Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 396 (496640)
01-29-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Agobot
01-29-2009 3:08 PM


Re: supernatural
In order to explain supernaturalistic science, you have to first explain the difference between the natural and the supernatural. If for you the natural is ill-defined then you're going to have a lot of trouble explaining how the supernatural is different.
But the natural is not ill-defined. The natural world consists of what we can see and hear and all the rest of the senses. Anything that is not in some way apparent to one of our senses cannot be part of the natural world and is therefore supernatural. Even dark matter, which cannot be directly detected because it doesn't interact with ordinary matter, is part of the natural world because our senses can detect the effects of its gravity on galaxies.
There is a conundrum regarding defining the supernatural. God in his own realm is supernatural, but if he were to make an appearance on earth to thousands of people at once, would that be natural or supernatural. You could argue that it is natural since he's detectable by our senses. And you could argue that it is supernatural because the manner of his sudden appearance violates a half dozen known physical laws of the natural universe.
I think its incumbent upon those telling us about supernatural science to tell us the definition of supernatural.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 3:08 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 197 of 396 (496643)
01-29-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Modulous
01-29-2009 3:30 PM


Re: supernatural
Modulous writes:
Alternatively, you can try to muddy the issue with nonsense pseudo-philosophical sophistry. The underlying question is this: Is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?
If it is, how?
If it is not, why?
Is this the first time you hear of physicists trying to find traces/clues about God(the creator)? The so called Mind of God?
Modulous writes:
As I said, trying to distract the topic away from the questions and down roads of semantics is not going to impress anyone.
That's strictly your opinion but it's not a mere case of semantics. It's how you look at the world and whether you realise that "natural" and "supernatural" is one and the same, just viewed through a different religion - atheism or Christianity(or some other religion). If you had an open mind, you'd know that there is no supernatural, just the unknown(but atheists and theists rarely keep an open mind beyond the dogma of the scope of their beliefs).
Modulous writes:
Whatever you want to call whatever - can you please give "a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. ", which doesn't involve butchering the current function of science...ie., can you show that "that ID will not kill science"?
The pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating than the pursuit of chaos, randomness and blind chance IMO. If the belief in God does not constitute some sectarian cult, I don't see how it could have a negative effect on science.
Modulous writes:
The latter claim is not very well worded and would seem to be very much misguided nonsense based on thinking that English is a great language in which to understand quantum physics.
How do you know which language i am reading quantum physics? Do you think you know everything?(not that i'd be surprised anyway)
All atheists i've seen here get very angry anytime someone brings up the dreaded emergent properties. This is the same with creos that get ferocious when someone finds flaws with the Bible. Way to go!
I do find emergent properties Supernatural. If in your material physical world you saw a mosquito eat an elephant, would that constitute a natural emergent property(because it was supposedly observable)?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2009 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2009 4:51 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 01-29-2009 5:00 PM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 198 of 396 (496645)
01-29-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
01-29-2009 3:34 PM


Re: supernatural
Percy writes:
In order to explain supernaturalistic science, you have to first explain the difference between the natural and the supernatural. If for you the natural is ill-defined then you're going to have a lot of trouble explaining how the supernatural is different.
I view the supernatural and the natural as the same. Unless we have a coherent explanation of existence and reality, I don't think it's a wise idea to force people to believe that we have found all the answers and that everything is quite natural without god's intervention. Whatever defies logic and cannot be explained is supernatural IMO. I am quite against teaching ID in schools, because it carries a kind of burden on children(especially seeing how the world is run and all the atrocities, it doesn't paint a beautiful picture of god).
Is what we are yet to uncover - supernatural? Because obviously we aren't in any way aware of it yet. If yes, how is the concept of god, about whom we might or might not find clues, Supernatural? Is the whole human future supernatural, because it's not yet observable?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 01-29-2009 3:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 01-29-2009 4:46 PM Agobot has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 199 of 396 (496647)
01-29-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Agobot
01-29-2009 4:30 PM


