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

  • #46
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    "In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis usually states the contrary of the experimental or alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis provides the basis of falsifiability..." (WhatIs.com)

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Very bad source with bad terminology. Stay away for quote mining blogs, and refer to legitimate sources. First up off on a bad foot in mouth, This source equates falsifiability with 'proven,' bad news . . .

    Source: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability

    Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is sometimes considered synonymous with testability.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Null hypothesis, by definition apply pretty much to statistical models in statistical inference, and not falsification of hypothesis using objective verifiable evidence in Methodological Naturalism.



    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_of_the_null_hypothesis



    "(in a statistical test) the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error."

    A non-null hypothesis can have the following meanings, depending on the author a) a value other than zero is used, b) some margin other than zero is used and c) the "alternative" hypothesis.[5][6]

    Testing (excluding or failing to exclude) the null hypothesis provides evidence that there are (or are not) statistically sufficient grounds to believe there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g., that a potential treatment has a non-zero effect, either way). Testing the null hypothesis is a central task in statistical hypothesis testing in the modern practice of science. There are precise criteria for excluding or not excluding a null hypothesis at a certain confidence level. The confidence level should indicate the likelihood that much more and better data would still be able to exclude the null hypothesis on the same side.[4]

    The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data is significantly unlikely to have occurred if the null hypothesis were true. In this case, the null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted in its place. If the data is consistent with the null hypothesis statistically possibly true, then the null hypothesis is not rejected. In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; with better or more data, the null may still be rejected. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree)

    © Copyright Original Source


    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #47
      Among supporters of ID (cdesign proponentsists) the notion that methodological naturalism is a scientific novelty appears to be common -- that it actually arose in the middle of the 19th cent. We can see this concept being expressed in some of Lee's remarks

      Not for Newton, it didn't. Nor for Mendel, or Pascal. The foundations of science were in examining the works of God.


      No. they had God in mind, they were tracing the hand of God. This is a far cry from methodological naturalism.


      But seeking to understand God's creation is not a rejection of basic scientific principles or the scientific method. I've said on many occasions that evolution is a system or mechanism that God established when He created everything. Same with atomic structure or gravity. But if I or anyone else wants to study any of these things we need to apply we need to examine the facts and evidence. In that way we can gain a better understanding of what God has created.

      When Newton came up with his Laws of Gravity, he didn't merely say something like "because God wills it." No he started by carefully scrutinizing the facts, conducted experiments and then sought out a natural explanation for how it works. He applied methodological naturalism.

      This is because, as Einstein explained, "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature." So one tries to figure those laws out. That is how we solve problems.

      While we've been doing that since the Stone Age it was largely during the early Middle Ages that folks started to routinely use experiments and quantifications to distinguish between competing scientific theories -- all set within a generically empirical orientation.

      For instance, in the early 11th cent., Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham (a.k.a., Alhazen) utilized combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to obtain the results for his Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics). In it he used experimentally founded arguments to demonstrate that the idea that the earlier theories offered by both Euclid and Aristotle were wrong and that rays of light are actually emitted from objects rather than from the eyes.

      In the next century folks like Robert Grosseteste introduced ideas on scientific methodology, including Aristotle's empiricism and the experimental approaches of Alhazen, to medieval Europe and inspired Roger Bacon and his ideas about the need for observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent verification. From this came eliminative induction and the Baconian method. And next was Rene Descartes and his development of Cartesianism.

      This was the beginning of true methodological naturalism as more and more natural philosophers (what scientists were called back then) were striving to minimize the role of the supernatural in science and refused to postulate supernatural miracles when doing science.

      We can see it continue to grow and expand under Galileo and Newton (see especially Newton's Rules of Reasoning). In fact by time of the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries methodological naturalism became an accepted rule for doing science. From there we progress to folks like Hume, Kant, ōrsted, Herschel, Whewell and on and on up to the modern era with people like Popper and Kuhn.

      Many of these folks were profoundly religious and inspired by the idea of, as Lee put it, "tracing the hand of God" and made that clear. They were driven by the desire to better understand God. But in order to do so they used reason and followed the scientific method of which methodological naturalism is a cornerstone.

