A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

----Diffaxil: "StephenB @ 308: -----Methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983. And StephenB @ 360: ----"what does that have to do with what is being argued, which is the fact that methodological naturalism has no history? Diffaxial does not yet understanding that Darwinists, and he, change definitions in the middle of the game. 1983 is the date that MN was enforced. The late eighteen hundreds is the date the Darwinists began to get the idea that they could dominate science. That point is a little too subtle for those who are accusing Sir Isaac Newton of MN, and quoting novelists like Defoe as evidence of MN. And @ 375: ----As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear. Right. NO successful enforcement. (Some history is quoted) ----Diffaxial offers my quote: Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm… Simple enough for most people to understand. Diffaxial offers another quote by me: Haeckel and his phony drawings were starting to become serious players and the roots of methodological naturalism were indeed being planted, though they had not yet fully taken hold… Yep. Righto ----Diffaxial offers another of my quotes: What Darwin had begun, his followers felt they had to finish. Indeed, some think that methodological naturalism was starting to get an oral history in the early twentieth century, and that it took fifty years before Devries finally coined the phrase and made it his own…. You would think Diffaxial would get it by now. ----Diffaxial refers to my quote about Ronald Numbers: This as far back as he can realistically stretch it—-the middle of the 19th Century. That’s when the seeds were planted, as I have pointed out Still, the hammer had not yet dropped… Yes. Ronald Numbers, the historian touted by Pandas Thumb, and the only resource these Darwinists can find, presents to radically different time frames. Yet even THEIR guy knows that MN, even AS AN IDEA NOT YET ENFORCED, has no history prior to the mid-19tH century. Even their guy admits that the entire theme presented by Darwinists on this site is rewritten history. ----Diffaxial attempts to characOther phenomena with no history ((”I knew that. Do you think I didn’t know that? I knew that. I knew the idea has a history. Did you notice what I left out? I meant no history before the 19th century. Everybody knows that. You knew that. And I said no history as a RULE. I knew it had some sort of history. Why are you lying about that? See how easily you lose focus? Did you think I didn’t know that?”) Nice try, Diffaxial. But the fact is that I did know the history and everyone else on your side was getting it wrong. You can't explain subtleties right away to those who think that methodlogical naturalism has always been so. I had to take the Darwinists from the 13th century and lead them by the hand, warting off irrelevent quotes from every such century, changing definitions, and every other evasion. Further, I had to provide them with historians they had never heard of and correct their politically correct historian who changes his story with his audience. Now they are starting to get it, and I haven't changed my position one iota. As an enforced doctrine, which is the way I have always defined it, methodological naturlism has no history prior to 1983. As a budding idea, it evolved beginning from the mid-nineteenth century. You do understand the world EVOLVED don't you? There is a difference between the other Darwinists and Diffaxial, however. They, at least had the courage to submit their rewritten history to my correction. Diffaxial always stays out of the battle until he thinks he can slip in something safely. Well, it isn't safe, Diffaxial, and your side has been exposed.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: re: But, in physical subjects, we ought, as much as possible, to avoid having recourse to supernatural causes In the case of such PHUSIS, the issue is the things that are following law-like causal factors. The material import of Buffon's remark is that we should not infer form such laws to in effect spirits acting in imitation of mechanical forces. (There were those who so argued. And, BTW, you will see that where there is low contingency regularity, the design inference defaults to lawlike mechanical forces of necessity.) But, as he says right above: This progressive or impulsive force was unquestionably at first communicated to the planets by the Supreme Being. That is, they are LAWS of nature, set up by its Architect, and which act mechanically in governance of the mechanical part of nature. We, minded agents, are in this general view, under a different class of laws: moral government, by choice and consequence in light of the equality of our natures and the desire we all have to be loved and respected, which impose a reciprocal duty of so treating other like creatures as ourselves. (This being the context of the US DOI's allusion to the laws of nature and of nature's God.] In short, sad to say, you are quote mining. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

