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

You are right. The dualistic idea of natural/supernatural was not set up in a time of rigorous science. When science came to discuss these ideas it found a number of problems:

1. Supernatural is ill-defined. If we don't even know what we are looking for, how can we tell if we've found it?
2. The properties of this supernatural realm vary from account to account.
3. Almost universally, the claim was drawn up that methodological naturalism was not up to the task of exploring whatever the supernatural turned out to be
   

So science settled on continuing to look at the natural world, trying to describe what happens in it and attempting to formulate explanations for things that happen.So far, nothing that has been established as a phenomenon that really does happen beyond reasonable doubt, has required an explanation outside of what we have termed the natural world.Maybe the old dualists were wrong, and the monists were right. Maybe 'spiritual' stuff is no different, fundamentally, than 'material' stuff. The question remains: Does anybody have any ideas how we might go into confirming if this is the case? Any ideas how this 'spiritual' stuff might affect the evolution of populations? Without even being able to define what is 'spiritual', or 'supernatural' it seems difficult to explore whether a spiritual or supernatural did anything. As it stands, there is no evidence of a material entity interfering with nature at opportune moments any more than there is for a supernatural one.

quote:

---

A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate.

---

Any thoughts?

It's just semantics. The point remains - the 'science can't study the supernatural' simply means that science can't study something with no set rules. It is a good defence mechanism of those that believe in something we might call supernatural (science can't study ancestor spirits/gods/djinn/domovoi) since if we assume that science could study them, then it would seem they don't exist.If you want your cake, and have science be able to tackle the supernatural, then you can't eat it too and have an entity that can be supplicated to intervene in daily affairs.Alternatively, you can try to muddy the issue with nonsense pseudo-philosophical sophistry. The underlying question is this: Is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?If it is, how?If it is not, why?No need to concern ourself with whether the fundamental forces of nature are 'supernatural', "This is so because the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms are never touching, they start to repel each other before and you are actually "flying" 10^-8 cm. above your chair" nor does we need to wonder if sever misunderstandings of quantum physics is supernatural, "those elementary particles that also behave like waves some of the time, they have the ability to observe themselves.". To answer, the former claim is natural. It occurs observably in nature. Nature being where we live and exist, the realm of the material and the physical.The latter claim is not very well worded and would seem to be very much misguided nonsense based on thinking that English is a great language in which to understand quantum physics.As I said, trying to distract the topic away from the questions and down roads of semantics is not going to impress anyone. Whatever you want to call whatever - can you please give "a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. ", which doesn't involve butchering the current function of science...ie., can you show that "that ID will not kill science"? The OP is awaiting anybody who wants to skip past semantics and get on with the pragmatics.Hope that helps clarify things a little.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If you don't know about the designer entity of ID let me fill you in - it is supposed to have created the first life, and in the versions that are closest in agreement to present day science, at various times it tweaked the genomes of various bits of life (the bacterial flagellum, the AIDS virus proteins, the blood clotting system etc) since these things cannot occur without intelligent guidance.So the question I'm asking you is, is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?If it is, how?If it is not, why? If you had read my post with anything close to due care and attention, you will see that I agreed with randman when he made this very same point. Most religious folk do happen to be dualists (they believe in an entirely separate realm called whatever you like, supernatural, spiritual, metadivine etc), but one could be a monist about it.In which case, maybe the designer entity is open to scrutiny. That being the case the ID theorist I would have thought, should be trying to determine what rules apply to this designer, and looking for evidence based on these rules. Theories about how the designer interacts with life could be formulated and tested. So far, no evidence of such a designer has been found - which is the unfortunate edge of the razor of opening it up to scientific scrutiny. So is taking drugs.But then, classification of the natural world, and seeking explanations for the phenomenon and coming to a greater understanding of the majesty of the natural world is exhilarating and practical. I don't and never claimed to. You are not reading my English too well that's for sure. I'll help you along this time, read along with me.

quote:

---

would seem to be very much misguided nonsense

---

I highlighted the bit you critically missed. In case you aren't understanding what that means I will translate into simple English for you. "From where I'm standing, it looks like you're talking gibberish". You can count me as an outlier. I'm mildly peeved you are not reading anything that I am saying and instead you seem to be assuming what my words are saying based on my philosophical position rather than on the actual content of my posts. However, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'emergent properties' since you don't tell me what these emergent properties are meant to be emerging from. I love talking about emergent properties and it certainly doesn't make me angry. Really? Is the wetness of liquid water supernatural? The shape of a flock of birds? Perhaps colour is an supernatural? Or surface tension? They seem unusual things to call supernatural. Then again, given your peculiar relationship with the English language, you could mean something completely different. If a swarm of mosquitoes swallowed an elephant, that might constitute an emergent property I suppose. Otherwise, I'm just chalking this up as evidence that you are using words in a way completely different than the rest of the English speaking world.Or maybe I'm just wrong.Either way - any suggestions on whether there is any way for the ID flagellum designing tinkerer to be scientifically tested without butchering methodological naturalism?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So, in short, your answer to the OP is "I don't know".The rest of your post seems to be some stuff about what you think emergent properties are, and they have something to do with atoms being self-conscious. That is not a definition of emergent property I have ever heard, but I concede it would be as close to supernatural as we're likely to find at this stage.Emergent property is a generic term for a property that is not intrinsic to the individual parts, but emerges when multiple parts of a system interact (The H₂O molecule has no wetness property, but lots of them together can have that property...it is emergent. Protons, electrons, neutrons etc are not 'blue' in that they reflect light at the frequency of blue, but lots of atoms togther can do this etc etc). Now that you have explained the context for which you refer to them, I can only guess that it is a critical misapprehension on your part about physics. Either way, I don't see how it can be relevant to advancing this thread any further. Perhaps you can propose a new topic where you can explain your ideas.