Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 256 of 396 (617570)
05-29-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by marc9000
05-29-2011 7:27 PM


marc9000 writes:
Methods are all that should matter. Answers are always subject to rejection. After all, current science is loaded with atheistic answers, and the majority of the U.S. population still rejects them.
Sorry but that is simply so wrong on so many points. points that have been explained to you over and over again.
Science does not have any atheistic answers.
It is totally irrelevant whether or not the majority of the US population rejects them, *** and opinions have nothing to do with truth or reality.
And once again, please provide the method used by either a Creator or Designer to interfere or influence biological evolution.
Please provide the method used to test for the existence of that Creator or Designer.
Yup, methods should be what count and so far, they seem to be missing when it comes to Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by marc9000, posted 05-29-2011 7:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 257 of 396 (617640)
05-30-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by marc9000
05-29-2011 7:27 PM


marc9000 writes:
What we're wondering is how one does supernatural ID science.
The same exact way that billions-of-years-ago-naturalism is done as science. Show me something the PAH World Hypothesis can do, and I believe I can show you something comparable that ID can do. Show me something that ID can’t do, and I believe I can show something comparable that the PAH World Hypothesis can’t do. I’m not talking about volume of research, (one is politically blocked by the courts and the other is not) I’m talking about basic one on one comparisons.
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?
Not a single event, but single steps. The cumulative selection claim enters the philosophical realm. It’s made, or trickily implied, to be a single event, but that ‘s not what it is, it’s a summary of events that still all happen one step at a time, and there are a lot of them.
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 never claim "evolution is wrong because", if evolution is defined as change over time. There is a big difference between "change over time" and "Genesis is wrong".
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.
But it doesn’t look for everything equally/hard enough. Naturalists gloss over complexities that may inspire more and more questions about naturalism.
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.
For some things there are only two answers, supernatural ones, or atheistic ones.
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.
The point where philosophy enters science. There will always be disagreement on just where that point is, but there should be a way to balance an exploration of the answers. The accusations of godidit, that settles it, stop looking aren’t as ridiculous as they’re made to look. There really should be a point where public money shouldn’t be wasted on scientific searches for proof of atheism.
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.
Maybe scientists overall, but not biologists. The link I showed earlier broke it down — biologists had the lowest rate of belief of all divisions of scientists.
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.
Why are the personal opinions of Phillip Johnson and everyone at the Discovery Institute made central to motives of Intelligent Design? Why aren’t the motives of Dawkins and Weinberg of today, or Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Dobzhansky, etc. of yesterday, similarly associated with evolution?
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.
Dembski thinks that too — I believe he makes it clear in The Design Revolution. Why don’t you allow him separation from his personal beliefs like you do Dawkins, Weinberg, and countless other leading atheists of today?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by marc9000, posted 05-29-2011 7:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:09 PM Percy has replied

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 2838 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 258 of 396 (617650)
05-30-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by marc9000
05-27-2011 11:12 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
"Rethrowing only those that are not sixes"? How was that decision made? Who made it, nature? Nature can't plan for future function. I looked at Dawkins book that dwise1 instructed me to, and am not convinced that cumulative selection is a single event, but a summary of events, a lot of one-step-at-a-time events. It looked more like atheism, than it did testable, repeatable, observable science.
From what I can deduct from this you're referring (essentially) to the irreducible complexity argument? That things are too complicated to have evolved?
Marc I think you need to actually give examples to back up what you're saying here. Atheism? What has this got to do with Atheism? I'm a Deistic-Evolutionist and I have no problem with two-step mutations. And what do you mean by single event? No one is proposing a single event. What is being proposed is a multi-step event; in that a relatively useful function is found. New genetic information is gradually added to this to eventually create an essential (or greater) function (to put it in it's simplest form).
What part of this don't you understand? I could explain it to you in depth but it requires a short jog down the mathematical side of memory lane. However if you've done any form of higher mathematics you could understand it with greater ease. I'm more than happy to explain it to you, I'm skeptical as to whether you'll actually listen though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by marc9000, posted 05-27-2011 11:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 259 of 396 (617822)
05-31-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
05-30-2011 8:44 AM


