Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

    In another thread The Lurch and I had the following exchange that I didn't want to get buried 14 pages deep based on Michael Behe's admission during the Kitzmiller trial that in order for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory the definition for scientific theory would need to be dramatically altered to the point that astrology would be considered scientific

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Now getting back to your statement here... You are aware that Behe was forced to concede that in order for Intelligent Design to qualify as a valid scientific theory that you would have to distort the definition of scientific theory to the point that it would include things like astrology, right? I'm not talking about astronomy but astrology -- the pseudoscientific belief that you can divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

    Now I know that the Discovery Institute tells their lemmings that isn't true so let's look at the transcript again.

    Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

    A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

    Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

    A:That is correct.

    Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

    A: Yes, that's correct.


    Ouch.

    Behe then continues by giving his own personal definition for "theory," which only confirms that you have to change it to the point that it includes crap like astrology. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning: What "theory" means in science

    IOW, Jones did demonstrate his understanding of "intelligent design as science." That it isn't. That it is pseudoscientific claptrap on par with astrology.
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    I think the fundamental need to redefine science so that Behe's version of intelligent design is something that's under-emphasized. Beyond the astrology issue, Behe wants to change how science approaches the unknown. For the origin of a biological system, we have a successful theory - evolution - that should be the default explanation in the absence of any other evidence. In other words, if we describe a new feature of biology, we default to assuming "it came about through evolution", since evolution successfully explains the vast majority of things we've looked at in detail. Should, for whatever reason, evolution prove insufficient to explain a system, the default shifts to "we don't know yet."

    Behe makes two changes to how science functions in this regard. One, without convincing any scientists, he believes that he has found a set of circumstances where evolution is always insufficient. But he's done that without considering all the known mechanisms by which evolution occurs, which is why his argument hasn't convinced the scientific community. And, despite his lack of success, he wants that to dethrone the default explanation.

    But it gets worse. Rather than simply shifting to "we don't know yet", which is how science has functioned for centuries, he wants design to be the default explanation. He does this without any evidence in favor of design whatsoever (this is the whole false dichotomy issue that was discussed extensively at Dover).

    It's a radical change to science, and one that seems to be under appreciated. Behe really does want to throw science as we know it out
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This might be worthy of a thread of its own


    Kenneth Miller (who, coincidentally, was the plaintiff's lead expert witness at Kitzmiller) devotes an entire chapter of his Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul to just that issue, discussing, in chapter seven (Closing the American Scientific Mind), the goal of ID:

    Its goals went far beyond merely carving out a little scientific respectability for antievolutionism, and extended all the way to a complete redefinition of the way science -- all of science -- is done. The proponents of ID seek nothing less than a true scientific revolution, an uprising of the first order that would do a great deal more than just displace Darwin from our textbooks and curricula. They seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science, and that surely should be enough to make anyone sit up and pay attention.


    As we can see with Behe and other ID proponents (or is that cdesign proponentsists ​​) they seek to bastardize science to the point where crap like astrology is a legitimate scientific theory.

    Miller also spells out how the "cdesign proponentsists" are seeking to insert the equivalent of cultural relativism into the natural sciences and wanting nothing less than the dismantling of the scientific method (the cornerstone of all scientific thought) noting

    Quite consciously Johnson then set about developing a strategy that would subject science to the same relativistic critique that had already affected the rest of academia. That strategy would become known as the Wedge...


    "Johnson" here is a reference to Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer who the I.D. community fondly refers to as the godfather and "Mahatma" of their movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" (an attempt to split Americans away from "naturalistic science" by portraying science as we know it as innately antireligious and forcing them to choose between science and religion) which he outlined in The Wedge Document.

    Again quoting Miller

    The real target of the movement, as the document makes clear, is the whole of science, and materialistic foundations of the scientific process


    Effectively, they want to hurl science back into the early Middle Ages.
    The goal of the ID movement is more than just opposing evolutionary theory, but in redefining science itself.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    Imagine getting a degree in Astrology from MIT.
    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    -Ghandi (Disputed)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      Imagine getting a degree in Astrology from MIT.
      Or Phrenology from John Hopkins University, another pseudoscience I once heard would become legitimate science under Behe's definition.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        In another thread The Lurch and I had the following exchange that I didn't want to get buried 14 pages deep based on Michael Behe's admission during the Kitzmiller trial that in order for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory the definition for scientific theory would need to be dramatically altered to the point that astrology would be considered scientific
        Well, a scientific theory, that is not to say that astrology would be considered scientific today.

