The definition of science: What should it be?

Nwr wrote in another thread 'What mainstream science criticizes, are the claims that creationism is science, and the attempts to have creationism taught in the science classroom. But this is not an oppression of creationism. This is simply a defense of science against those who would attempt to undermine its rigorous standards.'

I have to admit, he is right. But, the reason 'mainstream' scientists can say that, is because 'mainstream science' (the convention) is defined as 'Methodological Naturalism'. So in a legalistic sense they are telling the truth. I also admit that they are consistent. Generally speaking, they believe truth is simply a convention.Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself. To confuse the issue, there are varying definitions of what methodological naturalism means, and the convention is in control of the definition at the present time.Clearly that is not 'objective' science, in the honest terms the average citizen assumes he is getting from 'respectable' scientific lawyers. The standards are not rigorous, other than they protect the convention from any serious challenge in a number of ways; from funding for opposition research: Denied... by smiling beaurocrats, to dismissal and intimidation of even suggesting such a rediculous notion as stupid and religiously motivated.That is exactly the way the Catholic church treated Galileo.Science should presuppose nothing other than that the truth is knowable. If truth were not knowable, then science would be nothing more than an exercize in seeking to prove a bias. That has happened within different churches throughout history and to this day, and in my opinion, that is exactly what is happening with science defined as Methodological Naturalism.So, in light of my opinion, and seeking to understand whether it is correct or not, (and I assume the answer to it's correctness is knowable) my question for this thread would be:

When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?

Edited by Rob, : blockquote thingEdited by Rob, : reasonable approach?Edited by Rob, : pleading in the name of integrity... You can handle this...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : That should wrap it up...Edited by AdminAsgara, : close blockquote tagEdited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

---

Any biters in the stream?

By admitting that we are corrupt. Only then will the truth of the Bible begin to make sense.As far as some of the points brought up here. WOW! You guys are good. I came to be challenged and you've not disapointed.My source for the definition of 'MN' came from 'Unlocking the mystery of life'. A DVD that obviously none of you have watched. I too had seen the wickepedia definitions which is why I mentioned the different angles in my original post.No-one is questioning natural selection. Only whether it is equal to 'evolution'. Seems to me that all is devolving. The atmosphere is being polluted, energy used up, etc. All because of sin.Time pressure enormous right now, got to go.Fabulous responses!!! I'm going to have to do some serious studying, or give up the gig.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Perhaps someday when I reach that state of righteousness that all of you have attained, I will understand where your coming from.On that note, I have asked some more questions as a proposed new topic.It is nice to meet faultless people for a change. For the last two years I was stupid enough to think Jesus was the only one.Hey crash, is stupidity 'wrong', because you sure 'hate' it? And if the reason is that it has led to so much violence and sufferring, then I have to say it is 'immoral.'Perhaps Hitler had a good plan huh? eliminate the dummies... You are your worst nightmare.

Well that's rather noble of you. If you keep talking like that, you may entice me back into the fray so that I can learn a few more things the hard way.I am terribly embarrased by my lack of research, as well as the failure of a few assumptions (such as simple organisms = simple DNA sequences). I confess much ignorance as compared to a few notables in this forum. But you know, it doesn't take a lawyer to tell you justice wasn't served. But you need one to argue with them.I have something to add. It is another argument presented by Stephen Meyer and is the argument that changed Dean Kenyon's mind on the origins of life. It actually doesn't belong in this thread, but perhaps the moderators will give it a thumbs up???Otherwise, Let me know in which to talk about it...In short... You can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain. Because, you need DNA to have natural selection.I don't want an ad hoc dismissal of the argument. I want someone to explain clearly (as this argument is clear) why this is false.

Tying into the topic... Can science that is limited to natural causes counter this observation, or must we invoke interference by intelligence?

From message 85 evolution and logic thread... I supposed...And you respondedOk Percy, I think I grasp your point now... And I cannot deny it! That is... that there may be another explanation other than a designer.Your quite correct! And I hope you find it. But for the mean time, it is called faith. And I don't say that as a derogatory remark. We all have faith in something.We are all making predictions. some of us are predicting things that we will only know for sure on the other side... or not! I mean, perhaps after this life, we're just dead! Whatever the case is, it is absolute!None of us can prove to the other a thing. Even if it is true that I have met and seen God, it is such a personal experience, that it is admittedly not proof in the scientific sense.Neither is theory or the hope for one...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy, do you believe that reality (i.e. 'the truth') is absolute?

