Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernaturalism: Does It Work?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 41 (70589)
12-02-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by MEH
12-02-2003 1:06 PM


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.
MN is a form of scientific inquiry. It is criticized by IDers and other Creationists as being inherently biased and so "bad" as a form of scientific enquiry.
MrH has been defending MN as a valid form of scientific inquiry in another thread.
This thread is to allow critics of MN to explain what other methods act as forms of valid scientific inquiry, especially based on results. MrH used the term "supernatural" as that is the only other popular term. If you believe that the supernatural and natural are one in the same that is fine. Call yours the MSNN.
Now cut to the chase. MN has proven itself a valid form of scientific inquiry because it has produced results. What benefits have been produced by MSNN and so indicate it is a more valid form of scientific theory, or even equal to MN?
Your examples of Newton and DesCartes are exceedingly problematic. Other than indicating a belief in a supreme being provided MOTIVATION, there is no indication that this added belief altered their use of MN. Clearly where DesCartes departed from MN, his natural philosophy lost utility.
And given your hypothesis, one must also discuss nonXian scientists. Islamic and Pagan (Chinese) scientists provided some of the most important scientific discoveries the human race has ever enjoyed. Without Arabs and Chinese Newton and Einstein would not have gone anywhere.
Does this indicate then which God or Gods are more valuable to scientific inquiry? Conversely, if no Gods show any greater value to scientific inquiry, then what is the value of bringing in theology at all?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MEH, posted 12-02-2003 1:06 PM MEH has 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