Methodological Naturalism

Syamsu,Anyone with a lick of sense or an ounce of shame would hesitate to continue this line of argument, since you still have not proven that there's anything supernatural about information or that there's any rational alternative to MN. It's clear you have neither.If information is so fundamental a force in the universe, how have you managed to avoid it so far?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Recent posts in various threads have made it clear that creationists can't accept the objectivity that scientific methodology is supposed to promote.Science isn't here to confirm our feel-good notions about the universe. Creationists want science to tell us our lives have meaning and purpose, but science has never successfully addressed philosophical concerns. Racial supremacists want science to support their prejudices, but the vast majority of the evidence refutes their claims. Liberals want science to paint a happy picture of human nature and potential, despite copious evidence that the nature/nurture debate is much more complex and problematic than they assume.Speaking in scientific terms forces us to accept the tentative nature of scientific endeavor. It forces us to deal with evidence in an empirical, inferential context. Creationists assert that their opposition to evolution is philosophical, but that doesn't excuse their ignorance of both the scientific basis of evolution and the foundations of the scientific model itself. If they can't follow the evidence where it leads, then they shouldn't be discussing science.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I can hear the admins now: there's too much mammoth shit, and nothing good ever comes out of it. As es la vida, hermano.My recent complaint is that the creationists here don't seem to want to debate evidence. All we hear is that evidence is all subjective, our "God sense" tells us that creationism is true, or that evolution is a religion based on naturalistic dogma. When we try to explain that MN is the only way we can approach objectivity, we either hear that scientists are stacking the deck, that there's no objective reason to disqualify the supernatural, or that objectivity shouldn't be the aim of science in the first place.Is this an implicit admission from the creationists that, indeed, the evidence supports evolution? I can't think of any other reason that the posters seem so dedicated to exhibiting their misunderstanding of the philosophy and methodology of science.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I guess the pages of the calendar can change, but some things stay the same. I wish you guys the best of luck in getting answers from the Pride of Nganjuk concerning his asinine ideas, but I think holmes offered him a challenge that is much more relevant here:Any betting folks out there?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I have already demonstrated that your religious devotion to MN is due to idelological zealotry and not to evidence that it's the only way to do science. If you'd set aside for one minute your dogmatism, your education, your common sense, your ability to read, and your years of experience in the lab, you'd understand what I'm saying. You do understand it, you're just confused about it. You keep making these claims, even though I have already said that any arguments in support of MN are invalid since they're made in support of MN. You're like that old lady who keeps slamming the door of the triple loaders, and when I complain she tells me to go piss up a rope. You see the decline in civility since the advent of Darwinism.Regards,
Esteban Hambre