icon, 460: re: You can’t claim that the natural universe cannot produce a relatively simple self-replicator or a bacterial flagellum and argue that it can produce inter-stellar travelling little green men in flying saucers, surely? 1--> the "simple" replicator ain't: such n entity has to incorporate both a blueprint and machinery for replicating itself, as Von neumann long ago showed (and as paley anticipated in discussing what would have to go into a self-replicaitng watch [ever actually read Paley?]. . . ). That information load easily runs past 1,000 bits. 2 --> 1,000 bits specifies a config space of 10^301 cells, or ten times the square of the number of quantum states of the 10^80 or so atoms of he observed universe, across its life span. In short,the universe working as a search engine could not sample 1 in 10^150 of the possible states, making a random walk search for islands of function a hopeless supertask. [But, an intelligent design of function is another story, and is obviously much more of a feasible proposition.] 3 --> So, 'simple" is an example of a misnomer to the point of erecting a strawman argument, again.] 4 --> the bacterial flagellum with a few dozen proteins at 300 aa/protein, and 3-bases per codon to code for that, similarly easily runs past the threshold. the flagellum is not "simple." 5 --> When it comes to LGM, kindly do some homework: ID is the science that studies empirically testable signs of intelligence. LGM are one of various possible candidates for the design of life on earth, but their reality or ultimate origin is no business of current ID as her are no artifacts on the origins of such LGM to study. 6 --> The design inference is that on reliable empirically tested signs of intelligence, life in the cell is credibly designed, as it reflects algorithmic, linguistic, code based information and processing machinery, which are beyond the credible reach of the other known source of high contingency: chance. (Can you show a good example of lucky noise giving rise to such information, beyond 1,000 bits of complexity? We can show millions of cases of intelligences doing so.) __________________ So, please face the real issue on its merits. A good place to begin would be here [NB Wikipedia is an unreliable, biased mess on this], followed by the UD weak argument correctives above, as you plainly show yourself to have learned about ID from those who distort it in order to attack it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Kairos, If sound reasoning delivered through clear language were by itself able to alleviate others of the irrational hold of materialism, then by your grace there would be no materialists left visiting uncommon descent.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Natural historian Buffon, 1749 (h/t olegt:)
The force of impulsion, or what is commonly called the centrifugal force, is still unknown; but it affects not the general theory. It is evident, that, as the attractive force continually draws all the planets towards the sun, they would fall in a perpendicular line into that luminary, if they were not kept at a distance by some other power, forcing them to move in a straight line. If, again, this impulsive force were not counteracted by that of attraction, all the planets would fly off in the tangents of their respective orbits. This progressive or impulsive force was unquestionably at first communicated to the planets by the Supreme Being. But, in physical subjects, we ought, as much as possible, to avoid having recourse to supernatural causes; and, I imagine, a probable reason may be assigned for the impulsive force of the planets, which will be agreeable to the laws of mechanics, and not more surprising than many revolutions that must have happened in the universe.
That he believes the first cause was God is irrelevant. So do many scientists who believe that science proceeds without "recourse to supernatural causes." So: MN has no history prior to 1983. The rule emerged during the 19th century. Buffon excludes the supernatural from science in 1749. On the other hand, StephenB knows more than Numbers. StephenB has claimed to be an "academic." I've argued that he's obviously no philosopher. He did not disagree, which I took to mean I was right. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's not a historian either. (Out of curiosity, I tried to figure out his field by checking the dissertation databases, but I can't find any thesis under his name. Maybe he's still in graduate school.) Sooner or later we'll identify a field by the process of elimination. NB: I'm not responding to kairosfocus's blatherings because they're typically long-winded, ill-formatted, and beside the point. Sadly, onlookers, etc.David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

iconofid, One wouldn't wish to be in the position of having to explain why planets orbit a sun if they were forbidden from using an as-yet unexplained phenomena - say, curvature of space-time - just because they cannot account for where gravity "came from" originally. Similarly, one wouldn't want to be in the position of having to explain the existence of a 747 or a computer without being able to implicated intelligence, or the intentional direction of materials according to law and chance in order to produce a preconceived goal. That we don't know where intentionality or intelligence "comes from", or how it originated, is of no more consequence to a theoretical description of its involvement in the development of a phenomena than it is problematical that we don't know where gravity, entropy, the speed of universal expansion or the values of the strong and weak nuclear forces "came from". That intelligence was involved (hypothetically speaking) certainly doesn't remove a phenomena from being scientifically investigated - even if we don't know the exact source of that intentionality. Unless one wishes to argue that intelligence, or intentionality, is necessarily a supernatural phenomean (and as yet, we cannot even squeeze a consistent definition of "supernatural" from the challengers here), then claiming that ID is "not science by definition" is ludicrous, and should be roundly dismissed by all reasonable people. Humans intelligently design things all the time. Unless that is considered a supernatural or religious occupation, then there is no meaningful argument to be presented against the validity of ID as a scientific theory.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

icon, 460:
if the theory is built on arguments that clearly imply that a highly complex, information loaded phenomenon like intelligence cannot come about without intelligent design, then that theory clearly requires the supernatural in order to exempt the designers from its own arguments.