open minded debate
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.
Political losses of freedoms as a whole are at fault for this diminution in my opinion. More and more government and education officials have decided what is best for the population against the definition of Liberty as understood in the essay 'On Liberty' by J.S. Mill.
As far as the forum:
I believe there is more attack on any belief of supernatural than true exploration of possibilities with open minded debates of intelligent people.
Supernatural is only considered supernatural until the events the supernatural beliefs are based on are understood. Now tell me: How can we come to a natural understanding of supernatural events if the greatest minds will not even examine the events?
You may want to argue: science cannot examine supernatural events. And I’ll agree to the extent that "science does not have enough understanding NOW. But with time, we could.
I believe many ID proponents have met this barrier of inability to explain or discuss the events they have experienced outside of circles of individuals who do not hold the same ideologies because of the close-mindedness of opposing beliefs.
Consider this though: Many religions hold the same base ideals with different names for 'God' and different methods of honoring [God].
Atheistic scientists may have reached the top simply because their ideology matched the ideologies of those who held the financial power to their research. And what scientist will be able to research without funding? Or perhaps they chose a safer science to research with greater chance of success, but with smaller impact of the discovery as the risk takers reaching too far from current technological abilities who inevitably fail?
The reason I have been absent so long is because I met with some very hard resistance initially, which included unfair banning’s from topics for posts not near as off topic, nor near as vulgar as posts others and myself received. The difference was who the moderator agreed with on the topic.
I always planned to return when I was more informed and able to debate the issues that are debated here, but still have not started a topic, because; in the past, very few of my topics were allowed to be discussed.
You want a more active forum? You have to allow the people who come here a chance to debate what they are wishing to debate. Not just what you decide is worthy of debate.
I have always believed that people debating such topics as this might lead to that ‘great discovery moment’ of a scientist in their field.[and this is] because of some creationist who offers an explanation or poses a question that would associatively inspire discovery ( Even if it wasn't a discovery even relevant to the discussion.)
Let me ask you for an honest opinion: How do you view me based on my postings? What is your true opinion?
And then: how does that opinion affect how you reply to me?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-30-2011 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 1:58 PM tesla has replied
 Message 264 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2011 4:03 PM tesla has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 260 of 396 (617837)
05-31-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by tesla
05-31-2011 1:09 PM


Re: open minded debate
tesla writes:
Supernatural is only considered supernatural until the events the supernatural beliefs are based on are understood.
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.
Now tell me: How can we come to a natural understanding of supernatural events if the greatest minds will not even examine the events?
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?
Atheistic scientists may have reached the top simply because their ideology matched the ideologies of those who held the financial power to their research.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:09 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 261 of 396 (617851)
05-31-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Percy
05-31-2011 1:58 PM


Re: open minded debate
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.
The sun was once considered supernatural and was exposed. Message 453 of 'inductive atheism' in the faith and belief forums is a discussion of 'supernatural' and its sources. Message 453 includes this link: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Currently understood 'supernatural' events are already explored by science, yet little discovery has been made due to limitations in science.
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?
The ‘limits’ of science.
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.
The same way all science is researched. a thesis becomes a theory, a theory becomes research, and the limits of science dictate discovery. as science continues to grow in knowledge the truth of supernatural events and behaviors can be discovered.
However, with no exploration, nothing can be discovered.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 1:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 2:29 PM tesla has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 262 of 396 (617853)
05-31-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by tesla
05-31-2011 2:21 PM


Re: open minded debate
tesla writes:
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.
The sun was once considered supernatural and was exposed. Message 453 of 'inductive atheism' in the faith and belief forums is a discussion of 'supernatural' and its sources. Message 453 includes this link: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Currently understood 'supernatural' events are already explored by science, yet little discovery has been made due to limitations in science.
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?
The ‘limits’ of science.
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.
The same way all science is researched. a thesis becomes a theory, a theory becomes research, and the limits of science dictate discovery. as science continues to grow in knowledge the truth of supernatural events and behaviors can be discovered.
However, with no exploration, nothing can be discovered.
What limits of science?
There was ample evidence the Sun really existed.
What supernatural thing would you like science to investigate where you can present evidence of its existence comparable to the evidence that the sun exists?
Edited by jar, : Got my reply in the wrong place

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:21 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:41 PM jar has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 263 of 396 (617862)
05-31-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by jar
05-31-2011 2:29 PM


Re: open minded debate
What supernatural thing would you like science to investigate where you can present evidence of its existence comparable to the evidence that the sun exists?
You’re implying everything that exists must be in your face evident before it can be researched? If that was the case science would have progressed very little.
Read the link.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 2:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 5:30 PM tesla has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 264 of 396 (617908)
05-31-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by tesla
05-31-2011 1:09 PM


Re: open minded debate
Supernatural is only considered supernatural until the events the supernatural beliefs are based on are understood. Now tell me: How can we come to a natural understanding of supernatural events if the greatest minds will not even examine the events?
You may want to argue: science cannot examine supernatural events. And I’ll agree to the extent that "science does not have enough understanding NOW. But with time, we could.
I think I see the source of your misunderstanding. What you call "supernatural", the rest of us call "unknown" or "not yet understood."
What we call "supernatural" are things and events and forces, etc, that are outside the realm of the natural such as spirits, ghosties, and sundry gods. Since our senses and instruments cannot observe, measure, detect, or even determine the existence of anything supernatural, there is no way we can confirm or disprove any hypotheses we may form concerning anything supernatural. Hence, science cannot deal with the supernatural and including the supernatural in science does nothing to aid science, but rather would only serve to hinder it.
What you are calling "supernatural events" are really natural events and phenomena that we do not yet understand and the explanation for which is still unknown. Predominately in most of human history and even to some degree today, people will attribute to such natural events and phenomena supernaturalistic explanations as a way to try to explain them. While that may give those people some kind of comfort, those supernaturalistic explanations do nothing to actually explain such natural events and phenomena. The only thing that will explain them will be for science to investigate them and find their natural causes. Indeed, supernaturalistic explanations may even hinder that scientific investigation, especially when people have attached religious significance to their supernaturalistic explanations.
It is not a situation as you appear to describe, wherein the supernatural gets promoted to natural once we understand it. Rather, the situation is one in which the old do-nothing supernatural explanations get tossed aside and replaced by the actual explanations, which so far have all been natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:09 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 4:58 PM dwise1 has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 265 of 396 (617938)
05-31-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by dwise1
05-31-2011 4:03 PM


Re: open minded debate
What we call "supernatural" are things and events and forces, etc, that are outside the realm of the natural such as spirits, ghosties, and sundry gods.
Which are all potentially true; when science understands consciousness on levels beyond our current understanding.
Which means: these supernatural things are no more supernatural than any other supernatural thing, which is simply an event beyond the understanding of current science.
You can claim Gods are just imagined: with no proof, and still turn out to be wrong about that in the next 2000 years.
I believe it is time for every one of you to really examine this word and what it truly means.
Here is a thought experiment: a creature appears in your room, and eggs float through your refrigerator door, grabs your couch and eats it and then disappears; what do you call that? Supernatural.
now let’s say science has found out that there truly are alternate realities that exist alongside ours, only divided by the speed of known time (i.e. faster than the speed of light), and that an entity from that space-time broke through the barrier (for just an instant) into this one, and grabbed the only item within reach for his limited existence in our space time, and then subsequently was destroyed attempting to return to its own.
Ok. That would be a Supernatural happening, natural to the laws of physics when science understands how it works.
Is this scenario likely? No. possible? could be, who knows? no one that’s the point.
Everyone needs to understand the word supernatural before anyone can have a meaningful conversation concerning things considered supernatural. Because: things that were explained supernatural become natural when understood. Hence the literal definition: BEYOND current scientific ability to understand.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2011 4:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 5:31 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 05-31-2011 5:59 PM tesla has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 266 of 396 (617949)
05-31-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by tesla
05-31-2011 2:41 PM


Re: open minded debate
Sorry but that is sim-ply false.
You mentioned that the sun was once considered supernatural but when investigate found to be entirely natural.
I can list many such instances, lightning, storms, night, day, fire, flood, the sea...
The one common point to each of those though was that there was very convincing evidence that each of those existed.
What supernatural thing would you like science to investigate where you can present evidence of its existence comparable to the evidence that the sun, lightning, storms, night, day, fire, flood, the sea exists?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:41 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:01 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 267 of 396 (617952)
05-31-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by tesla
05-31-2011 4:58 PM


Re: open minded debate
tesla writes:
Here is a thought experiment: a creature appears in your room, and eggs float through your refrigerator door, grabs your couch and eats it and then disappears; what do you call that? Supernatural..
Nonsense.
It is called "Unknown".
Edited by jar, : - 0

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 4:58 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 268 of 396 (617960)
05-31-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by tesla
05-31-2011 4:58 PM


Re: open minded debate
Which are all potentially true; when science understands consciousness on levels beyond our current understanding.
So you once again claim that "supernatural" is the same as "ignorance"?
I believe it is time for every one of you to really examine this word and what it truly means.
Here is a thought experiment: a creature appears in your room, and eggs float through your refrigerator door, grabs your couch and eats it and then disappears; what do you call that? Supernatural.
So the supernatural only exists in fictional events? How is science supposed to investigate fictional stories?
Everyone needs to understand the word supernatural before anyone can have a meaningful conversation concerning things considered supernatural. Because: things that were explained supernatural become natural when understood. Hence the literal definition: BEYOND current scientific ability to understand.
Supernatural means outside of the natural, not within the natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 4:58 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:10 PM Taq has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 269 of 396 (617962)
05-31-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by jar
05-31-2011 5:30 PM


Re: open minded debate
Read the link I posted jar!

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 5:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 6:08 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 8:49 PM tesla has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 270 of 396 (617967)
05-31-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by tesla
05-31-2011 6:01 PM


Re: open minded debate
I read it. Nothing supernatural there.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:01 PM tesla has seen this message but 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