        Source: Miller

        The real target of the movement, as the document makes clear, is the whole of science, and materialistic foundations of the scientific process...

        © Copyright Original Source



        The goal of the ID movement is more than just opposing evolutionary theory, but in redefining science itself.
        This brings up a good point, ID does seek to uproot naturalism (the view that nature is everything), and as far as science is committed to methodological naturalism, that would need to be uprooted.

        But you and Kenneth Miller are both theists, why would you seek to cling to the "materialistic foundations of the scientific process"?

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          .
          But you and Kenneth Miller are both theists, why would you seek to cling to the "materialistic foundations of the scientific process"?
          Feel free to give your methodology for doing science without relying 100% on materialistic processes. How do you get confidence in repeatable results when you have to allow for the unpredictable and undetectable meddling by a supernatural Loki God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post

            Feel free to give your methodology for doing science without relying 100% on materialistic processes. How do you get confidence in repeatable results when you have to allow for the unpredictable and undetectable meddling by a supernatural Loki God?
            A good point, one that has been made numerous times.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Well, a scientific theory, that is not to say that astrology would be considered scientific today.
              Under Behe's definition it would be just as legitimate a scientific theory as say atomic theory or germ theory. In his hare-brained scheme to make Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory he is content to do more than just throw the baby out with the bathwater. He wants to throw whatever the baby was washed in, bath towels, soap etc. away as well and then burn the house down for good measure.

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              This brings up a good point, ID does seek to uproot naturalism (the view that nature is everything), and as far as science is committed to methodological naturalism, that would need to be uprooted.

              But you and Kenneth Miller are both theists, why would you seek to cling to the "materialistic foundations of the scientific process"?

              Blessings,
              Lee
              In science you always assume a natural explanation or else it comes grinding to a screeching halt. The spectacular successes over the past four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism[1] (the very cornerstone of science) can not be disputed. But OTOH any scientist who when baffled, merely invokes a supernatural solution for a phenomenon they are investigating is assuring that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue since science can't explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. Unfalsifiable premises get you nowhere.





              1. I've noticed more than one cdesign proponentsists conflate, either intentionally or ignorantly, methodological naturalism with ontological (metaphysical or philosophical) naturalism (the latter of which claims that nothing can exist outside of science). Simply put, the former is solely a tool and makes no claim to truth whereas the latter makes the philosophical claim that only natural causes exist.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But you and Kenneth Miller are both theists, why would you seek to cling to the "materialistic foundations of the scientific process"?
                I can't speak for either of them, but beyond the practical issues others are pointing out, the act of looking for natural explanations would become the equivalent of finding situations in which God (or Gods, depending on your religion) didn't do something. I'd imagine for many people, that would be theologically awkward.

                Speaking personally, i've always found one of the appeals of science to be the fact that it's accessible to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. It's a truly global culture.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  I can't speak for either of them, but beyond the practical issues others are pointing out, the act of looking for natural explanations would become the equivalent of finding situations in which God (or Gods, depending on your religion) didn't do something. I'd imagine for many people, that would be theologically awkward.

                  Speaking personally, i've always found one of the appeals of science to be the fact that it's accessible to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. It's a truly global culture.
                  Speaking only for myself, just because something has a perfectly natural explanation, does not eliminate the role of God. I believe that all the various mechanisms and systems that keep everything running -- whether it be atomic structure, gravitation, evolution etc. -- were established by God.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Speaking only for myself, just because something has a perfectly natural explanation, does not eliminate the role of God. I believe that all the various mechanisms and systems that keep everything running -- whether it be atomic structure, gravitation, evolution etc. -- were established by God.
                    Right. There's lots of ways to find science and religion theologically consistent. I just seem to recall that, historically, this was a bit of an issue. Some people felt that searching for explanations that didn't involve direct divine intervention was acting to minimize God.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Right. There's lots of ways to find science and religion theologically consistent. I just seem to recall that, historically, this was a bit of an issue. Some people felt that searching for explanations that didn't involve direct divine intervention was acting to minimize God.
                      Going back to Galileo (which was a much more complicated affair than most think) on through many large discoveries, there have been those who have taken that view. I posted on this awhile back. Let me see if that is still around....


