One of the problems that keeps on cropping up here at UD and elsewhere is as captioned. Accordingly, I just noted to JDK et al in the “complaining” thread as follows:
___________
KF, 66: >>I should note on the subtly toxic principle that has been injected in such a way as to seem reasonable (especially to those who have been led to be ever-suspicious towards or at minimum forever apologetic over, our civilisation’s Judaeo-Christian heritage).
Namely, so-called “methodological” naturalism.
The first key trick in this, of course is that there is a grand suggestion that “methodological” removes the philosophical agenda involved in the naturalism.
It does not.
Instead, it subtly converts the effective meaning of “Science” into: the “best” evolutionary materialist narrative of the world and its origins, from hydrogen to humans.
In short, when the NSTA Board said “The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalisticconcepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts” they obviously meant it, and we should take due notice of that ideologically, institutionally imposed philosophical question-begging and associated censorship.
(Of course, those who have been led to believe that Big-S materialistic Science has effectively cornered the market on knowledge and truth, will often imagine that Truth has rights to “protect” itself from pernicious, nefarious error. Especially error propagated by those ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, right-wing, bomb-throwing fundamentalists. Besides, one does not let accounting fraud convicts teach accounting principles.
The toxic prejudice involved in such projections should be duly noted for what it is, and it should be set aside. And, one should be willing to recognise that when one has been deeply polarised against the stereotyped and scapegoated other and has been led to enable ruthless action, something is seriously wrong.
I repeat, we have here a case where, for the thought-crime of proposing a traditional, historically and epistemologically well-warranted schools level understanding of science: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena,” the children of the state of Kansas were held hostage over the accrediting of their education, held hostage by NSTA and NAS.
Where, we can directly see that in 2000 the NAS put up an ideologically loaded re-definition of science and that — patently not coincidentally — it was in 2001 that the slightly reworded loaded definition was pushed into the Kansas education system: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural[–> notice, not, observationally grounded, empirically reliable] explanations of the world around us.” “Natural,” of course, given the context, should be translated: natural-ISTIC.
Whatever the real or imagined motives of those who argued for the 2005 corrective, that extreme response should be a warning. Where, let us note that JDK, above, has noticeably failed to inform us as to the letters of warning issued to the many states that c. 2005 had very similar schools-level definitions of science.
Recall at 57 above, I cited from Wisconsin as a capital case in point:
Scientific knowledge is developed from the activities of scientists and others who work to find the best possible explanations of the natural world. Researchers and those who are involved in science follow a generally accepted set of rules to produce scientific knowledge that others can confirm with experimental evidence. This knowledge is public, replicable, and undergoing revision and refinement based on new experiments and data… [Scientific inquiry] should include questioning, forming hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, reaching conclusions and evaluating results, and communicating procedures and findings to others.
Notice, the studious silence on the demonstrable fact that the Kansas 2005 corrective definition was in line with the obvious general pattern of the states.
[–> Something, which I believe, was drawn to JDK’s attention over ten years ago by Eric Anderson, right here at UD; that sort of long-term background should be borne in mind as one reads on.]
And of course, the definitions we can find in good quality dictionaries of the generation before the big push to redefine Science itself in materialism- in- a- lab-coat terms.)
That direct world-view level implication — that science is being re-defined in ideologically materialistic terms by ruthless activists with questionable agendas — should be a first clue (and it is one Lewontin inadvertently let the cat out of the bag over).
The second key, is that most people [especially today] lack a good understanding of philosophical issues and the relevant history of science, including on the worldviews of many of its founders. To such (having been steeped in agenda-serving, one-sided secularist narratives from childhood), the following will sound like near-self-evident nonsense, though it is in fact a readily supported, sound summary:
Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.
[–> Clue: why do we still talk about “Laws” of nature? Doesn’t such historically rooted language not suggest: a law-giver? (And indeed, that is precisely what Newton discussed at length in his General Scholium to his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.) Of course, that will not move the deeply indoctrinated and polarised, but it is a clear marker to those who are willing to think more open-mindedly.]