Re: supernatural
Well, given what you just wrote, now I'm confused about what side of this issue you're on? I thought you were trying to answer the question this thread poses: How is ID's supernatural-based science supposed to work?
Instead you seem to be arguing that you have no idea how it works, and aren't even certain what is natural and what is supernatural.
There's no reason this thread can't take a short diversion to settle what's natural and what's supernatural, but we shouldn't turn that into the topic of this thread.
You ask if what we have yet to uncover is supernatural, but this has an obvious answer. Say someone had asked that question at the beginning of the 20th century. Was anything discovered during the 20th century supernatural? No.
Say someone had asked that question at the beginning of the 19th century. Was anything discovered during the 19th century supernatural? No.
And so on.
In fact, nothing we've ever discovered has turned out to be supernatural.
So by what logic would you conclude that what we have yet to uncover is supernatural?
That's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering.
Anyone out there care to offer a clear, concise definition of the supernatural?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 4:30 PM Agobot has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 200 of 396 (496648)
01-29-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Agobot
01-29-2009 4:18 PM


Re: supernatural
Is this the first time you hear of physicists trying to find traces/clues about God(the creator)? The so called Mind of God?
If you don't know about the designer entity of ID let me fill you in - it is supposed to have created the first life, and in the versions that are closest in agreement to present day science, at various times it tweaked the genomes of various bits of life (the bacterial flagellum, the AIDS virus proteins, the blood clotting system etc) since these things cannot occur without intelligent guidance.
So the question I'm asking you is, is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?
If it is, how?
If it is not, why?
That's strictly your opinion but it's not a mere case of semantics. It's how you look at the world and whether you realise that "natural" and "supernatural" is one and the same, just viewed through a different religion - atheism or Christianity(or some other religion). If you had an open mind, you'd know that there is no supernatural, just the unknown(but atheists and theists rarely keep an open mind beyond the dogma of the scope of their beliefs).
If you had read my post with anything close to due care and attention, you will see that I agreed with randman when he made this very same point. Most religious folk do happen to be dualists (they believe in an entirely separate realm called whatever you like, supernatural, spiritual, metadivine etc), but one could be a monist about it.
In which case, maybe the designer entity is open to scrutiny. That being the case the ID theorist I would have thought, should be trying to determine what rules apply to this designer, and looking for evidence based on these rules. Theories about how the designer interacts with life could be formulated and tested. So far, no evidence of such a designer has been found - which is the unfortunate edge of the razor of opening it up to scientific scrutiny.
The pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating than the pursuit of chaos, randomness and blind chance IMO.
So is taking drugs.
But then, classification of the natural world, and seeking explanations for the phenomenon and coming to a greater understanding of the majesty of the natural world is exhilarating and practical.
How do you know which language i am reading quantum physics? Do you think you know everything?(not that i'd be surprised anyway)
I don't and never claimed to. You are not reading my English too well that's for sure. I'll help you along this time, read along with me.
quote:
would seem to be very much misguided nonsense
I highlighted the bit you critically missed. In case you aren't understanding what that means I will translate into simple English for you. "From where I'm standing, it looks like you're talking gibberish".
All atheists i've seen here get very angry anytime someone brings up the dreaded emergent properties.
You can count me as an outlier. I'm mildly peeved you are not reading anything that I am saying and instead you seem to be assuming what my words are saying based on my philosophical position rather than on the actual content of my posts. However, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'emergent properties' since you don't tell me what these emergent properties are meant to be emerging from. I love talking about emergent properties and it certainly doesn't make me angry.
I do find emergent properties Supernatural.
Really? Is the wetness of liquid water supernatural? The shape of a flock of birds? Perhaps colour is an supernatural? Or surface tension? They seem unusual things to call supernatural. Then again, given your peculiar relationship with the English language, you could mean something completely different.
If in your material physical world you saw a mosquito eat an elephant, would that constitute a natural emergent property(because it was supposedly observable)?
If a swarm of mosquitoes swallowed an elephant, that might constitute an emergent property I suppose. Otherwise, I'm just chalking this up as evidence that you are using words in a way completely different than the rest of the English speaking world.
Or maybe I'm just wrong.
Either way - any suggestions on whether there is any way for the ID flagellum designing tinkerer to be scientifically tested without butchering methodological naturalism?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 4:18 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 6:59 PM Modulous has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 201 of 396 (496650)
01-29-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Agobot
01-29-2009 4:18 PM