I presume this is meant to say that ID implies that the designers of life as observed on earth on earth are not themselves designed. But, I am assured you canot show that. (in short,t his is a strawman fallacy.) In fact it is easy to show that from the outset -- try TMLO 1984 -- design theorists have explicitly said that design inference cannot tell us the precise nature of the designers of the cell-based life we are observing. And since we ourselves exhibit cell based life, we show that designers may themselves be designed. It is the other half of design theory, cosmological id that raises the question that the designer and builder of the fine-tuned cosmos is credibly beyond it. That, in a context where such design as the cosmos evidently exhibits, suggests that it was set up to facilitate such life. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Mr Murray: Whether or not intelligence is supernatural, we know that we are intelligent (and to a lesser extent so are beavers and bees). Intelligence at work leaves behind it ART-ifacts, which are marked by signs of intelligence; especially functionally specific, complex information and algorithmic, code bearing physical instantiations of such. Since such things are empirical, it is reasonable and feasible to create a science that studies signs of intelligence and develops empirically testable rules for seeing that certain things are the product of mechanical necessity (heavy unsupported objects fall), some of chance (the pattern of outcomes of a fair die), and some are artificial (that for a loaded die). By applying these reasonable rules, we may infer credibly to the presence of intelligence, even where we do not directly know the intelligence. (For instance, the key difference between chance and design is that the former is undirected and the latter directed contingency. So the former will reflect stochastic patterns, while the latter will reflect purpose. Hurricanes passing over hardware shops do not build livable, attractive 3-bedroom houses. But intelligent builders routinely do so.) Why this is at all controversial -- it is actually a routine in statistical inference, forensics, management etc to reason like this -- is that certain features of the observed "natural" world show signs that make intelligence the best explanation, absent a censoring rule such as methodological naturalism. For instance, the information systems in life in the cell, and the complex, fine tuned physics that makes our cosmos fit for such life. That does not sit well with the Lewontinan materialists, who happen to hold power in certain institutions. And, they are entirely willing to impose their a priori materialism on sicence, while diwsguising tghe fact from the gneral public, banking on the prestige of science to carry their atheism for them. (In many cases, the relevant people actually think they are right because their materialism makes them -- often with a wave of dismissive contempt -- blow off any idea that there may be more to the world than the merely physical and what is more or less directly reducible to that. hence, Lewontin's remarks above. But at that level, you have a massive duty of care that you dare not neglect, on pain of being involved in major intellectual malfeasance. And, sorry, that is the issue at stake here. A survey of good dictionaries alone should tell you better than what we see going on.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray "Is intelligence necessarily supernatural?" Certainly not. "If not, then what is supernatural about a theory that an intelligence may have designed life on Earth?" In itself, nothing. Directed panspermia, for example. However, if the theory is built on arguments that clearly imply that a highly complex, information loaded phenomenon like intelligence cannot come about without intelligent design, then that theory clearly requires the supernatural in order to exempt the designers from its own arguments. You can't claim that the natural universe cannot produce a relatively simple self-replicator or a bacterial flagellum and argue that it can produce inter-stellar travelling little green men in flying saucers, surely?iconofid_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

PPPS: Am H Dict 2005: science (sns) The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. --> Contrast the warring defns of Kansas: 1999, 2001 & 2007 Definition [Cf US NAS etc as already remarked on above 335 - 6]: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.” 2005 Definition: “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.” --> which of these two alternatives reflects the sort of historical good usage that drives the dictionaries from 1965 - 2005? --> which one of these reflects what is plainly a recent agenda that has now set out on entrenching itself by censoring the historic meaning of what science is? --> Who above are trying to justify such materialism-serving Lewontinian censorship, why?kairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Is intelligence necessarily supernatural? If not, then what is supernatural about a theory that an intelligence may have designed life on Earth?William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Since high-quality dictionaries are a good source on what he informed consensus on key terms is at a given time, let's do a bit of citing: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965] And, Am H Dict, 2000: sci·ence (sns) n. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. 5. Science Christian Science. --> in other words, the evo mat agenda has not been able to take over the dictionaries yet. --> Contrast the agenda-laced redefinitions that the evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers in Kansas have been pushing since 1999 or so.kairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: I think you will see that SB's argument is that the rise of MN to its status of being not just a claimed but a now "accepted" authority to rule on what is or is not science is a phenomenon that traces to the 1980's. (One that has no credible historical or philosophical warrant on the merits. And, Mr Numbers should know that science is not a "game" to have rules played with by agenda-serving ideologues.) The pre-history of MN from mid-late C19, in which time it was at first an isolated suggestion, then a rising trend adn mindset among materialists and fellow travellers, is a token of the dialectics of power in the institutions of science. but, science should not be a power game: it should be the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about our world in light of evidence and reason. (ONLOOKERS: Observe carefully how the MN advocates have never been able to gainsay the force of this point, so they have a la Wilson, persistently studiously ignored it.) So, the presence of precursors from mid C19 on does