We clearly mean two very different things when we say "supernatural."
...snip...If something can be substantiated and detected by natural, physical evidence, then it must be, by definition, natural.
It seems we can describe the difference as follows. By supernatural, you mean totally unrelated to the natural, whereas I mean beyond the natural domain, but still possibly interacting with the natural world.
My definition allows for a supernatural creator. Yours apparently does not. This simplifies matters. Whatever word you want to use, the science forums do (IMO) permit consideration of a divine creator to the universe, who (by definition) interacts with the natural world by creating it. You don't call this supernatural, as far as I can tell; which makes this simply a teminological issue.
Creationists are not appealing to the supernatural by your use of the word, since they are in fact saying that the creator interacts with the natural world and that one can infer details of the creator and the creative process from examination of the natural world. I guess this makes the creator "natural", by your use of the term; but in any case it is certainly permitted in the science forums.
Added in edit. What is required in the science forums... for everyone .. is not the particular viewpoint or conclusion: it is that they address the matter in the light of physical evidence. Those who find some other basis for discussion more fruitful have other forums available.
Cheers -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-19-2005 09:33 PM
I've only disallowed investigation of the BIBLICAL PREMISE
Which is certainly a question we could investigate scientifically, if we chose to.
The only reason you choose not to is the likelyhood of the contradiction of your Bible; that's not a legitimate scientific reason. Thus, it's not science.
Get it, yet?
Ya know, I didn't even use that term but there you are putting quotes around it as if I did.
Fine, whatever. I was trying to be generous - the term I would have used would have been "bullshit" - but if it's such a big deal, exactly what nomenclature would you prefer in order to refer to your proposed epistomology? Faith-based science? Christoscience? What you're proposing is fundamentally different than the secular science everybody else does, so it would be nice to have a term for which to call it.
Once again, there is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a stated inviolable premise.
Absolutely there is. It's absolutely inherently unscientific. Inherent in the scientific method is the freedom of inquiry - science investigates all that it can, asks whatever questions it can answer.
Your Biblical premise is a scientific question that can be scientifically answered. The only reason you refuse to ask it is because you know you won't like the answer; thus, not science.
but I'd like one Bash-Free Zone to exist if possible.
You mean "critical-thinking free." Why should such a zone be allowed to exist, either here or in the scientific community at large? Why should you get special treatment and lower standards? Mainstream scientists don't get to have their assertions go unquestioned; why should you?
And AGAIN, if nobody can see their way clear to accommodating to this, I don't see why we are having this discussion at all
If you can't cut it under fair treatment, I don't see why we should lower the standards just for you. We wouldn't lower the fitness requirements for a weakling wannabe firefighter or a police officer, just because it was too hard for them, now would we? Isn't special treatment and lower standards exactly the sort of liberal feel-good nonsense that I know you hate so much? Why do you insist that it be applied to you?
By supernatural, you mean totally unrelated to the natural, whereas I mean beyond the natural domain, but still possibly interacting with the natural world.
No one's ever been able to show me how such a thing would be logically coherent. The natural domain is everything that is and interacts with the physical world; the only closed system, if you will. I don't see how an entity could interact with the natural domain and yet be beyond it. If you reach into a closed system, you open it (or prove that it was always open), and the closed system now has to be the one that contains both the original system and you.
I guess this makes the creator "natural", by your use of the term; but in any case it is certainly permitted in the science forums.
If they have a creator whose existence can be affirmed or denied by physical evidence, then I agree that they can posit that creature in a science forum, because that's not supernatural.
If they assert that their creator is beyond denial by physical evidence, then he can neither be natural, nor influence the natural world, nor be introduced into a science forum. (Since he would have no ability to affect change in the physical world, his proposed existence would be rather pointless in such a forum. anyway.)