Re: supernatural
Is this the first time you hear of physicists trying to find traces/clues about God(the creator)? The so called Mind of God?
Abogot, you seem to really harp on little phrases and quotes. "The mind of God" is not to be taken in the literal sense, it's just an easy to understand phrase for laymens.
The pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating than the pursuit of chaos, randomness and blind chance IMO.
You can't possibly have feelings for something that you say you don't know what it is. You say "the pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating...", well, how do you know that? If you don't know what it is then how can you hold an opinion as to which is better?
The current scientific method has proven itself worthy in the pursuit to understand nature, if one day that leads to the realization that there is a God then cool, but we can't start off with the God concept first because it is a bias stance to take.
You don't know who or what God is, or isn't, so how can anyone 'pursuit' God?
How do you know which language i am reading quantum physics?
I believe Mod meant that QM is best understood within the frame work of mathematics, not reading it and trying to conceptualize it.
All atheists i've seen here get very angry anytime someone brings up the dreaded emergent properties.
Only when devine intervention is brought up as an explanation/origin for/of the emergent properties.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 4:18 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 7:12 PM onifre has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 202 of 396 (496656)
01-29-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Modulous
01-29-2009 4:51 PM


Re: supernatural
Modulous writes:
So the question I'm asking you is, is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?
If it is, how?
If it is not, why?
So you are basically asking me - what is God? That's a damn good question. But whether science can investige God, well it depends on what science may find(hopefully). If this loosely termed entity(God) is a machine or a computer, or some sort of informational emergent property of some pre-existing medium, why not? How could you know what god is and whether science can find it? You have to be a fortune-teller to know what god is, and i am sure you are not.
Modulous writes:
So far, no evidence of such a designer has been found - which is the unfortunate edge of the razor of opening it up to scientific scrutiny.
Right. We don't have the kind of evidence that's necessary in courts. It's only when you look with more scrutiny that you start to see patterns that human logic says are incompatible with atheism.
Modulous writes:
You can count me as an outlier. I'm mildly peeved you are not reading anything that I am saying and instead you seem to be assuming what my words are saying based on my philosophical position rather than on the actual content of my posts. However, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'emergent properties' since you don't tell me what these emergent properties are meant to be emerging from. I love talking about emergent properties and it certainly doesn't make me angry.
I was talking about atoms becoming self-conscious(aka emergence). Please read what you replied to.
Agobot writes:
I do find emergent properties Supernatural.
Modulous writes:
Really? Is the wetness of liquid water supernatural?
Huh? You mean you know how and why we perceive two atoms of H and one atom of O as liquid? Are they really liquid to anyone but to a conscious mind? I am looking forward to seeing your explanation how energy "becomes" water in the conscious mind.
Modulous writes:
The shape of a flock of birds?
You know how energy can fly in flocks? Care to explain this miraculous bit?
Modulous writes:
Perhaps colour is an supernatural?
There is no colour. Colour is an abstraction.
Modulous writes:
Or surface tension? They seem unusual things to call supernatural. Then again, given your peculiar relationship with the English language, you could mean something completely different.
No, i am sure you understand quite well what you are being told. That's not the greatest tactic in a debate.
Modulous writes:
The latter claim is not very well worded and would seem to be very much misguided nonsense based on thinking that English is a great language in which to understand quantum physics.
Modulous writes:
I highlighted the bit you critically missed. In case you aren't understanding what that means I will translate into simple English for you. "From where I'm standing, it looks like you're talking gibberish".
OK, i'll pretend that your quoted comment wasn't derogative and will say that "From where I'm standing, it looks like you're naive" or as you say "it would seem like this is so".
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2009 4:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by AdminNosy, posted 01-29-2009 7:31 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 207 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 2:38 AM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 203 of 396 (496659)
01-29-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by onifre
01-29-2009 5:00 PM


