So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

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

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

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.

• Science is about how and why things are the way they are or work the way they do.
  ​
  This isn't a formal definition, but it's fine as far as it goes.
  ​
• Outcomes incongruent with known physical laws are indicators of intelligent intervention.
  ​
  They're indicators of something, and certainly intelligent intervention is one possibility. It's also possible that our understanding of physical laws isn't as complete as we thought. Or that something isn't as we thought it was, as when our automobile fails to start in violation of known physical laws, except we forgot to fill the gas tank. Or a person survives being sawed in half in violation of known physical laws, except it's an illusion. In other words, lots of possibilities.
  ​
• Orderliness is evidence of intelligent intervention.
  ​
  Again, intelligent intervention is one possibility. What about the orderliness of a snowflake? Of a crystal of salt? Of the periodicity of Old Faithful?
  ​
• Anything that is beyond natural explanations must be considered supernatural.
  ​
  How do you tell the difference between something that really is beyond natural explanation, and something else that is merely beyond our ability to explain naturally. At one time man couldn't explain lightning and the explanation was supernatural, but as scientific knowledge grew lightning gained a natural explanation.
  ​
  Over human history there have been untold numbers of unexplained phenomena that were eventually explained. Not one has ever been resolved with a supernatural explanation.
  ​
• The correct answer to any unexplained scientific mystery is one that employs the minimum number of miracles.
  ​
  Since anything observable is considered natural by science, any observable miracle (direct observation is not required) must be considered natural. The quality of being observable renders any phenomenon natural and a potential object of scientific study. In other words, you can't have an observable supernatural event. This is a terminology issue common to these discussions, and it only requires that we agree on vocabulary.
  ​
• The quality of falsifiability is not necessary for something to be considered scientific.
  ​
  In other words, you feel it justified to accept ideas that can't be falsified. So am I justified in accepting that long ago in a galaxy far far away the Jedi Knights battled an evil empire? That Bilbo Baggins had a grand adventure in Middle-earth?
  ​
  Anyone rejecting falsifiability loses the key criteria for determining what is and isn't so.
  ​
• Evolutionists violate their own principle of falsifiability all the time.
  ​
  Not the topic of this thread, but no they don't.
  ​
• Halton Arp has made observations that contradict modern cosmology.
  ​
  Again, not the topic of this thread, but no he hasn't.

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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Enumerating the fallacies:

1. You didn't say anything about how ID works as a science. You made an argument against evolution.
   ​
2. Your argument against evolution just repeats the ancient creationist misapplication of probability to their own caricature of evolution. Evolution is change over time. No one in science thinks that life or species come about in sudden events. That's why they call it evolution instead of "sudden poofing."
   ​
3. Scientists are not atheists. Scientists come from all religions, countries and cultures. It is true that some scientists are atheists.
   ​
4. Evolution is not unguided. The environment provides some pretty severe constraints to the path evolution can follow.
   ​
5. Fallacious arguments will not inspire any successful "exploration of different paths in biology."
   ​
6. Michael Behe and others have not described any such paths. If you think they have then describe them for us here.
   ​
7. No one controls science. This is reflected in the incredible amount of bad research that manages to find its way into technical journals and conferences.
   ​
8. It makes no sense to argue that ID science isn't supernatural, and then argue that exploring naturalistic explanations won't work.

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The Unitarians merged with the Universalists about a half century ago, and most Unitarian churches are now Unitarian/Universalist. The few services I've been to in merged churches contain no recognizably Unitarian elements. In other words, at least in my part of the country, the northeast, Unitarianism seems to be dead, so when I speak for the Unitarians I may be speaking for a religion that no longer exists, but anyway...The Unitarians are pretty flexible, too. Sunday School classes taught about all religions, but of course the main focus was on the foundation of modern Christianity. While Unitarians would have no objection whatsoever to teaching evangelical views on science in sociology or perhaps history, they would definitely object to teaching them in science class as if they reflected legitimate views within science.--Percy

