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

Bless you for joining us here Beretta, but your statement; is exactly the problem.
Science works by attempting to gather facts, make a hypothesis based upon those facts and then test that hypothesis to destruction by comparing it with evidence. Note that I didn't say "support that hypothesis". If the hypothesis can't be falsified, the hypothesis gains credibility. If the hypothesis is supported by previously unavailable evidence, it gains credibility. If the experiment can be repeated by others, with same results, it gains credibility. If it can be falsified, it goes in the bin.
Creationism, as you have admitted, operates in a reverse of this. They decide in advance what the correct answer is, look for something that superficially looks enough like evidence to fool the unwary and undereducated (like your risible and baseless assertion about archaeopteryx), ignore all evidence to the contrary, fail to test any of this evidence at all and then present it to a layman public, who just might be gullible and ignorant enough to swallow it.
That is not science, although it clearly resembles the most dogmatic and dangerous incarnations of religion.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello Purpledawn,
With respect, I think that ID does differ from science, even at the "brainstorming" stage, by which I presume you mean the formation of hypotheses. The main difference is that ID is only willing to accept certain explanations. Any hypothesis that sounds a bit too much like evolution automatically goes straight in the big ideas bin.
The only hypotheses always excluded by science are supernatural ones. This is because they are untestable and therefore useless. It would be impossible to tell a fake supernatural explanation from a true one, since you could always add another layer of supernatural mumbo-jumbo to explain away the lack of evidence (ie. it's invisible, you need to believe, the bad energy of a sceptic disrupted the test, etc.).
As for your second question, ID doesn't bother narrowing down the possibilities, except by discarding ideas that it doesn't like the sound of. ID also refuses to abandon ideas which have been discredited. Just witness how Beretta has clung on to his banana idea, when any scientifically minded individual would have run a thousand miles from it!
Bottom line is, ID is not interested in explaining anything, only trying to crowbar creationism into schools. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Hope it answers your questions purpledawn.

---

Mutate and Survive

Ah. Rhetorical question. Right. Sorry.
You might be waiting a while...

---

Mutate and Survive

To whom do organisms appear designed and what credence ought we grant them? Is it enough that something might look designed to a three-year-old? Or a lunatic? Someone completely ignorant of science? A religious fundamentalist looking for proof of god? Or a qualified scientist?
Claims of "atheist ideology" are just sour grapes from those who insist on clinging to an outmoded theory. There are Christian scientists out there, and many Christians accept the ToE. If your faith is to weak to withstand the ToE, that is not Darwin's fault.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Buzz,
Let's take an example...
I tell you that there is an angel of the Lord in my living room. Naturally, you are keen to witness this wonder, and come round to take a look. Unfortunately, when you look, you see nothing. I tell you this is because it is invisible. You grope around, trying to touch the angel; I tell you that it is intangible. This continues, with every means you suggest of detecting the angel being met with a supernatural explanation of how the angel dodges detection, using its magic powers.
The important point is this; if there really was an angel, there would be no way to differentiate that from a situation where there was no angel. You simply could not tell the difference.That is why science does not deal in the supernatural.
Of course, if the angel revealed itself, there might not be so much of a problem, but no angels are currently forthcoming, and the same can be said for proof of ID's alleged designer. He is a no show.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello Buz,
Can't help feeling that you've missed my point. What is that supposed to mean? It makes zero sense.
Unless you can tell me how a situation where my hypothetical angel really was there would differ observably from a situation where there was no angel, involving your list of "sciences" just muddies the waters. If you cite archaeological evidence, I can simply say that the immortal angel planted or destroyed that evidence, and so on.
As for ID being kept out of classrooms, it is up to you to prove the case in ID's favour. First though, you are going to have to define how supernatural science would function. Solving my angel conundrum might go some way toward that.