Re: supernatural
onifre writes:
Abogot, you seem to really harp on little phrases and quotes. "The mind of God" is not to be taken in the literal sense, it's just an easy to understand phrase for laymens.
I never implied i knew what god is, i am not religious in any way. Just because i see that evidence and human logic point to some kind of a creator/mind does not mean i imply certainty about what exactly god is.
onifre writes:
You can't possibly have feelings for something that you say you don't know what it is. You say "the pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating...", well, how do you know that? If you don't know what it is then how can you hold an opinion as to which is better?
The current scientific method has proven itself worthy in the pursuit to understand nature, if one day that leads to the realization that there is a God then cool, but we can't start off with the God concept first because it is a bais stance to take.
You don't know who or what God is, or isn't, so how can anyone 'pursuit' God?
You are right, i knew someone would bite this. This is a subjective feeling.
onifre writes:
I believe Mod meant that QM is best understood within the frame work of mathematics, not reading it and trying to conceptualize it.
Best? Yes of course, but anyone who is patient and has an IQ greater than 100 can understand the basic principles of quantum theory. There is even "Quantum mechanics for dummies" on Amazon for anyone interested in the basics.
What difference does mathematics make for emergent properties of quantum systems?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 01-29-2009 5:00 PM onifre has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 204 of 396 (496660)
01-29-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Agobot
01-29-2009 6:59 PM


some leeway agobot -- opinions ?
I'd like to canvas the opinions of others posting on this thread as to whether they want to bother responding to your nonsense.
If there are a few who want you to stay around then fine, if not you'll have to leave this thread too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 6:59 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 7:39 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 01-30-2009 6:59 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 205 of 396 (496661)
01-29-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by AdminNosy
01-29-2009 7:31 PM


Re: some leeway agobot -- opinions ?
AdminNosy writes:
I'd like to canvas the opinions of others posting on this thread as to whether they want to bother responding to your nonsense.
If there are a few who want you to stay around then fine, if not you'll have to leave this thread too.
If i am not mistaken, you have an account as "NosyNed". So maybe you want to tackle "emergent properties" and not leave an impression that there is something you don't know, that could potentially be considered by some "supernatural".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AdminNosy, posted 01-29-2009 7:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2009 9:26 PM Agobot has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 206 of 396 (496668)
01-29-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Agobot
01-29-2009 7:39 PM


Emergent properties
I am not one who votes for having you stay on this thread.
You demonstrated you utter lack of understanding of emergent properties with, for one:
You know how energy can fly in flocks? Care to explain this miraculous bit?
and demonstrated with it that you continue to reply with nonsense and non-sequiturs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 7:39 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Agobot, posted 01-30-2009 6:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 207 of 396 (496705)
01-30-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Agobot
01-29-2009 6:59 PM


supernatural properties
So you are basically asking me - what is God? That's a damn good question. But whether science can investige God, well it depends on what science may find(hopefully). If this loosely termed entity(God) is a machine or a computer, or some sort of informational emergent property of some pre-existing medium, why not? How could you know what god is and whether science can find it? You have to be a fortune-teller to know what god is, and i am sure you are not.
So, in short, your answer to the OP is "I don't know".
The rest of your post seems to be some stuff about what you think emergent properties are, and they have something to do with atoms being self-conscious. That is not a definition of emergent property I have ever heard, but I concede it would be as close to supernatural as we're likely to find at this stage.
Emergent property is a generic term for a property that is not intrinsic to the individual parts, but emerges when multiple parts of a system interact (The H2O molecule has no wetness property, but lots of them together can have that property...it is emergent. Protons, electrons, neutrons etc are not 'blue' in that they reflect light at the frequency of blue, but lots of atoms togther can do this etc etc). Now that you have explained the context for which you refer to them, I can only guess that it is a critical misapprehension on your part about physics. Either way, I don't see how it can be relevant to advancing this thread any further. Perhaps you can propose a new topic where you can explain your ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 6:59 PM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 208 of 396 (496725)
01-30-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by NosyNed
01-29-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Emergent properties
NosyNed writes:
I am not one who votes for having you stay on this thread.
Yes i know. You'd prefer dealing with dumb YEC's.
NosyNed writes:
You demonstrated you utter lack of understanding of emergent properties with, for one:
Agobot writes:
You know how energy can fly in flocks? Care to explain this miraculous bit?
I did? Really? Are you aware that 2 years ago scientists managed to teleport individual atoms over a distance of 60km.? Are you aware that they think one day they will be able to teleport large classical obejcts by teleporting a large quantity of atoms, including birds? Will they keep their emergent properties? Who knows, maybe they will. But i think it's not scientists who have demonstrated as you say "utter lack of understanding of emergent properties", but you.
NosyNed writes:
and demonstrated with it that you continue to reply with nonsense and non-sequiturs.
Would you at least point what makes you believe so? Without an argumentation, this is no better than carrying a slogan in your right hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2009 9:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 209 of 396 (496727)
01-30-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by AdminNosy
01-29-2009 7:31 PM