Recent scholarship in the history of science reveals that this commitment to rational, empirical investigation of God’s creation is not simply a product of the “scientific revolution” of the 16th and 17th centuries, but has profound roots going back at least to the High Middle Ages . . . .
Albertus Magnus — prodigious scholar, naturalist, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, and member of the Dominican order — affirmed in his De Mineralibus that the purpose of science is “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.” Another 13th-century figure, Robert Grosseteste, who was chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, has been identified as “the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment,” according to Woods.
WHEN THE DISCOVERIES of science exploded in number and importance in the 1500s and 1600s, the connection with Christian belief was again profound. Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God’s creation and discover its glories. Perhaps the greatest scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, was a fervent [–> though of course, unorthodox] Christian who wrote over a million words on theological subjects. Other giants of science and mathematics were similarly devout: Boyle, Descartes, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal. To avoid relying on what might be isolated examples, Stark analyzed the religious views of the 52 leading scientists from the time of Copernicus until the end of the 17th century. Using a methodology that probably downplayed religious belief, he found that 32 were “devout”; 18 were at least “conventional” in their religious belief; and only two were “skeptics.” More than a quarter were themselves ecclesiastics: “priests, ministers, monks, canons, and the like.”
Down through the 19th century, many of the leading figures in science were thoroughgoing Christians. A partial list includes Babbage, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Maxwell, Mendel, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). A survey of the most eminent British scientists near the end of the 19th century found that nearly all were members of the established church or affiliated with some other church.
In short, scientists who were committed Christians include men often considered to be fathers of the fields of astronomy, atomic theory, calculus, chemistry, computers, electricity, genetics, geology, mathematics, and physics. In the late 1990s, a survey found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God and an afterlife — a percentage that is basically unchanged since the early 20th century. A listing of eminent 20th-century scientists who were religious believers would be far too voluminous to include here — so let’s not bring coals to Newcastle, but simply note that the list would be large indeed, including Nobel Prize winners.
Far from being inimical to science, then, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced it. Scientists who (in Boyle’s words) viewed nature as “the immutable workmanship of the omniscient Architect” were the pathfinders who originated the scientific enterprise. The assertion that intelligent design is automatically “not science” because it may support the concept of a creator is a statement of materialist philosophy, not of any intrinsic requirement of science itself.
The redefinition of science in materialist terms — never wholly successful, but probably now the predominant view — required the confluence of several intellectual currents. The attack on religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular, has been underway for more than two centuries . . . . IT WAS THE AWE-INSPIRING SUCCESS of science itself, nurtured for centuries in a Christian belief system, that caused many to turn to it as the comprehensive source of explanation. With the mighty technology spawned by science in his hands, man could exalt himself, it seemed, and dispense with God. Although Darwin was by no means the sole cause of the apotheosis of materialist science, his theories gave it crucial support. It is perhaps not altogether a coincidence that the year 1882, in which Darwin died, found Nietzsche proclaiming that “God is dead…and we have killed him.”
The capture of science (in considerable measure) by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. There are those who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains or, to use a current catchphrase, separate “magisteria.” One hears this dichotomy expressed in apothegms such as, “Science asks how; religion asks why.” In this view, science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth. Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith. Science is publicly verifiable, and is the only kind of truth that can be allowed in the public square. Religion is private, unverifiable, and cannot be permitted to intrude into public affairs, including education. The two magisteria do not conflict, because they never come into contact with each other. To achieve this peace, all the theists have to do is interpret away many of the central beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This retreat makes some theists happy, because they can avoid a fight that they feel ill-equipped to win, and can retire to a cozy warren of warm, fuzzy irrelevancy. It also makes materialists happy, because the field has been ceded to them. As ID advocate Phillip Johnson remarks acerbically:
Politically astute scientific naturalists feel no hostility toward those religious leaders who implicitly accept the key naturalistic doctrine that supernatural powers do not actually affect the course of nature. In fact, many scientific leaders disapprove of aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins, who seem to be asking for trouble by picking fights with religious people who only want to surrender with dignity.
But the ID theorists do not go gentle into that good night. That’s what’s different about intelligent design. ID says that the best evidence we have shows that life is the product of a real intelligent agent, actually working in space and time, and that the designer’s hand can be detected, scientifically and mathematically, by what we know about the kinds of things that are produced only by intelligence. It is making scientific claims about the real world. Because it relies on objective fact and scientific reasoning, ID seeks admission to the public square. Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. It thus threatens materialism generally, with all that that entails for morality, law, culture — and even for what it means to be human.
THOSE WHO NOW OCCUPY the public square will fight to keep possession of it. The advocates of Darwinian materialism believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of the state to suppress competing views [–> which should be a big warning-sign that something has gone very wrong] . . . [“What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?” By Dan Peterson, American Spectator, Published 12/22/2005; also cf his earlier popular level summary on ID here. (HT: Wayback Machine.)]
If the just above sounds like nonsense to you, I am sorry to have to advise you in this way, but you have been led to make a crooked yardstick into your standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness. The problem with that, is that if crookedness is the reference standard, what is really straight or accurate or upright will never be able to measure up to the standard.
A plumbline
This means, we need a plumb-line test. In this case, the actual history of the founding of science and of the views and approaches of its pioneers. No definition of Science that cannot accept the work and approach of the founders of scientific methods and disciplines across centuries can be correct.
So, here is Newton in Opticks, Query 31:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses [= metaphysical speculations not backed by empirical support] are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
And yes, this is likely the root source of traditional summaries of science and its methods.
What you have likely never been told is what else Newton said in that immediate context:
Now by the help of [the laws of motion], all material Things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above-mention’d, variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form’d, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages . . . .
And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of Moral Philosophy will be also enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature. ”
So, if we have a proffered definition c 2000 and echoed 2001 and 2007 that cannot deal with this history, it is patently wrong. Period.
In short, there is serious and broadly applicable force to Philip Johnson’s response to Lewontin’s cat-out-of-the-bag comments. Force, that a reasonable and responsible person should ponder rather than dismiss:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.”
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]
And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
So, for “methodological” naturalism, we should simply read: naturalism. That is, evolutionary materialism.
It is time to address and correct the ideological captivity of science to evolutionary materialism.
For, science at its best should ever seek to be:
the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:
a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical — real-world, on the ground — observations and measurements,
b: inference to best current — thus, always provisional — abductive explanation of the observed facts,
c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein’s favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments],
d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and,
e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, “the informed” is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)
As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.
KF>>
___________
It is high time that so-called methodological naturalism was put out to retirement pasture. END
Comments
LarTanner- We cab strengthen the design inference by demonstrating there is immaterial information inside of cellsET
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
KF @ 28:
LT, can you distinguish between per the manifested FSCO/I this car, this PC, this watch and this 6500 C3 reel were designed and knowing the specific steps taken to specify, develop and execute said design? Should it not be enough for relevant purposes to note that we have tested, reliable signs? Where also, we actually do see relevant technologies in action today, though obviously not as advanced? KF
Yes, I would think we can distinguish between the FSCO/I of a car, a computer, and fishing reel. I also would think we could talk intelligently -- if not definitively -- about the steps taken to build individual instances of each technology.
If we agree that "cell based life on earth is a product of design" -- as indeed cars, computers, and reels are products of design -- then we should next strengthen the assertion by showing knowledge of how the process(es) of design were implemented. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding: do you not share my view that we ought to explain how design produces different things, including cell based life?LarTanner
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Molson Blue
We get there by developing our own hypotheses and testing them.
What do you think ID is? Technically it isn't even anti-evolution Well, unless you include abiogenesis as evolution.tribune7
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
“First we have to advance beyond the dogma of naturalism which insists that we reconcile science with irrational fantasies of self-organization and self-invention.”
I agree. But we don’t get there by simply pointing out what evolution can’t explain. It hasn’t worked so far and it won’t work in the future. We get there by developing our own hypotheses and testing them.
Modern chemistry didn’t develop by pointing out what alchemy couldn’t explain. It developed by developing hypotheses that better explained existing evidence and then further testing those hypotheses.Molson Bleu
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
LT, can you distinguish between per the manifested FSCO/I this car, this PC, this watch and this 6500 C3 reel were designed and knowing the specific steps taken to specify, develop and execute said design? Should it not be enough for relevant purposes to note that we have tested, reliable signs? Where also, we actually do see relevant technologies in action today, though obviously not as advanced? KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
KF @ 25:
cell based life on earth is a product of design
Is it possible to define and isolate the specific physical steps that the desginer(s) took to produce cell-based life?
Can you please itemize these steps, preferably in historical sequence?LarTanner
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
JAD, 22 [also 6, 9, 12], very well said. KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
MB,
what people may or may not believe is tangential to the fact that genetic engineering of DNA using known technologies is real.
The suggested hyperskeptical dismissal fails.
Next, we are contingent beings and exemplify designers; there is no good reason to abuse inductive inference to suggest we exhaust possible designers. We demonstrate that designers are possible and illustrate some ways to do it, where we also illustrate that for any complex thing, there's more than one way to skin a catfish.
Once FSCO/I is established as an empirically reliable sign of design, and it is, we need to follow the logic that if designers are in principle possible, FSCO/I stands as evidence of their action falling down to us as traces. So, to discover alphabetic code and linked execution machinery in the heart of the cell, in a context where we know such FSCO/I is known to come from design and that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would face an implausible needle in haystack search-challenge at OOL, that counts strongly as indicating that cell based life on earth is a product of design.
Finally but one, it is again and again clear that the issue does not lie in the scientific data and facts, but in the grounding of the logic of inductive inference to the best explanation, with a large side-order of linked worldviews analysis and analysis of informal fallacies.
Last but not least, it is evident that the penumbra of attack-animus sites and the wider circle of evolutionary materialism enthusiast activists have been busily constructing and knocking over a strawman caricature of design thought, on the underlying prejudice that we must be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
CONCLUSION: The evidence before us is strong justification for us to proceed to correct the underlying flawed reasoning and to recognise that unless it is corrected, it is futile to try to pile up facts and cases; which will simply be dismissed as weak analogies, in one of the most pernicious strawman fallacies of all.
KF
PS: It looks like there is urgent need for basic tutorials in the logic of inference to best current empirically grounded explanation and wider inductive logic (including the proper place of analogies).kairosfocus
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
When are we going to start putting some energy into understanding how it was designed rather that putting all of our energy into pointing out ways that it could not have arisen naturally?
First we have to advance beyond the dogma of naturalism which insists that we reconcile science with irrational fantasies of self-organization and self-invention.
Overcoming that is an effort unto itself. To me ID isn't about advancing science. It's about bringing the relevant science back to a baseline of rationality and realizing that we don't have to look for our keys under one particular streetlight.OldAndrew
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu:
When are we going to start putting some energy into understanding how it was designed rather that putting all of our energy into pointing out ways that it could not have arisen naturally?
Our time would be better spent understanding the design so we can properly maintain and repair it. And even before that we have to show academia that they are wrong to continue to pursue science dominated by materialistic dogma and get them to embrace ID. Then those other questions will start to gain the resources needed to get to those answers.ET
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Earlier @ #12 I argued that we cannot even begin to do science unless we make some metaphysical assumptions about science. Ironically, at least according to physicist and theologian Ian Barbour, the assumptions that a scientist must make to do science are basically Biblical assumptions.
"A good case can be made,” Barbour writes, “that the doctrine of creation helped set the stage for scientific activity."
Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams, who provides the above quote from Barbour in his on-line article, “Does Science Disprove God?” lists several presuppositions of science that he argues “derive warrant from the theistic doctrine of creation:
* That the natural world is real (not an illusion) and basically good (and hence worth studying
* That the natural world isn’t divine (i.e. pantheism is false) and so it isn’t impious to experiment upon it
* That the natural world isn’t governed by multiple competing and/or capricious forces (i.e. polytheism is false)
* That the natural world is governed by a rational order
* That the human mind is, to some degree, able to understand the rational order displayed by the natural world
* That human cognitive and sensory faculties are generally reliable
* That the rational order displayed by the natural world cannot be deduced from first principles, thus observation and experiment are required”
Again, notice that these presuppositions themselves cannot be proven by empirical science. Therefore, a science based epistemology, i.e. “scientism,” of any kind cannot be true.
Williams observes that, “There is thus a wide-ranging consonance between Christianity and the presuppositions of science.” He then goes on to quote Barbour again.
"Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation. Moreover, while nature is real and good in the biblical view, it is not itself divine, as many ancient cultures held, and it is therefore permissible to experiment on it… it does appear that the idea of creation gave a religious legitimacy to scientific inquiry."
http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/is-christianity-unscientific
Barbour is not alone here. Both Alfred North Whitehead and American physicist Robert Oppenheimer understood that historically a Christian milieu was in fact necessary for the development of science. The famous Christian writer and University of Cambridge professor C.S. Lewis summarized the position this way: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a [Lawgiver.]”
Indeed, all the early scientist who were part of the so-called scientific revolution: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were all Christian theists.john_a_designer
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
I didn't give a definition of "methodological". I just said it wasn't appropriate with "naturalism." I'm certainly not the first to note the incoherence of doing so.hnorman5
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
hnorman5,
Why don't you change the dictionary, if your definition is right?J-Mac
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
I think the word "methodological" has always been inappropriate with regards to naturalism. It only makes sense for methodological assumptions to govern actions, not truth claims. Technically, it may hold together because technically science doesn't make truth claims. But, then if you don't think science makes truth claims, try being a science denier.hnorman5
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu,
All I know is that Venter doesn't believe in ONE common ancestor. He also doesn't believe that more than one of spontaneous life origins is possible...
Why don't you figure it out what this means?J-Mac
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
“MB, have you been following Venter and others doing genetic engineering? DNA engineering is a fact. KF”
But I am not aware of any of them believing that what they are doing has ever been done by non humans, or that the origin or evolution of life required a designer. In most cases of genetic engineering, scientists are just moving strands of DNA from one species to another. Something that has been shown to occur without any outside intervention (HGT). And, if I remember correctly, many of the chemicals and enzymes that they are using to perform these genetic manipulations were originally isolated from living organisms.
What I am talking about is developing hypotheses about how life was designed, how it changed over time through design mechanisms, and then testing these hypotheses. This is what I am not seeing. Maybe none of this is being done because none of us is clever enough to develop these hypotheses and design the tests, but given the large support for ID, I find this hard to believe.Molson Bleu
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
PS: Ever looked at say the exploded view for a 6500 reel? The cluster of functional configurations for parts vs the number of non functional clumped or scattered ones makes the point described by "deeply isolated islands of function" and "needles in a haystack on steroids". Trying dismissive brain not engaged quips simply shows selective hyperskepticism going utterly absurd.kairosfocus
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
MB, have you been following Venter and others doing genetic engineering? DNA engineering is a fact. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
“At what point do we realize that it’s rational to point some of that energy at understanding how it was designed or what that design might reveal?”
This is exactly my point. When are we going to start putting some energy into understanding how it was designed rather that putting all of our energy into pointing out ways that it could not have arisen naturally? Until we start doing so, we are no better than your example of searching for the island of unicorns.Molson Bleu
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Trying to argue that DNA is the result of intelligent design because we have not been able to figure out how it could possibly have developed naturally is a fools game.
This is an absurd statement, as no one claims that just any unexplained phenomena is the result of intelligent design.
Trying to figure out how DNA could have occurred naturally isn't a fools game either unless you start from the assumption that it did. You can't understand how something happened if it didn't. At what point do we realize that it's rational to point some of that energy at understanding how it was designed or what that design might reveal?
That's like someone spending a lifetime looking for the island of unicorns, all the while believing that they're getting closer. If the island of unicorns exists they may be getting closer. But if it doesn't then no one is getting closer to anything. They might regard every discovery of horses and narwhals as one step closer to the inevitable, but success doesn't depend on determination alone. A successful search for something depends on the existence of that something.OldAndrew
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
The philosophical naturalist (following up on my comments @ #6 and #9) has deluded himself into thinking he has a trump card which bolsters his hand… science. The problem is that there are no trump cards in the high stakes world view ontological game. This is because in order to even begin to play the game you must establish the ground of being. You must begin by asking some basic questions. For example, you must ask, why does anything at all exist? Or, what is the nature of existence? How do we know? How can we be sure of what we know? Can we really know the truth about anything? However these are metaphysical questions, not questions that can be answered by science itself.
Einstein said that scientists are poor philosophers. That perhaps explains why there are a number of scientists, like Pinker, who believe that science can actually serve as a basis for a world view that can answer some of our biggest questions—at least those that are worthwhile. The late American astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, proclaimed that “the Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be.” (Again notice that this is an a priori claim that is itself not scientifically provable.) And, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg opines that while “the worldview of science is rather chilling” there is, nevertheless, he goes on to say, “a grim satisfaction, in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking--with good humor… without God.”
On the other hand, there are other scientists, including some who are non-religious, even agnostic or atheistic, who see the folly of the blatant kind of scientism that Pinker is trying to foist on us all. For example, Sir Peter Medawar, also a Nobel laureate, was one scientist who spoke out against this so called scientism. He wrote in his book, Advice to a Young Scientist:
“There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare – particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for – that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or ‘pseudo-questions’ that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer. … The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things – questions such as ‘How did everything begin?'; ‘What are we all here for?';’What is the point of living?'”
Advice to a Young Scientist, London, Harper and Row, 1979 p.31
Also, Erwin Schrödinger, one of the early theorist of quantum physics, said something similar: “Science puts everything in a consistent order but is ghastly silent about everything that really matters to us: beauty, color, taste, pain or delight, origins, God and eternity.”
But the inadequacy of science is not limited to questions that it cannot answer. The fact is we cannot even begin to do science unless we make some metaphysical assumptions about science.john_a_designer
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Seversky@2
If you propose some supernatural domain then...
That's your problem right there - "supernatural" is a made up word meant to represent a barrier but that's only your mental barrier. Obviously if the universe is created, then everything is natural.
You can think of other similar mental barriers (although not as contrived) like organic/inorganic and natural/artificial. Simple.Nonlin.org
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
MB,
Okay, something substantial:
Inferring that DNA is intelligently designed because the only other example of an information containing string of characters is the result of an intelligent source is a very weak argument. All you can really conclude from this is that there are two information carrying strings of characters. One is intelligently designed. We don’t know the source of the other . . . . Trying to argue that DNA is the result of intelligent design because we have not been able to figure out how it could possibly have developed naturally is a fools game. It truly is a God of the gaps argument.
1 --> Unfortunately, strawmannish. We are not simply making an analogy, there is an underlying framework of observed causes that has stood for thousands of years, as can be seen from Plato's The Laws Bk X to Monod's Chance and Necessity.
2 --> Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and/or intelligently directed configuration or contrivance [design].
3 --> In this well established context, under highly similar initial conditions, mechanical, lawlike necessity leads to predictable, low contingency outcomes. E.g. unsupported dense enough objects near eart's surface tend to fall under 9.8 N/kg.
4 --> Alternatively, we may observe high contingency of outcomes, e.g if the falling object is a common die, due to eight corners and twelve edges, it tends to tumble and the uppermost face on settling is normally quite variable. In the case of a fair die 1 to 6 with roughly equal odds.
5 --> However, there may be loading, down to the point of drastically shifting odds. This is of course by design and Las Vegas Houses keep a sharp eye out for it.
6 --> Also, we could set the die to read a value we wish. Indeed, we may assign a six-state code at a rate of 2.585 bits/symbol potential information-storing potential.
7 --> Were we to find a string of 200 dice spelling out coded information in a language or serving as machine code to numerically control automated machinery, we would instantly realise that this was intelligently designed, for reasons to be explained in a moment.
8 --> 200 dice as a string mark out a configuration space of 4.268 * 10^155 possibilities from 111111 to 666666. This space is beyond the credible search capacity of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system acting as observers at 10^14 searches per second each.
9 --> That is, so many atoms, each observing a 200 dice string at that rate would not be able to sample more than a negligible fraction of the state space in 10^17 s. and going up to 400 dice, the 10^80 atoms of the observed cosmos would be overwhelmed to a much worse degree. This is the needle in haystack search challenge problem.
10 --> In short, some kinds of functionally specific complex outcomes tend to come in deeply isolated clusters in a complex configuration space and so are not plausibly the result of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity.
11 --> So, as an inductive matter (modern sense of argument conclusions empirically supported by premises rather than entailed by them) we confidently and reliably infer from functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I going forward] to the only vera causa demonstrated cause of such: design.
12 --> In this context the error of the oh unless you can absolutely prove to the contrary of my desired outcome I can hyperskeptically dismiss such an inference is plain.
13 --> nor is this a god of shrinking gaps argument. We are inferring to best current explanation on empirically tested, reliable sign. FSCO/I has a known cause and good reason why we should dismiss suggested alternatives unless and until they can show the like capability.
14 --> Given the search challenge, that is utterly implausible to the point of being a dodgy IOU argument. Blind chance and/or mechanical necessity simply are not good demonstrated causes of FSCO/I.
15 --> Design is, on a trillion member observational base backed by the search challenge analysis as given.
16 --> Therefore, the unknown cause claim also fails, per inference on reliable sign.
17 --> And if your real target is inductive logic, that reduces very rapidly to absurdity.
KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker is someone who takes a scientifically based world view just about to its absolute limit. Pinker writes that,
the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken. We know, but our ancestors did not, that humans belong to a single species of African primate that developed agriculture, government, and writing late in its history. We know that our species is a tiny twig of a genealogical tree that embraces all living things and that emerged from prebiotic chemicals almost four billion years ago. We know that we live on a planet that revolves around one of a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, which is one of a hundred billion galaxies in a 13.8-billion-year-old universe, possibly one of a vast number of universes. We know that our intuitions about space, time, matter, and causation are incommensurable with the nature of reality on scales that are very large and very small. We know that the laws governing the physical world (including accidents, disease, and other misfortunes) have no goals that pertain to human well-being. There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers—though the discrepancy between the laws of probability and the workings of cognition may explain why people believe there are. And we know that we did not always know these things, that the beloved convictions of every time and culture may be decisively falsified, doubtless including some we hold today.
In other words, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities
It appears to me that Pinker does not draw and distinction between philosophical naturalism and so-called methodological naturalism. Again notice what he says, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science.john_a_designer
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Trying to argue that DNA is the result of intelligent design because we have not been able to figure out how it could possibly have developed naturally is a fools game.
ID doesn’t argue that the gene system was designed merely because materialists haven’t figured out how it came about without intelligence. DNA is part of a symbol system that was predicted to exist before it was discovered inside the cell. That system has a set of critical requirements that are only found elsewhere in written language and mathematics – two unambiguous correlates of intelligence. Additionally, none of the experimental work by materialists to “figure out” the gene system actually explains (provides a non-intelligent pathway to) those material conditions.
And by the way, positioning ID as a “gaps argument” requires one to assume conclusions against universal evidence to the contrary. In science, that’s the fool’s game.Upright BiPed
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Seversky, the overwhelming majority of scientific "naturalists" in our day are following evolutionary materialist scientism, or some cleverer ones are knowledgeable enough to drop the scientism. The context in hand speaks to such, for cause. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
In 2013 I had this brief exchange on-line with someone who identified himself as David P. He asked me if I would consider a world view that actively disagreed with my current theistic Christian world view. Since David had already identified his own world view as naturalism, I told him that if he could prove to me “that naturalism was true, I would.”
He replied, “If that is your condition, you are essentially saying “no”, because naturalism cannot be proven.”
I responded by asking him, “So, on what basis are you warranted in believing in it?”
That question prompted the following dialogue:
David wrote: “Believing that naturalism cannot be proven? Because we can only perceive a tiny part of the entire system. We may one day be able to formulate naturalistic theories that explain beautifully all that we perceive, but we cannot prove that that is all there is.”
I asked: “So then, you accept naturalism by faith… Correct?”
David replied: “I accept naturalism as a working assumption because of the evidence that it helps drive us to understand reality in a way that allows us to make increasingly better predictions. Also, the evidence that so many phenomena attributed to supernatural causes have turned out to have natural causes.”
Notice how David smuggled faith into his world view without calling it that. What I mean is that he is actually acting on the biblical definition of faith and he doesn’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you…
Hebrews 11:3 says: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
Someone committed, like David, to naturalism is actually just modifying the verse so that it reads:
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed [by some kind of mindless natural process], so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”john_a_designer
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
The DESIGN exists in the physical/ material world and as such can be tested.
Trying to argue that DNA is the result of intelligent design because we have not been able to figure out how it could possibly have developed naturally is a fools game.
Saying DNA isn't the result of ID because you don't have any idea how the genetic code could have arisen via blind and mindless processes is nothing but a choke and hinders reality.
In the end it remains that to refute ID all one has to do is step up and demonstrate nature is capable of producing what ID says requires an intelligent designer. Until someone does so all else is just whining.ET
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
I don’t have a problem with saying that science is limited to the material world. For anything to be tested, a prerequisite of science, you must be able to measure/observe something. This clearly limits science to the material realm. But this doesn’t mean that ID can’t be tested scientifically. I’m just not convinced that we have been able to do so yet. Although I believe we will.
Even Kairosfocus’ example of comparing written language to DNA fails this test. Inferring that DNA is intelligently designed because the only other example of an information containing string of characters is the result of an intelligent source is a very weak argument. All you can really conclude from this is that there are two information carrying strings of characters. One is intelligently designed. We don’t know the source of the other. Kairosfocus’ argument is akin to saying that mined diamonds are intelligently designed because the only other known source of similar stones are those designed and manufactured by humans.
Trying to argue that DNA is the result of intelligent design because we have not been able to figure out how it could possibly have developed naturally is a fools game. It truly is a God of the gaps argument. What we need is a testable hypothesis on how the designer brought DNA to fruition. One that could not have occurred naturally. And then search for evidence to support it. I am not intelligent or clever enough to develop such a hypothesis but there are plenty of ID scientists out there who should be able to come up with one.Molson Bleu
January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
My take is a little different.
Natural science should be limited to revealing the consistencies of nature. While it would allow the recognition of singularities, explanations for them would be precluded as singularities can't be consistencies.
The adjective is necessary and science without the adjective should be unconstrained to pursue any idea with any logic-based methodology as once was the case.
Our existing crisis is that "science" is now considered synonymous with natural science yet is unconstrained by the rules of natural science. Further, "science" is used as the final arbiter regarding political and cultural issues and this has caused incalculable harm. http://billlawrenceonline.com/sick-became-normal-and-heres-why/
FWIW, ID would fall in the category of natural science as designed objects obviously exist in nature and obviously have consistent characteristics. If these characteristic are also found in biology it is not unfair to point this out.tribune7
That direct world-view level implication — that science is being re-defined in ideologically materialistic terms by ruthless activists with questionable agendas — should be a first clue (and it is one Lewontin inadvertently let the cat out of the bag over).
“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.”