What we're wondering is how one does supernatural ID science. Your example of evolution being wrong because life couldn't possibly have come together as a single event is a well known creationist caricature, and we are in complete agreement with you that life or species coming about in single events is wildly improbable. But neither abiogenesis or evolution proposes any such thing.Your Behe quote provides no clues about how supernatural ID science might work. What he proposes is just standard science and are precisely the kinds of things science already looks for. What Behe really wants is different answers, supernatural answers.A couple random off-topic notes:

• I am not an atheist, many scientists are not atheists, many non-scientists are atheists. Acceptance of the theory of evolution cannot be equated with atheism. A far, far higher percentage of creationists are conservative Christians than scientists are atheists.
  ​
• The constraints of the environment guide the path of evolution. This is why thick fur evolves in cold climes rather than hot.

About this: You're quoting from Dembski's book The Design Revolution. That's what he says for public consumption. What he really believes he saves for believers, for instance here in a talk before the group Focus on the Family: But anyway, if you, unlike Dembski, truly believe that ID has no supernatural component and is just science seeking answers like all other science then I think that's fine. But as I mentioned earlier about Behe, the real problem ID has with standard science isn't its methods but its answers. ID wants science to accept supernatural answers.There's really no difference between us if the only answers you're willing to accept are naturalistic ones like aliens and "telic principles in nature" and so forth. But if you're demanding that supernatural answers be allowed then we must ask, "How does one do supernatural ID science?"AbE: If there's really no supernatural component in ID then you might want to let Intellen know over in the Who designed the ID designer(s)? thread where he states unequivocally, "Jesus Christ is the sole Intelligent Designer."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add a paragraph at the bottom.

You've been arguing that ID has no supernatural component, but responding in this way is an implicit but emphatic concession that ID does indeed have a supernatural component. Did you intend to make this concession? Okay, let me assume your probability figure was for abiogenesis requiring a lengthy number of steps. Science has only vague hypotheses for how abiogenesis came about. We don't know which, if any, of the hypotheses is correct, and most of the steps in all the hypotheses are unknown. How were you able to calculate the probability of an unknown process? I don't believe "Genesis is wrong" is a claim found anywhere in evolutionary theory. Nor in geological, astronomical, cosmological or physical theory. Certainly there are many scientific theories that contradict interpretations of Genesis held by some Christian sects, but no theory in science addresses itself to these beliefs. Again, you're identifying a dichotomy between "naturalists" and those who accept something else. That something else could only be outside nature, for which the usual term is supernaturalism, the very term whose application to ID you've been objecting to. I don't understand your turnabout on this. When your car breaks down and you try to identify the problem, do you feel you are seeking atheistic answers? No, of course not. You're seeking natural answers.Scientists are of all cultures and religions. Science seeks natural explanations, where natural means that of which our senses can be made aware. This is the foundation of testability - anything we can't sense cannot be tested.How would you conduct a test of the supernatural? If you wanted to test whether your car actually broke down or was instead struck down by the Lord, how would you do that? The answer is key to how one would conduct supernatural ID science. I think it would help us understand how research into supernatural causes would work if there were successful examples of it. The mere fact that you're reading this means that examples of the outcomes of successful scientific research abound in your immediate environment, while there isn't an example anywhere in the world of successful supernatural research. Yes, I know. And the greatest scientists are the least religious. It's all been discussed here many times over the years. But you're jumping from these facts to a paranoid conspiracy of atheistic scientists working to crush Christianity. The fact of the matter is that huge numbers of scientists are devout Christians, and the focus of science is understanding the real world that is available to our senses. The questions of our souls must be sought in realms outside science. An excellent question. Any scientist is wrong who lets his faith guide his scientific interpretation of evidence. Any scientist who concludes, "My hypothesis is correct because there is no God," is committing just as egregious an error as a scientist who concludes, "My hypothesis is correct because there is a God." Scientific theories cannot derive from or incorporate phenomena for which there is no evidence that is available to the senses in ways that can be replicated and verified by anyone with the necessary equipment and expertise. Unreplicable findings have destroyed careers, the poster children for this being Fleishman and Pons of cold fusion fame. The reason is that Dembski along with many IDists and traditional creationists is letting his faith inform his science. If you want to provide examples of scientists whose lack of faith is informing their science then I'll be glad to condemn them, too, just don't make the mistake of confusing a focus on the natural with atheism, because you and all creationists focus your methods of problem solving on the natural in most affairs of your lives. Saying grace before a meal or a prayer before a journey doesn't transform cooking and traveling into supernatural events.The creation/evolution debate would receive very little attention if it weren't for creationist efforts at influencing public school science education. It is the retreat of these efforts from publicly visibility that I believe has caused the diminution in participation here that we're discussing over in the Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant? thread.--Percy