Re: some leeway agobot -- opinions ?
Combining Mod's comments with what I suggested in my previous message, Agobot is either uninterested in this thread's topic, or he doesn't grasp what this thread's topic is about, plus he either has a poor command of the English language, or he is purposefully misunderstanding what people say.
This thread being 2/3 of the way to the 300 post limit, this doesn't seem a good time to spend a protracted period coaxing someone into a productive discussion of the topic, or to take up a lot of message space while people repeatedly explain to Agobot what they really said.
One side in this discussion is asking questions about the nature of the supernatural and how ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work. Presumably the other side should be attempting to answer these questions. Those diverting the thread in other directions than these should be discouraged from participating. Those claiming these questions can't be answered should make their position known, but after they've done that they shouldn't continue repeating the same point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AdminNosy, posted 01-29-2009 7:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5483 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 210 of 396 (502900)
03-13-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
11-27-2007 2:39 PM


What is Science
quote:
That does not follow. If you try to introduce a supernatural intelligence into the equation, then you have indeed strayed from science right in to theology.
Evolutionists often try to tell us that biblical creationism is not science based on the assumption that the supernatural intervention cannot be scientific. This assumption is simply the convenient miss definition of 'science' for the purpose of winning arguments.
The root meaning of 'science' is knowledge or understanding. We might also call it wisdom or intelligence about how and why things are the way they are or work the way they do.
If one knows by cause and effect that rocks roll down a steep hill, then we make a prediction about a rock that is let loose. It will fall to the bottom. But if in the middle of the night we let rocks loose one by one, and in the morning we find them piled up in a neat little pile half way down the hill, then we naturally assume that someone or something intervened in their natural course down the hill. And we assume more likely that some intelligent being (probably a human) caught the rocks and piled them up when we were not looking. So we correctly determine from the evidence that an intelligent being altered the course of the expected physics of the situation. We assume this knowledge, and consider it wise to assume so. Postulating a personal intervention in the course of the rocks down the hill is scientific, because we observe they did not make it to the bottom, and we observe the orderliness of the pile. Therefore the conclusion of intervention in the middle of the night is scientific. And if we keep repeating the experiment at night, and keep finding the situation as before, we draw the same conclusion. Perhaps we finds some unknown shoe prints next to the pile. That reinforces the conclusion. It becomes a theory. We then find a handwritten note on the pile telling us who made the pile. It now becomes a scientific fact. Someone IS intervening in the course of the rocks falling physics to the bottom of the hill!
Excluding intelligent intervention in the course of nature or physics is not scientific. Nor is assuming that everything has a mundane physical explanation scientific. Excluding the intervention of a higher intelligent being is logically fallacious, especially for an evolutionist who believes that intelligence evolved! If intelligence evolved, then the probability is that there are evolved intelligences beyond the evolutionists comprehension with great powers to intervene in situations. For this reason, evolutionary philosophers, like Richard Dawkins, can appeal to things like 'panspermia' when their ordinary science fails them. However, this is no different than admitting that intelligent intervention is needed to sustain the theory of evolution.
We call this a 'super-natural' explanation because it is above and beyond what is naturally expected. And all that supernatural means is that something is beyond ordinary explanation. And anything beyond the ordinary explanation that can be classed as an intelligent intervention is in the same class as 'super-natural'. The supernatural or "miracle" simply means an explanation beyond our power to comprehend it. So if we read the evidence leading one way, find a gap, and then see the evidence pick up in the same direction, then we have to assume an intervention in what we consider the normal physics. Whatever the intervention, the only difference between a low level intelligent intervention and the high level intelligent intervention that would be called 'supernatural' is the level of power the intelligent being has to change things around.