                      Nothing on Tweb, but found a version I posted in 2016 on another website



                      Moreover, the claim that this or that scientific discovery leads to atheism has been around nearly as long as science -- and maybe longer[1]. History has repeatedly shown that many scientific advances are treated as attacks on religion in some quarters.

                      Perhaps you are familiar with Galileo Galilei and the fuss raised when he started showing that the earth moved around the sun and not the other way around as so many Christians were positive that the Bible clearly and plainly taught.

                      Copernicus’ theories and Galileo’s discoveries were savagely attacked in this manner:
                      • "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."
                      • "To affirm that the sun … is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting Scriptures."
                      • "His pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation."
                      • "The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves."
                      • "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon… This fool (or “man”) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scriptures tell us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."




                      There was a similar, though much less vehement reaction to Descartes according to the New Cambridge Modern History, IV, p.139:
                      Originally posted by New Cambridge Modern History
                      [Descarte’s] "innovations in math and optics were welcome but his mechanistic physics and physiology were at first opposed, in Protestant Utrecht and Leiden as in Catholic Louvain and in Paris, because his doctrines were held to lead to atheism and to have theologically dangerous implications for the nature of the soul and for the eucharist."


                      Blaise Pascal's declared that, "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God."

                      In a letter to a Christian Philipp in early December of 1679 Gottfried Leibniz wrote, "As for Descartes' philosophy, about which you ask my opinion, I am wary of saying absolutely that it leads to atheism," indicating that he certainly thought it did but did not want to say that it unquestionably did so and which according to Phillipp was a walking back of a previous statement[2]

                      Jacobus Triglandius was accusing Cartesianism as being used by atheists to justify their position in Leiden causing the university to forbid its teaching and declare that only Aristoleanian philosophy would be taught there. IIRC it was due to Adriaan Heereboord's adamant defense of Cartesianism that helped to eventually reverse this decision.

                      Descartes didn't help his case with his remarks in his Letter to the Faculty of Theology of Paris when he said that, "Thus few people engage in the search for truth, and many, who wish to acquire a reputation as clever thinkers, bend all their efforts to arrogant opposition to the most obvious truths." While completely innocent to us they were seen, especially the "arrogant opposition to the most obvious truths" line, as being a direct attack on Scripture and IIRC quoted by atheistic thinkers when they sought to justify their views.



                      When Newton published his Laws of Gravity they were condemned as being anti-God and promoting atheism in some quarters. They were considered “evil” by some pious Christians because it took from God the direct action on His works so constantly ascribed to Him in Scripture – like "hanging" the earth and "guiding" the sun, moon and stars – and exchanged the truth of God’s direct action on His works for the “lie” of mere material mechanism.

                      IOW, they accused Newton of substituting Gravity for God and astronomers were cautioned that they should look to the Bible and not the "Principia" before they aim their telescopes

                      In 1724 John Hutchinson[3], professor at Cambridge, published his "Moses' Principia," a system of philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory as "atheistic," and, according to the The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science, p.504:
                      Originally posted by The Cambridge History of Science
                      "...accused Newton of contradicting Biblical authority and further limiting God's power by equating Him with space and requiring Him to be constantly active in maintaining the equilibrium of the universe."


                      Hutchinson led the way for similar attacks by such Church teachers as George Horne (a Vice-Chancellor of Oxford), Duncan Forbes (Lord President of the Scottish Sessions)[4], and William Jones of Nayland (pamphlet ally of Edmund Burke and an an influential theological writer "who systematically picked apart Newton's concept of gravitational attraction in order to uphold his own insistence that such power could be exerted only by God").

                      In 1796, the Gentleman's Magazine noted that "Hutchinsonianism" (which claimed that Newton had reduced God to matter and rendered revelation superfluous) was "hourly gaining ground." Around this time the influence of Hutchinsonian leanings of the Scottish Episcopalian clergy influenced the entries on natural philosophy in early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

                      John Wesley, the most prominent and influential founder of the evangelical movement known as Methodism, also expressed a distrust of Newton’s demonstrations revealing his interest in "Hutchinsonianism," which was a bit odd since it appealed mostly to certain High Church Anglicans. It seems that Wesley, who struggled with his understanding of the cosmos and of the Old Testament's account of it, saw in Hutchinson's efforts a similar effort.

                      In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian theory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some little consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. Leibniz suspected that Newton was an atheist malgrť lui, unable to see the conclusions to his own arguments although I wonder if some of his opposition was fueled by their vehement fight over who came up with calculus.

                      The eminent Puritan theologian John Owens declared that Newton’s discoveries are, "built on fallible phenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture." After the beginning of the 18th century – long after Newton’s demonstrations – Boussuet, the great Bishop of Meaux, possibly the foremost theologian that France ever produced, declared Copernicus’ ideas contrary to Scripture

                      Newton himself was concerned that his laws of motion would be used to devise anti-Scriptural theories concerning the origin of the Earth and Solar System – which is precisely what William Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the Lucasian chair at Cambridge, and others would do.

                      Supposedly Pierre-Simon de Laplace (mathematician and astronomer whose work was crucial to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics though best known for his investigations into the stability of the solar system) while explaining Newton’s theory concerning the origin of the Solar System to Napoleon (a former pupil, and before he became Emperor) was asked by Napoleon about the role of God and replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothŤse-lŗ" ("I have no need for that hypothesis"). Even if this quote is apocryphal in nature it still betrays an attitude or at the very least a fear that it led to atheism.



                      On a lesser scale the Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius (considered the founder of modern human anatomy) touched off a firestorm of controversy in 1524 over the "Adam's Rib Controversy" when he contested Church doctrine by demonstrating that the human males and the females have an equal number of ribs in his De humani corporis fabrica ("On the fabric of the human body in seven books") in supposed contradiction of Genesis 2:21.

                      While he was never persecuted for this, or like Galileo forced to face the Inquisition (despite claims of some later historians), it still appears that Vesalius, under pressure from the Catholic Church (where some there called him the "Luther of physicians" and appear to claim he was an atheist), felt compelled to leave Italy to become medical advisor to the kings of Spain, Charles V and Philip II.



                      Even Ben Franklin’s invention the lightning rod was condemned in some quarters as an insult to God, for the Bible says God "sends forth lightning ... He covers His hands with lightning. And commands it to strike the mark. Its noise declares His presence ... Under the whole heaven He lets it loose ... Whether for correction, or for His world - or for His loving kindness. He causes it to happen." (Job 36:27-33; 37:1-13; 38:35). His invention diminished “God’s power,” and the direct action of punishment, which is constantly ascribed to God in Scripture.

                      Franklin himself was described as an “arch-infidel” because of his invention, and the 1755 Earthquake in America was widely ascribed to the erection of "iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin."
                      Originally posted by Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church in Massachusetts
                      "Iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin [are to blame for a devastating earthquake in America in 1755]... in Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."


                      In a later response to John Winthrop, who had demolished several of his initial claims and complaints, Prince wrote a letter to the Boston Gazette which was published in January, 26 1756 where he said:
                      Originally posted by Boston Gazette
                      "And tho’ for want of Time for further Consideration, I am yet uncertain about their Influence in Earthquakes, the great Thing I would now inculcate is -- That everyone would consider seriously the mighty Power of GOD acting in this terrible Substance, and carefully guard against a vain and dangerous Security in them: Least, in some way or other . . . the offended Deity make that in which we trust for Safety to be the very Means of our Destruction in a Moment"


                      So it seems clear that for Prince the main concern isn't a scientific disagreement ("I am yet uncertain about their Influence in Earthquakes"), as some apologists have recently suggested but rather that it might offend God.

