|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Daniel,
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. It's not science because it cherry picks evidence & steadfastly refuses to accept contradictory evidence. Look at the accepted age of the earth, among other things, it's a creationist exercise in hypocrisy & special pleading. Multiple different methods concur that the earth is waaaaaay over 6k years old, but that gets swept aside in favour of zero evidence of the earth being 6k years old. Just please don't tel us you are really interested in science, you're not, you're interested in the bible & reject science where a discordance occurs. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Daniel,
I've tried to boil down your definition of science, with my comments in italics. Sometimes it seems like you're arguing rather than defining science, but I include those items in this list anyway.
I think your particular conception of science, tied up as it is with religion and miracles, would make adherents of intelligent design everywhere shudder. It was the need to distance creationist ideas from their religious underpinnings that was responsible for developing the idea of intelligent design. Your ideas on the nature of science run counter to intelligent design's efforts to characterize itself as legitimate science of the same nature as all other legitimate science. That's why they distance themselves from the Wedge Document, which with its rejection of methodological naturalism is much closer to your views. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
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. Since your post is rather long, I will approach just one small part of it here. In the quote above, you seem to have completely misunderstood Dawkins. Dawkins does not appeal to panspermia when "ordinary science fails". He allows that it is a possible naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on earth via an intelligent designer, but he is very explicit that it is most definitely "ordinary science" and involves no supernatural entities. It simply moves the question of how and where life began to a different place and time. A good analogy might be our creation of life in the laboratory. If this happens, it will be intelligent design. But it will say nothing about our genesis and evolution. Postulating that our life, our planet, or our universe might just be someone else's petri dish just moves methodological naturalism to a different arena. It says nothing about the existence of something that is "super" - whatever you think that means. Nothing in your quote above does anything to advance an explanation of what supernatural is, how it would interface with the natural, or why it is required by any current observation. Suggesting that Dawkins thinks the idea of panspermia actually is required to explain abiogenesis (you might want to remain clear on that distinction if your time here is to be fruitful) is a simple misrepresentation of his position. I am curious where you got your idea that he does. Please tell me it wasn't "Expelled". Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Capt Stormfield writes: Please tell me it wasn't "Expelled". I don't know what Daniel's answer will be, but when I first read his Dawkins comments my reaction was, "Expelled strikes again." One wonders why creationists don't try to more often experience one of life's truly simple pleasures, getting things right. Dawkin's personal opinions about panspermia are of little consequence in the creation/evolution controversy, so if you're going to state what he believes about panspermia, or anything else for that matter, why not get it right? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. And, of course, an evolutionist would make the same deduction about the rocks as you would. Creationists, however, are in the position of someone who finds the rocks at the bottom of the hill and insists that God put them there.
Excluding the intervention of a higher intelligent being is logically fallacious. Not when the rocks end up at the bottom of the hill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
And you completely side-stepped the question. To remind you, as I wrote it in the OP (AKA "Msg 1"):
I hereby call upon Beretta to respond with his description of how this "paradigm shift" that he's pushing for and in full support of is supposed to produce a new science that actually works. I call upon Beretta to describe this brave new science that he wants to impose upon us and to demonstrate that it would work. . . . Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt. . . . In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well. In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well. Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science. I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science. The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not? Well, in practical terms, just how is supernatural-based science supposed to work and still remain fully functional? That question remains unanswered. BTW, if you do have actual scientific evidence for creation, as I believe you had strongly stated in another thread, then do please present it -- in the appropriate thread, of course. In doing so, you would do something that no other creationist has ever been able to do: present actual scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
A Japanese beauty jealous of a rival in the Emperor's court hired a Korean circus troop to train a trio of acrobatic sun bares to prevent the rocks from making it to the bottom of the hill. She did this to discredit a 7th century mayor of an adjoining town who once, when accused of dipping into the treasury, said "If I am guilty let rocks roll only half way down a hill." Her motive being that if she discredit this mayor his Great-great-greatgreat grandson would be so humiliated that he would shed a tear, which would be collected by by his nurse and delivered to the apothecary who would use it to make a love potion that would be administered to said rival. The rival would fall in love with the shamed descendant, moving away from the court to wed and live in seclusion forever.