God, of course, has the ultimate power to order reality according to his thought, or as we call it his 'word'. Imagine computerized beings in a virtual reality program, say like the movie TRON. The programmer can alter this 'flatland' reality with a few lines of code. The programmer may even give his virtual reality beings the capacity to disbelieve in the programmer. And even though flatlanders cannot see the higher intelligence that created 'flatland', the third spiritual "dimension" still exists.
So when the evolutionist tries to exclude intelligent intervention in normal physics from the range of scientific conclusion given observations that suggest the probable interpolation of intelligence, he or she is simply defining the term arbitrarily to suit their own belief system. The Christian does not have to accept this bastardized definition of science. There are many great scientists who would not accept a 'science' that excludes the probability of the supernatural.
To speak in more theological terms, Christians believe in the 'economy of miracles'. What does this mean? Economy means minimal use of miracles or minimal appeals to divine intervention, yet in those cases where the evidence crosses a gap pointing to intervention in the gap, the economy will admit the probability of a miracle.
Somewhere in the philosophy of 'science' as evolutionists want to define it, is the assumption that a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be a scientific hypothesis. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it only means that you cannot make the observations necessary to confirm or deny it. It, however, does not mean the hypothesis is unscientific. To the contrary, if the gap between the observed dots requires the hypothesis, then it is called 'scientific' when it involves the dark matter needed to sustain the Big Bang theory. Indeed, it appears that this argument only surfaces in quarters where someone with disliked unverifiable hypothesis is susceptible to being duped into thinking their hypothesis is scientifically invalid on that ground alone. And then the elites get off scot-free from having it stick to their own unverifiable hypothesis which they promote as 'scientific'. And all too often evolutionists promote their theory in a non-falsifiable manner, using biological phylogeny to prove geological succession and then using geological succession to 'prove' biological evolution. One might also ask if the Big Bang is falsifiable on scientific grounds. It has already been falsified, but it is never admitted because the elites want to believe it for philosophical reasons! Therefore, it cannot be falsified because it depends on their philosophical promotion for its main support. I am not invalidating assuming beliefs here. Everyone has them, but it is about time that the Evolutionary elites be pinned on the wall for positing non-falsifiable hypothesis of their own while trying to defend themselves by name calling hypothesis they don't like "non-falsifiable."
The reality of the situation with science is that creationists are able to accept a much greater range of scientific fact based on observation, with only an "economy of miracles" than the evolutionists. A case and point is the astronomer Halton Arp who discovered quantized red shifts and the fact that quasars are often nearby and associated with galaxies in pairs. While the Big Bang evolutionists are busy banning Arp and denying the observations, the Creationists have embraced the observations, and have fit them into the Biblical Cosmology without any need for additional miracles. Or we may take all those experiments, like Shapiro-delay or the Sagnac effect that show a variable speed of light. Evolutionary Cosmologists deny this evidence via General Relativity precisely because it allows the Creationist to explain starlight with one less 'miracle'. See the starlight article at Biblical Chronology and Translation | TorahTimes for a lengthily dissertation on the speed of light and starlight [Off line right now, but I'll relink it if you ask 3/13/09]
Of course, it would take a miracle for Big Bang Evolutionists to be able to fit Arp's observations into their theory. Since it would take a miracle, they deny the observation. There needs to be a tit for tat here. If they point out a miracle in our economy, then we need to point out each observation they deny is real (since it would require a miracle for them to fit it in). Their denial of an observation in not even on the same qualitative level as our use of a miracle where needed. The miracle cannot be falsified, but the denied observation already has! And their goal is not discovery, but to keep people trapped in a narrow and restrictive science with no gates leading to the truth.
Edited by Admin, : Add extra line between paragraphs.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 2:39 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by mark24, posted 03-14-2009 6:36 AM Daniel4140 has not replied
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 03-14-2009 10:31 AM Daniel4140 has replied
 Message 213 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-14-2009 1:02 PM Daniel4140 has not replied
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2009 1:21 PM Daniel4140 has not replied
 Message 216 by dwise1, posted 03-14-2009 2:46 PM Daniel4140 has not replied
 Message 217 by lyx2no, posted 03-14-2009 6:19 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024