                      And John Adams, the 2nd president of the U.S., wrote in in his diary in December of 1758 of a discussion he had concerning lightning rods with a Bostonian saying that "He began to prate upon the presumption of philosophy in erecting iron rods to draw the lightning from the clouds. He railed and foamed against the points and the presumption that erected them. He talked of presuming upon God, as Peter attempted to walk upon the water, and of attempting to control the artillery of heaven."

                      This again shows a religious concern -- that Franklin was "presuming upon God" by "attempting to control the artillery of heaven."

                      This is further reflected by the resistance various churches and cathedrals had to placing lightning rods, often referred by them as "the heretical rod," to their spires despite repeatedly being damaged. But eventually, and only when many churches were saved from damage by lightning because of lightning rods did criticism finally begin to waver.


                      The point being that science has been accused of promoting atheism as well as used by some atheists to justify their view since the founding of modern science. I suppose your solution is to chuck it all and go back to bleeding people when they got sick to remove the "bad humors" or maybe finding someone and accusing them of witchcraft.






                      1. I wouldn't doubt that the first caveman who discovered how to make fire was accused by someone of causing people to disbelieve in "Og the Fire-giver" or whatever

                      2. In the letter to which Leibniz was replying to, Philipp who stated, "I remember, Sir, when we were at Mr Pufendorf's house once, that you stated quite firmly that Mr Descartes' principles lead to atheism. But as I no longer remember the steps of this argument, I implore you to be kind enough to refresh my memory of them."

                      3. Who described Newton's Principia as that "Cobweb of Circles and Lines to catch Flies in"

                      4. At least early on

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        In science you always assume a natural explanation or else it comes grinding to a screeching halt.
                        Not for Newton, it didn't. Nor for Mendel, or Pascal. The foundations of science were in examining the works of God.

                        ... any scientist who when baffled, merely invokes a supernatural solution for a phenomenon they are investigating is assuring that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue since science can't explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural.
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle
                        Feel free to give your methodology for doing science without relying 100% on materialistic processes. How do you get confidence in repeatable results when you have to allow for the unpredictable and undetectable meddling by a supernatural Loki God?
                        Forensic science does this all the time, once you've decided an artifact is not due to natural processes, you conclude design.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Last edited by lee_merrill; 03-02-2021, 04:12 PM.
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          I can't speak for either of them, but beyond the practical issues others are pointing out, the act of looking for natural explanations would become the equivalent of finding situations in which God (or Gods, depending on your religion) didn't do something. I'd imagine for many people, that would be theologically awkward.
                          Not in the Judeo-Christian heritage, where even natural acts are said to be under the control of God:

                          "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Prov. 16:33)

                          " Do any of the worthless idols of the nations bring rain?
                          Do the skies themselves send down showers?
                          No, it is you, LORD our God.
                          Therefore our hope is in you,
                          for you are the one who does all this." (Jer. 14:22)

                          But this has not stopped probability studies or weather prediction--or people praying for rain.

                          Speaking personally, i've always found one of the appeals of science to be the fact that it's accessible to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. It's a truly global culture.
                          Yes, but what if you missed something by counting out God? What a mistake that would be!

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Behe actually disagrees with my view on this:

                            Source: Behe

                            Court decision: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.

                            Behe: It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.

                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Not in the Judeo-Christian heritage, where even natural acts are said to be under the control of God
                              I see you're ignoring the extremely detailed account of how it was awkward for many people, posted by Rogue just above.

                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Yes, but what if you missed something by counting out God? What a mistake that would be!
                              What would we miss? It would fall into the "we can't explain it" category. And, since a miracle would involve the suspension of physical laws, and couldn't be expected to be limited by those laws, or occur with any sort of regular pattern, that's precisely where it would belong.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by TheLurch, Yesterday, 02:25 PM
                              7 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post TheLurch  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:52 AM
                              0 responses
                              21 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 04-11-2021, 06:59 AM
                              0 responses
                              13 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sparko, 04-09-2021, 07:35 AM
                              4 responses
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 04-05-2021, 08:45 AM
                              9 responses
                              55 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X