I would hope, Daniel4140, that you would not find my hypothesis very scientific. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is better then the God acts hypothesis that you present. Why? Because no individual element of my theory is beyond investigation or reason.
I have not provide a stick of evidence that the elements came together, but at lease I can provide evidence that the elements exist. Can you do as much for yours? Edited by lyx2no, : Fix code. Edited by lyx2no, : Rephrase question. Edited by lyx2no, : Define a pronoun. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5505 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Some good questions in your post. I added it to the end of my draft article for future consideration in clearing up some points you raised. I don't have time for all of it right now. The first priority is to clear up the article. I will say that I think ID misses the point by posisting original design without also assuming ongoing maitainence of that design. In any case, according to biblical prophecy, everyone will be believing in some kind of intelligent intervention. The choice will be between the biblical God or space aliens. But only the former will have predicted it in the Bible. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Some good questions...I don't have time... Finally, a succinct and accurate summation of how ID science works. Thanks. Capt. PS: - I think the second part is a Dembski quote, isn't it? Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Add PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5505 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: If there is any relation to Dembski, its a pure accident. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Since people are still trying to foist off ID as science, I'm bringing this thread to the top again. My question has yet to be answered: just exactly how science is supposed to work if it were to include supernaturalistic "explanations" as ID requires it to and as proponents of ID keep demanding
To remind you, as I wrote it in the OP (AKA "Msg 1"):
I hereby call upon Beretta to respond with his description of how this "paradigm shift" that he's pushing for and in full support of is supposed to produce a new science that actually works. I call upon Beretta to describe this brave new science that he wants to impose upon us and to demonstrate that it would work. . . . Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt. . . . In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well. In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well. Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science. I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science. The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not? Well, in practical terms, just how is supernatural-based science supposed to work and still remain fully functional? That question remains unanswered. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Robert Colbert on NPR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Refer to the previous post for a repeat of this topic's opening post. In more than 200 replies, nobody has been able to present an explanation of how science is supposed to include supernatural-based hypotheses and be able to continue to function effectively.
In the meantime, Dawn Bertot has repeatedly claimed that design is detectable and must be included in science. In Message 418 of ICR Sues Texas, I replied to her with a simple question, one much like the question in my opening post, though a bit narrower in scope:
dwise1 writes: Dawn Bertot writes: Why in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles Does it? Really? Could you please demonstrate convincingly that it does? No, really! That is not by any measure a rhetorical question. Demonstrate it! You want design to be included in science? OK, so how do we do it? Now, we already know the methodology of science, but what is the methodology of design? Specifically, how do we objectively detect design? Seriously! How is anybody supposed to look at something and determine objectively that it's the result of design? What is your methodology? Are we just all supposed to ask Dawn because only she can tell? Because so far that's all we've been given. And that is just plain not good enough! What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.
Of course, she has ignored that question so far and will undoubtedly continue to ignore it. That does not make that question and its answer any less vital to her case. For design to be incorporated into science, we must be able to work with it. We must be able to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. That means that there absolutely must be a methodology in place to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. Without such a methodology in place, design-based science will be unable to function. Of course, I do not expect Dawn to come up with that methodology on her own. But with all the ID literature that she must have read (most of her posts appear to be regurgitations of such readings), surely at least one ID writer must have presented such a methodology at least once. It is after all such an important and fundamental question that it makes no sense at all that all ID writers would constantly avoid it. Unless, of course, they're all just blowing smoke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Of course, I do not expect Dawn to come up with that methodology on her own. So far the definition of design from the ID folks is, a la Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." That doesn't cut it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Don't forget: "well, it looks designed, so it obviously is".
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
To repeat yet again:
What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024