. So then you get 2 categories, one for is, the other for ought, the one for measurement the other for judgement, the one information is just transferred from the universe, the other information is created by judgement, descriptive and prescriptive, the material and the spiritual.And that's what scientists have been doing by and large, they have been saying that science doesn't explain why, but how etc. They have been principally supporting 2 categories, and the separation between them. That is the proven best method, simply have 2 categories, acknowledge them both, and try to keep them separate. Not acknowledging the other category, the spiritual, that has proven to lead to messing things up, like social darwinism.There is such a large percentage of evolutionists now who don't actually support the spiritual, who continuously mess up the objective with the subjective when the issue is about something like evolution of morality, or consciousness, etc.So I think we all need to confront these evolutionist posters more;
- when they demand objective evidence for the spiritual (God), which is basically equal to demanding objective evidence of goodness or badness
- when they make a mess of subjectivity and objectivity in talking about people, brains, freedom, morality, evolution of morality, the underlying motivations in universal processes or lack thereof etc.

You fail to understand that there is no objective evidence for the goodness or badness of people either.

Concepts are material things, they consist of information, so when you say God, goodness and badness are concepts, then you are violating the rule also.There are many scientists now reducing everything not to particles, but to information, so quite clearly in the context of information science you are violating the rule.Besides good, bad and God, also love and hate and such have to be understood as spiritual in science. Generally all things which are said to do the job of choosing should be understood as spiritual, which basically involve why questions, or who questions as identity issues.

I think you are misrepresenting the psychological sciences involved, who would generally be a lot more careful to avoid any kind of judgement. And when they do talk about good and bad, they would stipulate that they are being subjective. So basically a lot of psychology proceeds on the basis that some things can only be known subjectively. On that basis they can proceed to investigate subjectivity itself, ways of making decisions. The spiritual does the job of choosing, leaving the psychologists to investigate the patterns in choices, without being judgemental.

That the universe is blind pitiless and indifferent. That only people have goodness, or can attribute goodness. Those are some of the things said by evolutionists as if they were scientific fact.And what this pseudoscientific judging tends to do is to distract away from an objective science about how decisions are made. For example democracy and dictatorship are different ways of making decisions. So we can make science about decisions, without being judgemental. And so we find in the universe at large many different systems that have different ways of arriving at one of many possible alternatives.

Blind, pitiless and indifferent is judgemental. It is also contrasted with humanity being good. If for instance we must choose between preserving a person, or preserving a rock, then this morality says we ought to preserve the person, the rock being worthless.Your talk about love being rooted in brains is deceptive. With a decision new information is introduced into the universe, namely which alternative is realized and which is destroyed. Now where was this information rooted? It wasn't rooted anywhere, it simply did not exist before the decision was made.

As before, what is out of bounds for science is the why, for when there is a decision. Because the information simply does not exist, and the why information we make up, can be changed without it being any more or less accurate. One day we can say the reason why is X, the other day we can say it's Y, and neither would be more or less accurate as far as science can tell.Ofcourse you can define the words love and hate, good and bad, in such a way that they are strictly mechanical, but that would lead to confusion with their subjective use.

Obviously I would not use the word pitiless and indifferent, but rather use a word like forced, to denote the lack of freedom in a system. But ofcourse there are very many different kinds of decisionprocesses going on in the universe, not just in brains.

Definitely when scientists don't enter into questions about what should, that's going to help science getting less interference from spiritualists.Also if the science about decisions is more developed, and if it's acknowledged that what decides is spiritual, then that could well be the end of the creation vs evolution debate.It's the same thing, the ought, and ought not, also apply to what is making the decision.So again, the science about decisions would be about things like the structure of decisionmaking, like democracy, or dictatorship are structures, and distinghuising decisions which are reasoned, and not reasoned, informed and not informed etc. but no science about love and whatnot, that will all be left to religion.And again, freedom is essential to the logic of decisionmaking. This is why we can't be objective about love and such, but we can only know such things subjectively, freely. That's because if it were objective it would also be predetermined, so there would be no freedom, so no decision, so the logic would fail.

The logic of decisions is more fundamental in the universe than the logic of cause and effect, so everything in the universe is decided. Randomness in the context of decisionmaking means like an uninformed choice.Ofcourse you can define words any which way you want, go ahead and define love in a non free, mechanistic way. But then people would not accept your definition, and it would lead to confusion for the freedom based definition of those words. So basically you are deceiving people when you say you can explain love, because you are using a different definition of it than common.Besides you can investigate love productively by doctrine of reasonable judgement, which is an art not a science. And I think this is how the majority of psychologists work, without mechanistic, objectified love.

As far as I can tell Manson is a racist, which means he believes in heritable values. He also studied some scientology, which is a Darwinist derived doctrine based on the commandment to survive. This is not spiritual in the sense that it asserts objectivity of values. It is also not free in the sense that it's based on a commandment, rather then a relationship.Reasonable judgement is many things. It is pain is bad, pleasure good. It is all in moderation. etc. etc. You seem to be scared that if people are free from pseudoscience, then they will move towards bizarre religions. But I think they more will more go to safe, tried and true religion,and reasonable judgement besides. There's a lot of extremism among evolutionists now, a lot of absolutism, an enormous pumping up of the value of the scientific method. Reasonable judgement is just too vague for these people, common knowledge they despise, many don't even acknowledge free will. So I think you are wrong about it all. When religion is subjective, then you can't easily force, or coerce anybody to join your religion, because you can't force their subjectivity.But that's all besides the point, you are not allowed to speak in terms of ought and ought not in science. That's the rule.

As before nobody knows anymore what is subjective and what's objective when evolutionists talk about the blind, pitiless indifference. Many texts about evolution of morality are deceptive this way, some straightforward evolutionist morality of rights, the theory of natural selection itself is deceptive this way. It's one thing to talk about "success" as in differential reproductive success, when you can distinghuish it from subjective spiritual success. But if there is no subjective success acknowledged, and scientific Darwinistic success is all that is real, or more real then any other form of success, then ought becomes is, and is becomes ought.But as before, this is all besides the point. I know you are a liable to pseudoscience because you don't believe in the spiritual realm at all, so therefore you can't distinghuish is from ought easily. It must mean that your ought and ought nots are somehow objectified. And there you go completely predictably accepting talk of blind, pitiless indifference as science, rather then protesting it.

That there is no evidence for the spiritual realm is the point. No evidence for ought and ought not, completely subjective. When there would be evidence then we would have objective good and bad.

I think the blind, pitiless indifference is already a good enough example.If things in the inanimate universe can turn out alternative ways, then the "why" question applies in between the alternatives. So for somebody to say the inanimate universe is bpi, it either means there is no freedom in the universe at large (untrue), or there was no beginning to the universe (no alternatives between being and not being, also untrue), or it means there is freedom and the spirit of these decisions is judged to be pitiless and indifferent. Blind can be interpreted as an objective statement about the decisions, that the decisions aren't made according to a model of the future.