not materially affect the underlying issue: MN is an arbitrary, agenda-serving imposition by a power elite that has been able to get away with such a blatant censorship only in recent decades, once they have staked the decks enough (and why do you think we see all that stuff about those dangerous "creationists" and "fundies" out there, but ever so littel on the dangers posed by radical materialists andtheir fellow travellers . . . ? [No prizes for guessing which of the two circles just identified holds power in science, education and media circles]); not a historically or philosophically well-warranted criterion of the definition of science, insofar as such a definition is reasonably achievable. Indeed, the result of the actual disciplines that study what we can define science as -- namely history and philosophy of science -- is that there is no one hard and fast rule that can unfailingly define what is and what is not science. And, more directly, MN works to censor our facts that are inconvenient for materialism, as Lewontin (a member of the US NAS) has so pointedly stated:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Such openly admitted censorship is unacceptable, if science is to be regarded as a serious search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence. (And yes, I am saying that the central issue is a values --thus ethics -- one: whether science is about seeking knowledge, thus well-warranted, credibly true belief. if science is no longer about truth but about materialist ideology, it will utterly discredit itself, after first turning tyrant.) So, onlookers, if you care abot the truth, and care to see that science and science education value and work towards the truth, instead of being tools of censorship and indoctrination, you need to care about what methodological naturalism is doing to corrupt both science and science education, with implications for public policy; thence basic justice. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 308:
Methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983.
And StephenB @ 360:
what does that have to do with what is being argued, which is the fact that methodological naturalism has no history?
And @ 375:
As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear.
(Some history is quoted) StephenB @ 450:
Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm... Haeckel and his phony drawings were starting to become serious players and the roots of methodological naturalism were indeed being planted, though they had not yet fully taken hold... What Darwin had begun, his followers felt they had to finish. Indeed, some think that methodological naturalism was starting to get an oral history in the early twentieth century, and that it took fifty years before Devries finally coined the phrase and made it his own.... That is as far back as he can realistically stretch it—-the middle of the 19th Century. That’s when the seeds were planted, as I have pointed out Still, the hammer had not yet dropped...
Other phenomena with no history (by StephenB's standards): - Aviation - The Republican Party - Communism - Electronic communication - Baseball - Impressionism - Ice cream We await your best Nathan Thurm, Stephen. ("I knew that. Do you think I didn't know that? I knew that. I knew the idea has a history. Did you notice what I left out? I meant no history before the 19th century. Everybody knows that. You knew that. And I said no history as a RULE. I knew it had some sort of history. Why are you lying about that? See how easily you lose focus? Did you think I didn't know that?")Diffaxial_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Seversky says: "No, all that is happening is that you are taking rhetorical advantage of the fact that there is no agreed definition of what is meant by “supernatural”." Untrue. What I and others here are doing is answering each challenge presented by others here who have different and moving definitions of the term "supernatural". If, for some, it is the commonly referred subjects such as non-physical locations of consciousness (NDEs, mediumship with spirits, effects of prayer) we have directed them to such scientific research. If they have presented a definition of supernatural that attempts to remove it from the capacity of being examined (metaphysics), then the logical problem inherent in that definition is pointed out. Seversky says: "So, as a supernaturalist, do you believe ghosts exist and, if so, are they supernatural and, if you say they are, by what definition?" It is not incumbent upon me to define "supernatural"; it is incumbent upon those who claim that science cannot examine or refer to it to define it; if they cannot do so commonly because examples of such research exist, or philosophically and remain logically coherent, that is their problem, not mine. Also, where did I say I was a supernaturalist? Seversky says: "I am sure kairosfocus’s onlookers will recognize that the nature of gravity or the nuclear forces or life itself is a different question from the origins of those phenomena. They are clearly related but they are not the same." Then perhaps you should have worded your definition differently; "cause" implies origin, not description. In any event, if the effect of gravity is "caused" by a curvature of spacetime, then that merely shifts the burden of natural explanation back a step; eventually, a thing cannot cause itself. What caused the big bang? What caused nature to exist? There is really only one possible, logical answer: something that was not nature. Seversky says: "Science may have learnt something about the nature of the Universe without being able to explain its origins but ignorance of something at a particular time does not mean that the answer must be supernatural." The definitions/examples used and asked for by others were about the material process of investigating commonly accepted claims of the supernatural, such as psi or NDEs; yours was a metaphysical definition that has inherent logical problems. You are now wishing to claim that because there is no material explanation for a thing, the problem that it is irrationally defined should be forgiven. It really is quite simple; can something cause itself to exist? If not, then the fundamental qualities of nature are - by your definition - supernatural. Feel free to abandon your definition at any time. You aren't bound to it. Seversky says: "No, what we are hearing is a lot of talk about the supernatural and we are asking “What supernatural?”" Talk about shifting the burden! You are the ones who have defined "the supernatural" as non-scientific; we are the ones asking for a definition to evaluate that claim. After failing to successfully define it as outside of the capacity of scientific investigation either by process or by philosophy, you now seek to make it our burden to define it. Seversky says: "Actually, what has been the subject of scientific scrutiny are what people have claimed are supernatural phenomena. The research was done not to decide if they were natural or supernatural but to decide if there was anything there that needed explaining at all. So far, there hasn’t been." Please support your assertion that "so far, there hasn't been" in light of the publication in the Lancet of NDE research that asserts exactly the opposite (not to mention other research which has conclusions that contradict your assessment). Seversky says: "What a strange idea. Why should the Universe be any less fascinating, mysterious or in need of explanation if it is undesigned than if it is designed?" Red herring. I didn't say the universe would be less fascinating, or not in need of an explanation, if it were undesigned. Do you always avoid inconvenient questions? Seversky says: "We’re not the ones getting paranoid about a conspiracy of scientific Illuminati." No, you're the ones paranoid about a conspiracy of creationists trying to sneak the Bible into the classroom, which is what has brought us to your need to quantify what "supernatural" means, and why it should be addressed by the institution of science the way it recently has. It is you, and the NAS, that is overly concerned with "the supernatural", so much so that they attempt to define it (whatever it is) as being outside the purview of science.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Is anybody going to remind StephenB that (1) he insisted on a very recent origin (25 years) for MN multiple times in this very thread, (2) he implied that Ronald Numbers didn't know what he was talking about before he cited Numbers approvingly, (3) the very quote that StephenB dismissed earlier is entirely consistent with a firm establishment of of MN in the mid-19th century, with which Stephen now agrees?David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

StephenB to me:
I don’t think you have ever understood the argument being presented. I believe I asked you a very simple question: Provide me with evidence that, prior to 1983, one group of scientists imposed a methodological rule on another group of scientists. Do you have an answer to that question or not?
Actually, I did answer (albeit tersely) and you even quoted it. That you failed to see it is further proof your interest is not to converse, but to shout down. I would also note, that DK provided more detailed specifics, resulting in you walking the goalposts back from 1983 to the 19th century. So,now that brings us back to my question to you about what the results of the Harvard Intercessory Prayer study says about the influence of the supernatural on the world. Are you prepared to answer that question now? I predict not. One of your favorite tactics is to refuse to answer a question until your questioner has jumped through the hoops you continually set in front of them. I am not playing that game, Stephen. Your question has been answered, now answer mine. I refuse to engage any further with you until you answer. No more dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. What does the results of the Harvard study say about the supernatural?specs_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

PPS: If you want a look a the Einstein Field eqns, try here.kairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It would seem that Mr Kellogg (cf 412) is ignorant of and dismissive towards the trends of recent decades in cosmology. We should note that he is plainly an evolutionary materialism advocate, and these trends are such that openly theistic thinking has been in the journals for decades because of the implications of evident fine tuning. (Again, I invite those who want to see for themselves to look at my always linked, section D. And, i have invited him to reflect on cosmology adn the anthropic coincidences issue rthat has arisen out of he strongly evident finetuning of the observed cosmos, fineuning towards life facilitation.) A few notes on his question on the origin of gravity, in the wider context of its implications and issues: 1 --> Again, first, the Lakatosian point on philosophy and worldviews, is that such issues cannot neatly be separated out from science. (Indeed,that is the underlying issue with methodological naturalism, i.e it would smuggle in materialism into the very definition of science.) 2 --> Those wanting a nice quick overview on the cosmological and anthropic principle issues hinged on the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos may wish to look here and here too. For those wanting to do a good survey of the related issues, I strongly recommend Schiller's rather helpful online physics textbook, Motion Mountain, which contains a simple, generally accessible serious u/grad presentation on GTR. Australia telescope's survey here is also helpful. (The big problem on GTR and the general public is with the tensor calculus. ) 3 --> You will also see that Mr Kellogg failed to address the already given direct, summary answer to his question on the origin of gravity: gravity (on GTR) is a reflection of the space-time distortion triggered by the presence of mass, which ties into the origin of mass and matter and space-time and energy too. For instance, while Newtonian physics can be used to deduce a gravitational lens effect, it is about half the value predicted by GTR, and from Eddington et al in 1919, GTR's prediction has been supported empirically. Excerpting in more details from Wiki (since a simple summary in my words is not enough to get his attention . . . ):
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion, and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground.[10][11] In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force. Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight lines are called geodesics. Like Newton's First Law, Einstein's theory stated that if there is a force applied to an object, it would deviate from the geodesics in spacetime.[12] For example, we are no longer following the geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us. Thus, we are non-inertial on the ground. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial. Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor. Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include: * The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity. For radial distances from the center which are much greater than the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's theory of gravity. * The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with two event horizons. * The Kerr solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons. * The Kerr-Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons. * The cosmological Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the universe.
4 --> We observe gravitational effects due to that. But to do so, we have to be in a cosmos that allows us to exist. 5 --> And it turns out that such a cosmos is exquisitely balanced on multiple parameters and laws, such that it can be said to exhibit complex, functional information that seems purposeful. A very logical explanation for that in the end is: design. (Which just happens to be the conclusion drawn by Mr Ross, an Astronomer, BTW.) 6 --> Moreover, it turns out that shifting the balance of protons and electrons by some 1 in 10^37 would be enough to destabilise the gravity dominated physics of the cosmos. (Electrical forces are actually long range forces, and are MUCH larger than gravitational ones.) 7 --> Similarly, the reasonable range of forces is such that if gravity were to move by 1 in 10^40 (the scale is a log scale) we would see destabilization of a cosmos that is friendly to the sort of intelligent life we exhibit. [Think of a radio dial scale the length of our observed universe. Gravity needs to be where it is to within one inch on such a scale.] _____________ In short, there is a lot of science on the roots of gravity, and it exists in the wider context of cosmology, which in turn raises issues of fine tuning and anthropic coincidences. This in turn brings us right back tot he issue that design is a serious candidate at he table for the discussion on origins of a cosmos that is such that we can be here. And, methodological naturalism is hereby again shown to be a hindrance rather than a help if science is to be a serious, empirically anchored pursuit of the truth about or world and its origins. (And if science is not about truth, it cannot be about knowledge, for knowledge in the relevant sense is warranted, credibly true (though revisable) belief.) GEM of TKI PS: In Mr Kellogg's haste to dismiss of Mr Ross, he forgets that long before Mr Ross was ever an advocate of Old Earth Creationism, he was an astronomer . . . which BTW had something to do with his coming to his OEC position. And, as an astronomer has in fact compiled a listing of very valid evidence on fine tuning, including on of course that tied to gravity. Not to mention, one of the key figures on the anthropic coincidences just happens to be that "fundy dummy" Sir Fred Hoyle, holder of a Nobel Equivalent prize (and agnostic). IF YOU CANNOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCFE, DISMISS THE MESSENGERS.kairosfocus_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

----David offering quotes for methodological naturalism: “We are to press known secondary causes as far as they will go in explanation of facts. We are not to resort to an unknown (i.e. supernatural) cause for explanation of phenomena till the power of known causes has been exhausted. If we cease to observe this rule there is an end to all science and all sound sense. — George Frederick Wright, Geologist and minister, 1882 (h/t olegt)” By George, I think they are beginning to get it. Recall my earlier remark to David where I wrote, Methodological naturalism did not exist in the 13th century, or the 14th century, or the 15th century, or the 16th century, or the 17th century, or the 18th century… Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten, and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm. Of course, Wright was all over the map and changed his mind finally denouncing Darwin. Or: ----“If any person feels the necessity of conceiving the coming into existence of this matter as the work of a supernatural creative power, of the creative force of something outside of matter, we have nothing to say against it. But we must remark, that thereby not even the smallest advantage is gained for a scientific knowledge of nature. Such a conception of an immaterial force, which as the first creates matter, is an article of faith which has nothing whatever to do with human science. Where faith commences, science ends.— Ernst Haeckel The History of Creation (1876), Vol. 1, 6-9. (h/t deadman 932)” Yep. Haeckel and his phony drawings were starting to become serious players and the roots of methodological naturalism were indeed being planted, though they had not yet fully taken hold. They had no real power over other scientists. Why? I suspect is was because they were still in the minority. You can’t enforce things like that until you are in the majority. ----“In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical concepts, as God, immortality, infinity, etc have thus far failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind, as distinct from the body.–Charles P. Steinmetz, mathematician/electrical engineer, died 1923. (h/t deadman 932)” Same deal. What Darwin had begun, his followers felt they had to finish. Indeed, some think that methodological naturalism was starting to get an oral history in the early twentieth century, and that it took fifty years before Devries finally coined the phrase and made it his own. I wouldn't take that to the bank, but it seems plausible. Indeed, in a conversation with Paul Nelson, Ron Numbers himself, after telling Darwinists that methodological naturalism goes back hundreds of years, confessed the truth to Paul Nelson in a conversation that can be found on the internet. He said this: “If you're going to have a game, he continued, you've got to have some rules. For a long time now -- really from the middle of the 19th century -- one of the rules in science has been that the hypothesis of supernatural design is excluded from scientific discourse as a candidate explanation.” That is as far back as he can realistically stretch it----the middle of the 19th Century. That’s when the seeds were planted, as I have pointed out Still, the hammer had not yet dropped. Notice that even Numbers can get it right when he is in the right company. Of course, when he is talking to Darwinists, he knows they would like to hear another bedtime story. Of course, I had better sources, so I knew what to make of it.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