If you provide some examples of what you consider supernatural events, or at least a clear idea of the kinds of events these are, then we can discuss how they might be studied scientifically. I assume there are great minds on both sides of the debate. What prevents the greatest minds of ID from blazing the trail of investigation of supernatural events? Some scientists are athesits, some aren't. Some non-scientists are atheists, some aren't. Some top scientists are atheists, some aren't.Almost all creationists are fundamentalist Christians. Correlation with religious belief with their position in the creation/evolution debate is much higher for creationists than scientists.What we're seeking in this thread is how one does supernatural ID science. For a science that a few short years ago was actively seeking inclusion in public school science classrooms it should be a simple matter to describe how they did the research.--Percy

I briefly opened your link earlier this afternoon to see what it said about the supernatural, but when I discovered it didn't contain the word "supernatural" I closed it again. I think it was about psychic research. In your mind, is psychic research about the supernatural?--Percy

Hi Tesla,If you're going to insist on definitions no one else here agrees with then you're going to be stuck discussing definitions. How much sense would it make for everyone else to switch definitions but you, instead of the other way around?Science studies the natural. The supernatural is by definition beyond science's ability to study because the supernatural isn't perceivable by our senses, and anything we can't sense can't be tested, and testability is the very foundation of scientific investigation.Conversely by definition, anything apparent to our senses is natural. Any phenomena we can see, such as the sun stopping in the sky for 24 hours, is by definition natural.I think what you're actually thinking of is events that take place in the natural world but that have a supernatural cause. I don't myself think this is possible, and in any case, in the history of science no phenomenon has ever been traced to a supernatural cause, so there's no precedent for believing that supernatural causes exist.--Percy

Hi Tesla,You're making my own case for me. I just explained that what I believe you're thinking of is a natural phenomenon that has a supernatural explanation, and that's precisely what your first link is about. It's for a website promoting investigation the paranormal like ghosts and UFOs and PSI (see ASSAP).For example, they record the results of card-guessing trials looking for statistical deviations from simple guessing. If they find any then they have evidence of something we can't explain. This website does mention the supernatural, but if you assume the explanation is something supernatural, something beyond science's ability to test, how are you going to test for it?--Percy

Here's what you just said:

1. Nothing is supernatural.
   ​
2. Supernatural phenomenon are real.

Perhaps that's not what you really intended to say? The website you linked to provided an example, guessing cards. Let's say they find a statistically significant difference from guessing. Given that supernatural causes cannot be detected by our senses, else they'd be natural and not supernatural, please explain how to investigate the possibility of supernatural causes.--Percy

Hi Tesla,Thanks for the correction, but the contradiction remains. Examine your two sentences again:

1. Nothing is supernatural.
   ​
2. Supernatural phenomena are real.

It doesn't matter what your definition of supernatural is, assuming you're not changing definitions in mid-stream again as with the parrot example. Saying that "Nothing is X" and "X is real" is contradictory. You're misinterpreting this definition, which I think comes from the Oxford American Dictionary. When it says "beyond scientific understanding" it means *forever* beyond scientific understanding, in other words, beyond the ability of science to ever understand. It is not referring to a moving target of the current level of scientific understanding. Notice that it isn't referring to the *known* laws of nature, just the laws of nature.No one in science would ever refer to a natural phenomenon of unknown cause as supernatural. Take a lesson from your psychic friends at the websites you linked to.--Percy

Sorry, no, and it doesn't seem consistent with what Tesla is saying, either.--Percy