We still need the ID's answer to the question of how we are supposed to test the supernaturalistic hypotheses that they and you want to force on science.
First depends on what definition you are using and under what context when employing "science." As this forum, IMO, is all consumed with contextual semantics...even to the point of absurdity. However, let me define it for now:
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
From
Dictionary.com
Now we need a definition of supernaturalism:
2. the quality of being attributed to power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
From
Dictionary.com although should be attributed to Wordnet.
I chose the above definition, as I felt it describes the "breaking" of natural laws of which our "science" is conducted upon.
From the outset it becomes obvious that *if* supernaturalism were true, or a force that could transcend known physical laws or constants, reality might not be as consistent as prior envisaged. Although I do not understand how it would ultimately matter if a Being could break or bend known natural laws.
I would cautiously add that ID, as a movement, seems less inclined towards supernaturalism per se but rather focused on explanations of order in a consistent reality. Which is a logical assessment as opposed to desultory biogenesis. However, it seems what is focused on primarily is the theological and philosophical implications of such an opinion.
As far as scientific methodology, (as to avoid derision,
Go Here ), testing for supernaturalism is possible, if it is possible to control a Being that can break known natural laws. If a Being even exists. Most "supernatural" events by nature of there occurrence would be hardly repeatable without consentual participation of said Being. So the reality of a supernatural event would not fall under the guidelines of scientific inquiry, therefore making scientific inquiry into supernaturalism futile.
Science, therefore should have no opinion on supernaturalism and does not rule out supernaturalism. *thanks to jar for the clarification.
In other words, the unanswered question (even the crickets dare not speak) of just how the hell ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work?
I don't really see this as a fair assessment of an Intelligent Designer's position. I don't believe that ID proponents invoke supernaturalism as would a Christian fundamentalist. ID seems to be a logical explanation where no (reasonable) explanation had previously been given. Godidit, really wouldn't work here as the factor for variability would be remarkably higher than an Old Testament literal reading. An Intelligent Designer would be an open minded person as opposed to the decayed corpse of the irrational naturalism-as-god religious type.
Misrepresentation. Becoming a fast classic here at the Evc.
Edited by TheWay, : Jar's insight.
Edited by TheWay, : No reason given.
"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
™ Version 4.2
