Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

quote:

---

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm respectfully rejecting it.

---

Aside from a semantics game you are playing of claiming that anything that was discovered using the principles of MN was actually based on supernatural factors, this is not really a question that can be avoided.Give an example of a single field of scientific inquiry or a single scientific discovery that has benefited from the inclusion of non-observable, non-verifiable, and untestable factors in the hypothesis being tested. By definition MN EXCLUDES such factors so your equating natural and supernatural is patently false.You seem particularly fixed on the concept of intelligent design. So, what is the testable hypothesis of an the involvement of a designer? How would you falsify the hypothesis? How would you gather or what is the existing evidence that supports your hypothesis? How does it better explain the observations and experimental data better than competing hypotheses or theories?You see, this is how science works. Anyone, including intelligent design proponents, are stuck at the first step. They have been unable to propose a testable hypothesis for intelligent design and have thus stagnated. Meanwhile, the biological sciences, based entirely on MN, are producing multiple discoveries and inovations daily.

As the others have pointed out, I did not claim that MN excludes intelligent design per se. However, intelligent design has thus far been unable to formulate a scientific hypothesis.Start from the hypothesis that DNA, elephants, anything in nature is intelligently designed. Ok, so now what? How do you test this hypothesis? How do you falsify it? You can't do either. Thus you cannot collect data to support or refute your hypothesis. Thus it has no explanatory power. It is completely scientifically useless. You cannot distinguish between the alternatives that the universe is intelligently designed by a god, gods, a giant unicorn, the chia pet you may have received as a gift from a strange relative than, or any other imaginary forces that you can conjure up.If you choose to believe that a chia pet is the almighty force guiding nature, that is a personal choice. However, this has no scientific use or explanatory power when dealing with the natural world. This is also why MN excludes the supernatural.

quote:

---

What I mean is the question about whether the thought of an intelligent designer "adds anything" to scientific inquiry AT ALL is different from whether or not it adds anything to MN specifically. I can see why it is said that it adds nothing to MN, and will just leave that alone.

---

I think you see the point. Nobody here is saying that you cannot have spirituality or a belief in God or gods as a motivation for your actions. Many scientists are religious..in fact the majority. However, their beliefs have no relevance to science. As Mr. Hambre has stressed, that is why people with completely different cultural backgrounds and beliefs can all practice science via MN. I cannot knowingly reproduce what your beliefs are as they are a personal experience. Mr. Hambre, holmes, JIM, or yourself could easily reproduce any result of any experiment I have done in the lab (except the ones I have totally screwed up). The supernatural thus contributes nothing to scientific inquiry and including it in ones "science" has yet to produce any novel discovery or system of scientific investigation that is as effective as MN.

quote:

---

I do see what you are talking about, esp. in terms of how the word "Supernatural" is being employed and veiwed. I can live with that and I depart from this debate with my pride in tact.

---

Hi MEH,
It has been an enjoyable debate and I give you a lot of credit for making the attempt to address Mr. Hambre's topic. I hope when you say "depart" that does not mean from EvC entirely. There are lots of interesting debates. I hope you stick around and participate in some more of them.

quote:

---

"God" will simply crush you heathens.

---

The way my week is going he will have to wait in line to take his turn