I was far too quick to judge you Percy. That mistake caused me an inability to hear you. I now think we understand each other.You are more honest than I thought... Perhaps I was also projecting the qualities of 'others' in this forum onto you. My apologies...I never actually conveyed it in the way you described above, but it says what I was thinking better than I have been able to communicate. I would only make one correction; I do think Genesis is the truth, and I think that that is what science should be. However, I concede that science is not truth.I find it interesting that all assumptions act (even if they are tentative) as fact (i.e. truth) or in other words, absolute fact!Maybe it is not called Methodological Naturalism in the strict sense that Steven Meyer stated and that I adopted. But you sir, have stated the exact point I was trying to make (as well as Steven Meyer), and said it better!I think there are a few here that will be dissapointed that you acknowledge that science is not truth. I for one applaud your honesty, and highly reccommend you view 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' for yourself.I know that no-one in this forum (including yourself) who has rejected Meyers work has seen it, because if they had, they would not have asked for the references as they did. Instead they would have immediately know the source.Perhaps you will still hold the positions you do after viewing, but I find the philosophy that it contains to be flawless. That logical consistancy (a critical truth test) is very revealing when looking at the evidence which can admittedly be interpreted in many different ways.In addition, the biologists interviewed, such as Dean Kenyon (Biology professor S.F. State Emeritus), explain very matter-of-factly what the difficulties are for evolution. And as he says, 'Intelligent design was a far more intellectually satisfying argument when faced with the multiple difficulties confronting chemical evolution. And that is a staggerring analysis since Kenyon was the lead author of 'Biochemical Predestination' in 1969In closing, interpretations mean nothing because ultimately, reality is absolute! What counts is when a coherent philosophy, coheres with the evidence... then you have something dynamic and compelling in the highest degree!RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy, you are a clever opponent and very intelligent, but don't you realize what it is your're actually saying? Why pursue what is not achievable? Things unachievable are not achieved... be it gradual or not. Which is why philosophically, only the Word of God can be true (by definition). For He is unfailing. Could it be your fallibility (as opposed to mine) that causes you not to see Him, When many of us see evidence of Him everywhere? Is that possible, since you cannot bring yourself to state any absolutes such as a no answer? God doesn't change. I will explain better in the next questions response... If something is absolute truth, you cannot change it. It's absolute!It can change what is false, but what is false, can never change truth. How can you say what is or is not true if your perceptions are fallible and such an endeavor is ultimately unachievable?Percy, you are making absolute statements one after the other, while maintaining that absolutes are unknowable.If science cannot find truth, yet continues to search for it, then I maintain that our concept of science is systemic contradiction.Philosophically, the only thing that can be true (i.e. absolute) is God (in whatever capacity He happens to be). So if we are seeking truth, and science cannot give it to us, wouldn't it be wise of us to open our minds to the possibility that one of our world's religions may in fact, not be a religion, but reality?If the search for truth can only mean (logically) the search for God, then shouldn't we search for Him?consider this quote from J.B. Phillips I mean, what if God does will to reveal Himself to us? We cannot deny the possibility without claiming omniscience on our part and making absolute statements.Christ was very consistent, and soke the most logical words I have ever heard. He said we can know! Please allow me to document that claim, and attempt to let Jesus' own words shed light on how through Him, we can see past our blindness. It may not be science in the terms we mortals have determined are meaningful, but as jar and nwr and others have so rightly pointed out, who are we to say what science is, when science is a search for the truth? When we try to define that search ourselves we only invent non-sense and contradictory enterprises...Is the following possible? Now we have already agreed that no mere man can say these things. So what do we do with jesus?He forces us to make a radical and absolute descision. And I advise careful, reasoned, and rational inquiry. Seek and you will find, but you have to do it... I can only give you confidence that you will not have to abandon your intelligence, but only your pride, and your hopes for what you would like reality to be.Sincerely, RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Half truths are the most enticing, clever, deceptive, tempting, corruptable, and deadly lies of all...The onlything we should seek is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That means science is not the tool...

In case you are wondering why I don't argue with you. I only argue with people who are not advancing my own points...

EvC Forum: The definition of science: What should it be?Because anythings possible!

Sorry nwr, I'm not going to argue with you. There is no point. I am eagerly awaiting Percy's reply when he is available again. I find that he is honest...

You be funny man... And upon careful examination of the evidence, I find your correction to be valid... I am satisfied by the end of this discourse about science vs. truth; particularly between Percy and myself.Very interesting, and confirming.Ps. I have a response for you about the amount of information and the relavance to lifes complexity. I just have to find the thread. If you see this before you see that response, please direct me to the right thread.

Allow me to correct myself... 'That means science is only one of the tools needed. To take the single line of science in the search for truth, would be to block out other necessary angles.'If we look at the evidence without seeking an interpretation, then we are only examining random and useless facts that contain no relavance to a search.If there is a meaning and purpose for life, then any imperical evidence must be looked at through the lens of that meaning or purpose to find it. If it does not fit, then there is a problem with the lens.The facts are objective, and only exist in obedience to their purpose. If we look at it any other way, we will not find the truth.All of us argue that our lenses fit the evidence. I think it is those who admit they have a bias and agenda that are the most trustworthy. Those who interpret the evidence and deny that their sought meaning or purpose is knowable, give away a deeply disturbing prejudice that claims itself to be non-judgemental.I know of no answer or argument that will tame you Crash. I do not pretend to be a savior. Only the truth can posess such a quality. Therefore I will speak what I believe to be the truth with prophetic clarity. It will either soften your heart or harden it. That is up to you...