Hi randman, For a start, Tipler is talking about a state of infinite-capacity computation, that he identifies with God. That is very different to the idea of God that most people have in mind. Besides, Tipler's book is conjecture and his theory depends upon various factors that may or may not come to fruition, such as intelligent life continuing to exist for long enough to develop the necessary processing power.It is also worth mentioning that even an MIT educated professor of mathematics and physics is capable of creating pseudo-science. Having letters after ones name is no guarantee of producing only proper science.By the way, I have to ask; do you consider God to be omnipotent?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Randman,

quote:

---

Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?

---

The Bible doesn't define anything from a scientific perspective. It was written long before there was any such concept as science. Nor does science, or its methodology require definition by reference to the Bible. This is no more valid than suggesting that science be defined according to the Vedas or the Quran.Science is more than capable of defining its own terms. The Bible is wholly irrelevant to this.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

No, I am simply telling you that what the Bible defines or does not define is not of any relevance to the practise of methodological naturalism. Modern science does not rely upon ancient religious texts for its definitions, nor should it.Just out of interest Rand, how do you suggest that science go about testing a supposedly omnipotent entity?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

First I would say that plenty of theories including Darwin's have come about without a real mechanism explained.

---

As you ought to know, Darwin's theory was not widely accepted as true before explanatory mechanisms were found. It hardly matters from our perspective. We have explanatory mechanisms now, namely genetics.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, in this case, I would look to spiritual mechanisms as a hypothesis and classify a number of spiritual principles widely accepted in various traditions and then look to see if in the study of an area such as physics, these principles apppear to be reflected in the study of how the world works

---

I have bolded the problem areas for you. These are all subjective terms and thus of no use in scientific enquiry. What is spiritual? One man's spirituality is another man's gobbledygook.

quote:

---

Keep in mind the term "spiritual" from a biblical perspective does not mean imaginary or outside of one's daily experience or the universe. It is a realm invisible to the naked eye, sure, but...

---

But nothing. It is not only invisible to the naked eye, but to all other objective systems of measurement. that renders it useless to scientific enquiry. Furthermore, the actions of an omnipotent entity would be undetectable and indistinguishable from the lack of such actions, should said entity decide to make it so. Given that a great many of the claims associated with God are clearly contradicted by observation, it is only reasonable to suppose that, if he were responsible for events like the creation of the earth, he has chosen to do it in a way that masks his involvement. This apparent mixture of omnipotence and dishonesty/disinclination to reveal himself make it impossible to say anything concrete about God or his actions.

quote:

---

In other words, dig a little deeper into the world we see with our eyes and you can find principles that seemingly contradict or work a little differently than what most might think of as common sense.

---

But these phenomena can be observed, albeit not with the naked eye. Common sense doesn't come into it.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

The term God is a term like spiritual in that it predates science. Your argument seems to be that if a term predates science, it cannot be used in discussion.

---

That is nt my argument and I cannot imagine what might have given you that idea. You asked; I pointed out that the Bible doesn't define anything from a scientific perspective.I object to terms like "spiritual" in science, not because of their antiquity, but because they are wholly subjective. I thought I made that clear. If you can provide an objective method of measuring spirituality, that can be agreed upon, then science might be able to take a crack at studying it. Thus far you have not done so.

quote:

---

So we have a proposition that the universe consists in part of realms or dimensions or properties that men have called "spiritual." If you think somehow using science to see if physics and science has delved into this realm is wrong, then once again you are making a circular fallacious argument.

---

No, I am in favour of studying whatever can be objectively defined and observed. Some phenomena that "men have called "spiritual."" might fit that description. Others, like your poorly defined spirituality, do not. They are necessarily outside the scope of what science is able to grasp.

quote:

---

You asked for how to test for aspects of God or mechanisms that God might use, and I answered you, and then you say no answer is no answer is possible

---

Call it a rhetorical question. Think about it though; is there any observation that could be made of an omnipotent entity that said entity could not tamper with in order to produce false results? Clearly not. Any such entity could use its omnipotence to give any result it wanted. Any result would be worthless. That may be fine in theology, but it is certainly not science.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade