Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Question for Barbara Forrest

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments
By all means, let’s restrict the scope of science to purely natural observations. Of course that would rule out most of Darwin, since virtually all of the wonderful observations about nature found in his books were used for the expressed purpose of getting God out of nature. Darwin’s goal of using nature to construct a purely natural account of origins cannot be found in nature itself. Nature for its own sake tells us nothing about origins. Darwin’s theory is based entirely on inference. A subtle philosopher like Barbara Forrest must know the difference between nature and naturalism. Nature—the thing for its own sake—is completely indifferent to her desire to promote naturalism. “The thing is free to be what it is.” Not if our science philosophers have anything to say about it!allanius
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
---khan: "I’m just summarizing the responses I got when I asked if anyone could show me how to calculate the effects of intelligence using a real biological example. perhaps you can do better?" No, actually you are [A] brooding over [and misrepresenting] a question that I asked you on another thread, which you refused to answer, and [B] trying to disrupt this thread which scrutinizes Darwinism and attempting to turn it into a scrutiny of ID. Please stay on topic. Don't put Dr. Hunter in the clumsy position of having to tell you that you shouldn't try to settle old grievances which the subject matter has changed. Is it necessary for me to remind you once again about the question on the table?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Khan:
they have ways of distinguishing between attacks on cattle perpetrated by demons and aliens. so take that!
That was perhaps called for. But surely we don't need to scour the internet or even this forum for posts to use as straw men.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
herb, this is another example of the "Ghost Hunter" methodology. aside from being incredibly lazy this "method" is missing any way to provide positive evidence for ID. despite what you may have read here, evidence against hypothesis a is not evidence for hypothesis b. it is evidence for the null hypothesis, i.e. "not hypothesis a." you have to test hypothesis b against a null hypothesis separately to provide evidence for it. aside from all this, i am still unclear on what basis you make your hypothesis in part 1).. is it really "if it looks complex nature couldn't have made it"? this is why I continue to ask how you calculate the effects of intelligence using a biological example. this at least would provide some quantitative way to make hypotheses and test predictions.Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
1) ID hypothesizes that nature operating freely could not have produced structure X.
Except in ID, "structure X" is constantly shifting.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
----Khan: "ID has a method, according to the posters here. that method has something to do with stone tablets on Mars and “Ghost Hunters”, a reality show on the Science Fiction channel. also, they have ways of distinguishing between attacks on cattle perpetrated by demons and aliens. so take that!" The question on the table [which can be discerned by reading the post] is this: Where is the boundary between natural and supernatural that Darwinists always point to? Darwinists love to demand answers, but when you start asking them questions, they fold like an accordion.StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Khan,
ID has a method, according to the posters here. that method has something to do with stone tablets on Mars and “Ghost Hunters”, a reality show on the Science Fiction channel. also, they have ways of distinguishing between attacks on cattle perpetrated by demons and aliens. so take that!
Ha ha. What about this method? 1) ID hypothesizes that nature operating freely could not have produced structure X. 2) Evos fail to falsify the above hypothesis by demonstrating a naturalistic origin for X. 3) As the ID hypothesis continues to stand unrefuted despite teh evos' best efforts, at some point it's logical to conclude it's true. The hypothesis then becomes a theory, and finally a law.herb
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
actually, the cattle thing was from a different thread.. the question still stands, thoughKhan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Matteo, I'm just summarizing the responses I got when I asked if anyone could show me how to calculate the effects of intelligence using a real biological example. perhaps you can do better?Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
"ID has a method, according to the posters here. that method has something to do with stone tablets on Mars and “Ghost Hunters”, a reality show on the Science Fiction channel. also, they have ways of distinguishing between attacks on cattle perpetrated by demons and aliens. so take that!" Your statement has all the equivalent intellectual content and value of some snake-handling fundamentalist coming in here and making the bare assertion that all atheists are going to hell, and they seek to deceive the elect with a cockamamie story about evolution in order to drag them down there along with them, so don't listen to 'em! Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides know-nothing atheist/skeptic fundamentalism? Or are you offering yourself as the very proof that life really couldn't possibly have had an intelligent designer?Matteo
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
NNoel,
Science without a ‘method’, have fun with that!
ID has a method, according to the posters here. that method has something to do with stone tablets on Mars and "Ghost Hunters", a reality show on the Science Fiction channel. also, they have ways of distinguishing between attacks on cattle perpetrated by demons and aliens. so take that!Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
If science would be interested in only “natural phenomena” then Archeology, psychology, etc.. shouldn’t be considered as science. After all, when is the last time you heard someone claiming that the Pyramids were made in gradual random and purely natural fashion?
I think you're confused. 'Natural phenomena' means 'things we can test and observe.' Archeology is science because we can observe artifacts, collect data, form a coherent picture of past civilizations, and make predictions about what other artifacts we should find and where.
On the other hand, she assumes that God is not a “natural phenomena”. How can she be so sure of that?
Think about it like a homicide detective trying to solve a murder. He can't figure out how the suspect got away. Do you think the detective should at least CONSIDER the possibility that giant invisible eagles lifted the suspect to safety? Or should he stick to 'naturalistic' explanations only?SingBlueSilver
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Nnoel:
So often I’ve read an ID/Creationist’s ‘rebuttal’ to the ToE... ID literature is not designed to convince scientists, it’s written to convince the lay person that elitist scientists are trying to convince their kids that there isn’t a god. Pathetic!
Yes, that's exactly what they print in peer-reviewed journals. Based on your use of the term "ID/Creationist" and your description of ID materials, it's hard to tell if you've read much or anything on the subject. Pa... never mind.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
I have a question: What does 'supernatural' mean?SingBlueSilver
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
@ Granville Sewell : If your issue with the ToE is what the text books say about it, I'd suggest you do some science that the textbooks can provide as an alternative theory. Textbooks are not the 'battleground', they are a representation of the accepted 'truth' that science has thus far uncovered. I say 'truth' because we are always discovering new stuff, and what we know today may change in the future, everyone accepts that. If you want the textbooks to say something diffirent, stop appealing to the lay person and convince a scientist. Oh no wait, there is no proper science being done by creationists is there. Anything they produce is deceiptful 'research' that displays their ability to quotemine and not provide all the information. So often I've read an ID/Creationist's 'rebuttal' to the ToE (attacking whichever part they thought of while eating their cereal that morning), and any qualified scientist in that field can poke a million holes in why they are wrong. Never do I see a revision, or an apology, ID literature is not designed to convince scientists, it's written to convince the lay person that elitist scientists are trying to convince their kids that there isn't a god. Pathetic! But I may be wrong...Nnoel
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
The question for Forrest and the evolutionists then is: What is the boundary between natural phenomena and supernatural phenomena?
I think the boundary question is one that should not be limited to evolutionists. Are there any researchers addressing this specific boundary (or perhaps lack of boundary)? Any sources?Larry Tanner
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
A question for Cornelius : If method, realism and completeness are the the three corners, how does invoking a [G]od we cant test allow for completeness (assuming, as stated in the article, that modern science is sacrificing completeness for method and realism). I suppose because the article states you can only have 2 of the 3, ID would prefer realism and completeness, and forgo the 'method'. But I hypothesise your method would be called 'guessing', and you'd have completed your triangle and your make believe 'realism' would 'complete' your fantasy. Science without a 'method', have fun with that!Nnoel
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
If science would be interested in only "natural phenomena" then Archeology, psychology, etc.. shouldn't be considered as science. After all, when is the last time you heard someone claiming that the Pyramids were made in gradual random and purely natural fashion? On the other hand, she assumes that God is not a "natural phenomena". How can she be so sure of that?Kyrilluk
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Cornelius, If biology textbooks would be honest and state their assumptions, it wouldn't be so bad. For example they could (and maybe someday will) say "a lot of scientists don't think Darwinism gives a reasonable explanation for macroevolution, but science rejects intelligent design as being unscientific and Darwinism is the best explanation available which does not involve design," But that isn't what they tell the general public, the textbooks these people want used in our schools treat Darwinism as though it were a perfectly adequate explanation, and leave the impression (sometimes explicitly claim) that there is no scientific controversy over the mechanism of evolution. That is dishonest.Granville Sewell
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
This is like the drunk guy who lost his keys at night. Another person was walking down the street and asked him what he was doing. The drunk replied that he was looking for his keys. So the other person asked him where he dropped them. The drunk replied down the street about a block. So the other person asked why wasn't he looking for the keys down the street where he dropped them. The drunk replied because the street light was lighting up the area he was searching and down the street it was too dark to see anything.Joseph
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
1 17 18 19

Leave a Reply