      Arguably the development of the scientific method can be called mankind's most important achievement when you look at what it accomplished in the past five centuries. But the Discovery Institute and other supporters of Intelligent Design want to chuck it all in the waste can and return to an era when superstition ruled and new discoveries were often attributed to "magic" or "witchcraft."

      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        This is because, as Einstein explained, "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature." So one tries to figure those laws out. That is how we solve problems.
        But this is stepping into philosophical naturalism, which has its own critical problems.

        Many of these folks were profoundly religious and inspired by the idea of, as Lee put it, "tracing the hand of God" and made that clear. They were driven by the desire to better understand God. But in order to do so they used reason and followed the scientific method of which methodological naturalism is a cornerstone.
        Well, no, they used reason to determine where God had acted directly. And the more we know of natural processes, the clearer this will become.

        But the Discovery Institute and other supporters of Intelligent Design want to chuck it all in the waste can and return to an era when superstition ruled and new discoveries were often attributed to "magic" or "witchcraft."
        Instead, ID is saying lines can be drawn, we know enough of natural processes to be able to conclude that intervention occurred.

        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Instead, ID is saying lines can be drawn, we know enough of natural processes to be able to conclude that intervention occurred.
          No, in the wedge document, they literally said that they don't like science as it exists, viewing it as an impediment to wider adoption of their faith. So they want to trash it and replace it with something that's more consistent with their extremely narrow theological views.

          It was a religious project masquerading as science from the start. It's sometimes an interesting intellectual project to take their arguments seriously, but the arguments have always been a cover for a different agenda.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            But this is stepping into philosophical naturalism, which has its own critical problems.


            Well, no, they used reason to determine where God had acted directly. And the more we know of natural processes, the clearer this will become.


            Instead, ID is saying lines can be drawn, we know enough of natural processes to be able to conclude that intervention occurred.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            It seems that much like the boys at the Discovery Institute you're determined to confuse and conflate methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism (a.k.a., metaphysical or philosophical naturalism). They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

            It is like saying these are identical.

            "I'm going to leave God and/or the miraculous out of the equation and see if I can find a more mundane or prosaic solution. One that doesn't require a miracle."


            "I believe that we can explain anything and everything scientifically and show that God doesn't exist."


            The one is not the same as the other and neither does one necessarily follow the other[1] The former is a tool to be used the other is a philosophy that is lived by.

            Methodological naturalism is entirely neutral toward the existence of God since science can neither prove nor disprove it either way. It is outside its purview. As the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education Eugenie Scott put it:

            "Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act."


            Strictly following the scientific method is something that Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project and has been director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since 2009 (and last year received the Templeton Prize and was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society), does in his line of work. And yet, in his The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins makes it clear that he steadfastly believes in God and the reality of the miraculous, writing that "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome," and "He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory."

            So, let us be clear again, methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is, and in so doing, merely requires that scientists seek explanations for things taking place in the world around them based on what can be observed, tested, replicated and verified (see Francis Bacon). It is an essential part of science and in the words of scientific philosopher Robert Pennock:

            "...not a dogmatic ideology that simply is tacked on to the principles of the scientific method; it is essential for the basic standards of empirical evidence."






            1. To quote Stuart Pofessor of Philosophy at Princeton University, Hans Halvorson:

            "The scientific method has limitations: it might not be well-tuned for the discovery of every kind of truth. And of all people, a theist is most likely to think that some truths aren’t of the right sort to be fit into a scientific account of the world; some truths simply don’t fall under general laws, nor can they be accurately represented by means of mathematical models. That’s why a theist shouldn’t expect to find God in science -- because science works by restricting itself to a more manageable kind of fact."

            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              No, in the wedge document, they literally said that they don't like science as it exists, viewing it as an impediment to wider adoption of their faith. So they want to trash it and replace it with something that's more consistent with their extremely narrow theological views.

              It was a religious project masquerading as science from the start. It's sometimes an interesting intellectual project to take their arguments seriously, but the arguments have always been a cover for a different agenda.
              Indeed. As Leonard Krishtalka, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Director of the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, once quipped: "Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This view is strongly supported when one reads what the leaders of the movement tend to say to friendly audiences. For instance:

              Philip E. Johnson (the father of the Intelligent Design movement):

              "This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."


              "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."


              "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."


              "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."



              William Dembski:

              "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."


              "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."


              "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."


              The Wedge Document:[1]

              Governing Goals ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


              Then there is the book "Of Pandas and People," which was designed to be a school textbook that promoted Intelligent Design. It was originally written as a strictly creationist tract with the original title being "Creation Biology" and was only slightly altered to get around the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which declared it unconstitutional to teach creationism in classrooms. For instance, the passage

              "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intactfish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.


              was altered to read

              "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intactfish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."


              Essentially the words "creation" and "creator" were merely replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent agency" respectively leaving the definition essentially unchanged. Nearly 150 similar systematic substitutions are readily found throughout "Pandas."

              In fact, one instance is so obvious thanks to the editor accidentally leaving a linguistic "transitional" form or "missing link" when they sloppily failed to replace all of the word "creationists" when they pasted in "design proponent," resulting in the infamous hybrid "cdesign proponentists":

              "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."


              As a final note about the book, one of its co-authors, Percival Davis, later acknowledged in a November 1994 interview with the Wall Street Journal, that religious concerns underlay the writing of it, saying: "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it."

              There are the statements of other leading advocates of ID worth considering here such as those by the Discovery Institute's spokesperson Casey Luskin who spends a lot of time running about insisting that Intelligent Design is not Creationism or religion but pure science. Yet upon occasion the mask slips such as when he attacks the anti-ID book "Whats Your Dangerous Idea?" as being "an anti-religious polemic" written by atheists. That's a funny criticism for defending a scientific proposal.

              Luskin has said and written many other things that serve to undercut his claims. For example, from the first line of the conclusion of a paper that Luskin co-authored called "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover:

              "The opinion in Kitzmiller is a misguided attempt on the part of a federal judge to settle controversies over science and religion that properly belong to practicing scientists and religious groups respectively."


              So according to Luskin, the Kitzmiller case was all about "controversies over science and religion." And here I thought he said ID wasn't religiously based.

              Luskin is also the sole author of "Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools" published in Journal of Church & State in 2005 (exactly where one would expect someone to argue the case that ID is science). His abstract is as follows (bolding added):

              "Reviews several laws to assess the ability to present creation science, intelligent design theory or scientific criticisms of evolution in public school districts in the U.S. which have various teaching viewpoints. Restrictions faced by the teaching of creation science; Background on the Lemon test, a judicial vehicle used by the U.S. courts to determine the constitutionality of teaching creation science; Nature of intelligent design theory."


              Um... This does not exactly help his case that Intelligent Design is not a form of creationism.

              Finally, on Luskin's biography provided by the Discovery Institute it says that he "is co-founder of the Intelligent Deign and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit helping students to investigate evolution by starting "IDEA Clubs" on college and high school campuses across the country." Yet according to the IDEA Center website "IDEA Center Leadership" (which would naturally include their co-founder, who is still listed on their Board of Directors and acts as the organizations Secretary) "believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible" although they try to hide behind a disclaimer clause saying that it is "because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory."

              Similarly, a comment from Discovery Institute Vice President John West also seems to acknowledge the religious nature of ID when he declared that allowing schools to criticize ID is "tantamount to state endorsement of an anti-religious view."

              Another prominent ID spokesperson, Stephen Meyer, the director at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is on record saying that the "designer" is God and that sub-optimal designs along with deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent design, but rather were the result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.



              Now to be fair, not all of the advocates of Intelligent Design are creationists or "cdesign proponentsists" (David Berlinski claims that he's an agnostic[2]). What's more some of the largest creationist groups and their spokespersons have given ID a lukewarm reception at best.

              Henry Morris[3], one of the founders of modern YEC movement expresses his dissatisfaction when he writes in "Design is not Enough":

              "Any discussion of a young earth, 6-day creation, a world-wide flood and other biblical records of history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of "intelligent design" as a "wedge" to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel they hope ... It is obvious that neither, "intelligent design" nor "irreducible complexity" nor any other such euphemism for creation will suffice to separate a thorough-going Darwinian naturalist from his atheistic religion, in favor of God and special creation."


              Still it appears that Morris sees ID and irreducible complexity are mere euphemisms for creation and watered down versions of creationism.

              John Morris, Henry's son, who inherited the role of leader of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) after the latter's passing, takes a more hardline approach:

              "ICR very much appreciates the work of Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski, but we recognize that without biblical creationism they fall short of a God-pleasing mark. Any form of old-earth thinking, theistic evolution, or progressive creation is so similar to secular evolution that their defense is ultimately a waste of time."


              More recently John Whitcomb, who co-wrote the Bible of the YEC movement with Henry Morris ("The Genesis Flood"), characterized ID as "vastly insufficient" and Carl Wieland, Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (CMI), declared that it lacks a "coherent philosophical framework" and ignores the "story of the past." Wieland was also upset with ID's "refusal to identify the Designer with the biblical God," which he worries might result in ID's leading "to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions." Still Wieland has referred to some supporters of ID as "Genesis-believing fellow travelers."

              Lastly, David Klinghoffer, a Senior Fellow at the Discover Institute, has stated that whatever else may be said for or against ID, it's "clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Bible."






              1. Put out by the Discovery Institute, the primary organization backing ID. Although initially dismissed by the Discovery Institute as merely an "urban legend" pushed by "Darwinist Paranoia," one of its co-founders, Stephen C. Meyer, eventually admitted that they were indeed the source of the document.

              2. Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew as well as an agnostic. There is, however, reason to doubt his claim.

              Anyone who has heard him speak (plenty of videos on YouTube) or read what he has written cannot but help notice that many of his objections to evolution are grounded in religion (which is absolutely acceptable for those who say that they are religious but more than a bit suspect coming from someone who repeatedly declares that he isn't). This makes one suspect that he may be saying that he's agnostic for no other reason than he feels that it somehow gives credibility to the Intelligent Design movement because evolution deniers can therefore now claim that not all of those who object to evolution do so on religious grounds.

              Then there is the issue of his having misrepresented his credentials in other ways, which tends to support the idea he is not being forthcoming in his claims about himself. He as often promoted himself as a mathematician and philosopher of science -- neither of which is true.

              While he has written books about mathematics that doesn't make one a mathematician (especially considering that some of his works have been criticized for making some fundamental mathematical errors). And while he is indeed a philosopher he is not a philosopher of science.

              3 Early on it appears that Johnson courted Morris seeking to establish an alliance between I.D. and YEC (Young Earth Creationism)

              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But this is stepping into philosophical naturalism, which has its own critical problems.


                Well, no, they used reason to determine where God had acted directly. And the more we know of natural processes, the clearer this will become.
                Fundamentally false, because there has never been a falsifiable hypothesis that has been presented to justify any other cause other than 'Natural Causes.'

                Your speculation of 'reasoning' to justify an ID agenda 'where God acted directly' carries no weight when it comes to science. Still waiting for a falsifiable hypothesis to demonstrate Intelligent Design.


                Instead, ID is saying lines can be drawn, we know enough of natural processes to be able to conclude that intervention occurred.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                We do not 'know' anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence that demonstrates natural origins of the nature of our physical existence.

                rogue06 goes into it more in post #60, which you need to 'honestly' respond to.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  No, in the wedge document, they literally said that they don't like science as it exists, viewing it as an impediment to wider adoption of their faith. So they want to trash it and replace it with something that's more consistent with their extremely narrow theological views.
                  Here is the wedge document, for those who are interested in examining it. And I wouldn't say that a living and active God is an extremely narrow theological view.

                  It was a religious project masquerading as science from the start. It's sometimes an interesting intellectual project to take their arguments seriously, but the arguments have always been a cover for a different agenda.
                  Their goals have been inconsistent, but I wouldn't label them as deceptive. I think they are sincerely seeking to see if a case can be made for a designer.

                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    It seems that much like the boys at the Discovery Institute you're determined to confuse and conflate methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism (a.k.a., metaphysical or philosophical naturalism).
                    No, I'm saying Einstein was getting into philosophical naturalism.

                    Methodological naturalism is entirely neutral toward the existence of God since science can neither prove nor disprove it either way. It is outside its purview. As the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education Eugenie Scott put it:

                    "Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act."
                    "The heavens declare the glory of God;
                    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
                    Day after day they pour forth speech;
                    night after night they reveal knowledge.
                    They have no speech, they use no words;
                    no sound is heard from them.
                    Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
                    their words to the ends of the world." (Ps 19:1–4)

                    Observation, followed by implication, you can see the glory of God in nature.

                    So, let us be clear again, methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is, and in so doing, merely requires that scientists seek explanations for things taking place in the world around them based on what can be observed, tested, replicated and verified (see Francis Bacon). It is an essential part of science and in the words of scientific philosopher Robert Pennock:

                    "...not a dogmatic ideology that simply is tacked on to the principles of the scientific method; it is essential for the basic standards of empirical evidence."
                    "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-20)

                    That is what ID is about, we can understand from what has been made, the essence of a designer, God's power and nature. Methodological naturalism is blind to this, like an archeologist who rules out intelligent agents, like a SETI researcher who restricts himself to natural causes.

                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      No, I'm saying Einstein was getting into philosophical naturalism.
                      Need sitations, but again . . . So what?!?!?


                      "The heavens declare the glory of God;
                      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
                      Day after day they pour forth speech;
                      night after night they reveal knowledge.
                      They have no speech, they use no words;
                      no sound is heard from them.
                      Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
                      their words to the ends of the world." (Ps 19:1–4)

                      Observation, followed by implication, you can see the glory of God in nature.



                      "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-20)
                      Relevance to science?

                      That is what ID is about, we can understand from what has been made, the essence of a designer, God's power and nature. Methodological naturalism is blind to this, like an archeologist who rules out intelligent agents, like a SETI researcher who restricts himself to natural causes.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Methodological Naturalism is of course blind to this, because 'the this' you referred to has no possible falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence. Only speculation and conjecture, maybe wishful thinking, based on an ID religious agenda.

                      Still waiting for a falsifiable hypothesis . . .

                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Here is the wedge document, for those who are interested in examining it. And I wouldn't say that a living and active God is an extremely narrow theological view.
                        No, i wouldn't say that either. But plenty of people hold exactly that view without rejecting the foundations of modern science. That's the part that is narrow.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Their goals have been inconsistent, but I wouldn't label them as deceptive. I think they are sincerely seeking to see if a case can be made for a designer.
                        So, editing out creationism after a supreme court decision making it verboten in public schools, and editing in ID instead isn't deceptive?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          No, i wouldn't say that either. But plenty of people hold exactly that view without rejecting the foundations of modern science. That's the part that is narrow.


                          So, editing out creationism after a supreme court decision making it verboten in public schools, and editing in ID instead isn't deceptive?
                          Let us not overlook how when the Wedge Document first started to surface in 1999 how the boys at the Discovery Institute had no trouble lying through their teeth about it, initially claiming that it was a hoax concocted by "Darwinists" and only finally fessing up and admitting it was authentic and that they were responsible for crafting it after denial was no longer possible. And even then they continued to talk about conspiracy theories "pseudo-intellectual urban legend" and "Darwinist Paranoia."

                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            No, I'm saying Einstein was getting into philosophical naturalism.
                            Not exactly, but that really is irrelevant.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            "The heavens declare the glory of God;
                            the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
                            Day after day they pour forth speech;
                            night after night they reveal knowledge.
                            They have no speech, they use no words;
                            no sound is heard from them.
                            Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
                            their words to the ends of the world." (Ps 19:1–4)

                            Observation, followed by implication, you can see the glory of God in nature.
                            Indeed. That is exactly what Francis Collins means when he wrote "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome," and "He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory" in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. And yet Collins will be the first to tell you that he strictly adheres to the scientific method in his work.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            That is what ID is about, we can understand from what has been made, the essence of a designer, God's power and nature. Methodological naturalism is blind to this, like an archeologist who rules out intelligent agents, like a SETI researcher who restricts himself to natural causes.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            What ID is about is scraping the scientific method and substituting something that even Behe was forced to concede would make astrology just as scientifically legitimate as astronomy. What can not be overlooked is that science is simply incapable of addressing the possibility of supernatural causation and with no prospect of any methodology to deal with supernatural phenomena and to proceed with scientific investigation, the supernatural is just a science stopper -- an argument that goes back to Bacon.

                            To paraphrase Robert Pennock, being that the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, not being constrained by natural laws, allowing science to rely upon untestable supernatural powers would make the scientist's task meaningless because it undermines that which allows science to make progress, and "would be as profoundly unsatisfying as the ancient Greek playwright's reliance upon the deus ex machina to extract his hero from a difficult predicament."

                            Hence, when folks like Barbara Forrest point out that proof for the supernatural is procedurally impossible because it is impossible "to prove the existence of something about which nothing can be known through scientific investigation" she is spot on. That does not mean that the supernatural doesn't exist or that miracles don't happen but rather that, as Forrest says:

                            Introducing supernatural explanations into science would destroy its explanatory force since it would be required to incorporate as an operational principle the premise that literally anything which is logically possible can become an actuality, despite any and all scientific laws; the stability of science would consequently be destroyed.


                            Since the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This exclusion of supernatural explanations is due to it being unknowable by any means of scientific inquiry.

                            Effectively methodological naturalism is an intrinsic limitation of science, an epistemological principle that governs how science is practiced, since science itself is simply not equipped to deal with claims of the supernatural. So, while supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.

                            Therefore, before we decide to undermine established science and toss out what the late British philosopher of science, Niall Shanks, referred to as "an inductive generalization derived from 300 to 400 years of scientific experience" let us keep in mind the words of Fordham Institute science education expert, Lawrence Lerner"

                            Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.


                            So while methodological naturalism prohibits the use of supernatural explanations in science, unlike ontological naturalism (a.k.a., metaphysical or philosophical naturalism), it does not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of God. It is utterly neutral on the subject. As Pennock puts it, "Science is godless in the same way as plumbing is godless."

                            Or how the noted philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains it in his Methodological Naturalism under Attack:

                            "[I]n no sense is the methodological naturalist … committed to the denial of God’s existence. It is simply that the methodological naturalist insists that, in as much as one is doing science, one avoid all theological or other religious references."



                            To be clear, one can still appreciate the might and majesty of God while examining His creation (I've frequently cited those verses from Psalms making just that point) but if you want to understand how something works, as the last 500 years has shown us, it is best to search for prosaic answers rather than just shrugging your shoulders and muttering "because God wills it." And until someone can devise a test for the supernatural the wisest course of action, again as history has revealed, is to continue with the tools at our disposal.
                            Last edited by rogue06; 03-25-2021, 10:42 AM.

                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Since the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This exclusion of supernatural explanations is due to it being unknowable by any means of scientific inquiry.

                              Effectively methodological naturalism is an intrinsic limitation of science, an epistemological principle that governs how science is practiced, since science itself is simply not equipped to deal with claims of the supernatural. So, while supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.
                              That's something that seems to go by in these discussions without being noted. We've had an extremely effective science for centuries. The ID crowd could come up with its own methodology that includes the supernatural, and use that instead of science, calling it whatever they want. If it's so much better at explaining things, then it should win out and attract more practitioners, right?

                              They don't do this because they know that science is going to be more effective, and will avoid the intellectual incoherence that comes from allowing a system's internal rules to be suspended at a whim. Nobody's going to end up using whatever the ID crowd comes up with, because it will only be effective when mimicking science, so why not just use science? So instead, they try to hijack the reputation built by science to feed their theological needs.

                              We've seen that here - Lee's said that this is essentially a theological endeavor, but when asked why he just doesn't incorporate some of the scientific method into his theology, he goes silent.

                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                That's something that seems to go by in these discussions without being noted. We've had an extremely effective science for centuries. The ID crowd could come up with its own methodology that includes the supernatural, and use that instead of science, calling it whatever they want. If it's so much better at explaining things, then it should win out and attract more practitioners, right?

                                They don't do this because they know that science is going to be more effective, and will avoid the intellectual incoherence that comes from allowing a system's internal rules to be suspended at a whim. Nobody's going to end up using whatever the ID crowd comes up with, because it will only be effective when mimicking science, so why not just use science? So instead, they try to hijack the reputation built by science to feed their theological needs.

                                We've seen that here - Lee's said that this is essentially a theological endeavor, but when asked why he just doesn't incorporate some of the scientific method into his theology, he goes silent.
                                If they can legitimately come up with a way to test for the supernatural then more power to them. But much like how they abandoned scientific research they show no real interest in doing so. They just want to take what we have now and allow "it's a miracle" to be included as a recognized scientific answer.

                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 09:39 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X