#432 #433 Clive "Then what was the point of the intercessory prayer experiment?" "Of course that’s true, tell the experimenters that their science was hopelessly flawed as to the cause of the results, or lack of cause. So, in your estimation, the experiment was scientific, just done incorrectly, to where the results would show nothing about God actually answering or not answering prayer?" Clive you are right. It was a fairly pointless experiment. It might have established some kind of relationship between the act of praying and healing. If that were true then the next step would be to investigate how. One hypothesis might be intervention by a deity - but how do you set about determining this? Any suggestions?Mark Frank_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

---seversky: "What a strange idea. Why should the Universe be any less fascinating, mysterious or in need of explanation if it is undesigned than if it is designed?" Does the principle of "irreducible complexity" violate the principle of methodological naturalism. If so, why?StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Thankfully, most of the public is ignorant of Johnson’s name. I do my part not to support Johnson by borrowing his books from the library rather than buying them. So I don’t have them on hand." . Well, you are the one who slandered him, so if you can't back up that slander with evidence, then you have no credibility. It proves first of all that you don't know what you are talking about, and it also shows that you will use unverified information to to sully someone's good name. I know that works at anti-ID websites, but it doesn't work here. You should not go to irresponsible sources that lie about the character of good men and then pass that information on as if there was some truth to it. ----"Nevertheless, an example is not hard to find. In “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” Johnson seems to distinguish between philosophical and methodological naturalism, even more or less agreeing with MN as a practice." That is no example, that is just another slanderous charge from an another anti-ID website. ---"Yet almost a dozen times Johnson uses naturalism by itself: sometimes this seems to be philosophical naturalism, sometimes MN, but it’s always represented negatively." Prove it. I don't believe you and I don't think anyone else does either. ----It’s a clear equivocation, as his critics point out (links from the original), and Johnson’s reply is unconvincing." Who told you that? Do you believe everything that you read? Philip Johnson is an honorable man. ----"This should complete any remaining obligation to converse with you." You slandered a good man without evidence. You need to either provide that evidence or apologize to Philip Johnson. If you wanted to stop conversing with me, then why didn't you do it when you had the chance. I gave you every opportunity.StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

There has been a report in the British Medical Journal that even remote, retroactive intercessory prayer may help (Leibovici L. (2001) BMJ 323(7327):1450-1451). Jorgensen, Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche describe the study in the review I have mentioned before:
the trial evaluated the effect of retroactive intercessory prayer using historical data
The interesing fact here is that
the patients were randomised many years after their outcomes had occurred
Jorgensen and co-workers conclude that the author of the original study
argued that we cannot assume "that God is limited by a linear time"
and
that time can go backwards and that prayer can wake the dead.
All science so far.sparc_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 393
I would like to point out that the goal posts are moving all around. First, we are asked to produce scientific research into supernatural phenomena.
No, all that is happening is that you are taking rhetorical advantage of the fact that there is no agreed definition of what is meant by "supernatural". Popular usage is incoherent. Ghosts are called supernatural by some but on what grounds? Is it because they are unexplained or because they are inexplicable? A scientific response to the question of whether or not ghosts are supernatural would be that before you can answer that question you first have to show that they exist at all. If they don't then know explanation is required. So, as a supernaturalist, do you believe ghosts exist and, if so, are they supernatural and, if you say they are, by what definition?
If, as Seversky claims, the supernatural is defined by that which has no natural cause, then all research done about the big bang, and the intrinsic values of gravity, and of the strong and weak nuclear forces, entropy, etc. are scientific investigations into supernatural phenomena - unless, of course, Seversky argues that nature created itself from nothing, which seems to be a logically flawed position.
I am sure kairosfocus's onlookers will recognize that the nature of gravity or the nuclear forces or life itself is a different question from the origins of those phenomena. They are clearly related but they are not the same. Science may have learnt something about the nature of the Universe without being able to explain its origins but ignorance of something at a particular time does not mean that the answer must be supernatural.
It seems that the atheistic materialists have been caught by their own attempts to define the supernatural out of the picture, and are left with incoherent justifications and rationalizations.
No, what we are hearing is a lot of talk about the supernatural and we are asking "What supernatural?"
The fact is, the supernatural - as it is defined by anyone here - has been subject to scientific scrutiny and has been successfully used as a research hueristic for hundreds of years.
Actually, what has been the subject of scientific scrutiny are what people have claimed are supernatural phenomena. The research was done not to decide if they were natural or supernatural but to decide if there was anything there that needed explaining at all. So far, there hasn't been.
Where do atheistic materialists believe the principles of parsimony and elegance came from? A chance, order-from-chaos perspective? Materialist atheists still use the design hueristic today; it undergirds all of science as it is conducted, because without it, there would be no reason to even attempt science.
What a strange idea. Why should the Universe be any less fascinating, mysterious or in need of explanation if it is undesigned than if it is designed?
The denial of it is often not discernible from madness.
We're not the ones getting paranoid about a conspiracy of scientific Illuminati.Seversky_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

One more for the road. StephenB:
Show me where any rule was ever applied to science. Show me where anyone ever demanded that reference to the supernatural in any way was unscientific. Show me that any scientist ever dared to call another scientist a psuedo scientist for looking for causes beyond the physical universe
How about:
We are to press known secondary causes as far as they will go in explanation of facts. We are not to resort to an unknown (i.e. supernatural) cause for explanation of phenomena till the power of known causes has been exhausted. If we cease to observe this rule there is an end to all science and all sound sense. -- George Frederick Wright, Geologist and minister, 1882 (h/t olegt)
Or:
If any person feels the necessity of conceiving the coming into existence of this matter as the work of a supernatural creative power, of the creative force of something outside of matter, we have nothing to say against it. But we must remark, that thereby not even the smallest advantage is gained for a scientific knowledge of nature. Such a conception of an immaterial force, which as the first creates matter, is an article of faith which has nothing whatever to do with human science. Where faith commences, science ends.— Ernst HaeckelThe History of Creation (1876), Vol. 1, 6-9. (h/t deadman 932)
Or:
In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical concepts, as God, immortality, infinity, etc have thus far failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind, as distinct from the body.--Charles P. Steinmetz, mathematician/electrical engineer, died 1923. (h/t deadman 932)
David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Clarification: in the previous comment, "quotes from those authors" refers to the vacuous passes from Stark and Woods provided by StephenB.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I should remind you once again that you slandered Philip Johnson, saying that he used his legal training to deceive the public about the ID/evolution debate.
This both misuses the term slander and misrepresents what I wrote. I have come to expect no better. I should remind you, though, that I withdrew the claim that MN was coined to respond to Johnson's equivocations in particular. Thankfully, most of the public is ignorant of Johnson's name. I do my part not to support Johnson by borrowing his books from the library rather than buying them. So I don't have them on hand. Nevertheless, an example is not hard to find. In "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Johnson seems to distinguish between philosophical and methodological naturalism, even more or less agreeing with MN as a practice. Yet almost a dozen times Johnson uses naturalism by itself: sometimes this seems to be philosophical naturalism, sometimes MN, but it's always represented negatively. It's a clear equivocation, as his critics point out (links from the original), and Johnson's reply is unconvincing. Finally, you were asked for quotes from these authors, but the quotes are not cited specifically and are without evidential substance themselves. This should complete any remaining obligation to converse with you.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 377
Seversky, ——”Why should a methodology like MN require any justification other than success? Put simply, does it work? Whether you can infer any metaphysical consequences from that success, assuming it happens, is a different matter.” Why value success? Why care about what works? Why “should” you even try any methodology? None of these questions will be answered physically, none of these questions can be answered by MN, for two rocks and six miles and 96 degrees will never answer these questions, and those are the only sorts of answers that MN can produce.
All very good questions, I agree, but what makes you think that methodological naturalism will be unable to find answers for them given time? They are questions about human behavior which has its roots in what we call the mind which in turn appears to be a property of the physical brain. I also agree we are far from having a complete explanation for any of them yet but we are also far from being able to say that we have exhausted every possible material explanation so the only remaining possibility is supernatural.Seversky_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

----seversky: “The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause.” So far, you have offered three definitions of "supernatural." Here they are: [A] "Phenomena for which there is no natural cause." [B] "Belief" in the supernatural." [C] "That which cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science." When William J. Murray asked you to justify [A] in the context of the big bang, you would not venture a meaningful reply. What is going to happen if someone asks you to justify the other two? What are you going to say if someone asks you to pick one of the three and negate the other two?StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply