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

StephenB:
Everyone on this site knows that I can back up anything that I say.
Can you back that up?R0b_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

----spec: "Repeating the same argument I have found unconvincing and has been demonstrably shown as not true several times on this very forum isn’t going to get you much headway. It is called The Scientific Method." 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?StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Would this be natural or super-natural? Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - The Light - Life Review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8MTwyd-AlI In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRpbNgBn8XY The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGUbornagain77_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Everyone on this site knows that I can back up anything that I say. ---David Kellogg: "Rim shot!" When asked for quotes, which is what I was asked for, I provided them. That's one significant test or credibility. By contrast, you don't do so well in that department. 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. I have asked you several times to provide evidence, and you have slinked away each time. It's time to put up or shut up. Have you got the goods or don't you. If not, then I will expect a public and abject apology to Philip Johnson.StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

The quotes offered from Stark and Woods don't say anything about MN, but that's not a problem because "Ronald Numbers doesn’t know what he is talking about." Breaking from my StephenB hiatus:
Everyone on this site knows that I can back up anything that I say.
Rim shot! StephenB will be here all week, people, so be sure to come back for the next show. Also, please remember to tip your waitstaff. And try the veal.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Clive,
Even if we understood the effects of a law like gravity, we still wouldn’t know why the law was the way it was. We have no knowledge “behind” the law that determines the law.
As I said, don't call that science.
Indeed, if we are honest, we cannot see a fundamental difference between nature or the supernatural, because we don’t understand the fundamentals of either of them, and can make no comparison.
A person who says this, I don't trust with doing science.
tell the experimenters that their science was hopelessly flawed as to the cause of the results, or lack of cause
Clive, did you read your own link? First,
Those who conducted the study are quick to say that its results do not challenge the existence of God. Also, it did not try to address such religious questions as the efficacy of one form of prayer over others, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work better than prayers from another, according to the Rev. Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Second,
"The primary goal of the study was limited to evaluating whether intercessory prayer or the knowledge of receiving it would influence recovery after bypass surgery," notes Jeffery Dusek, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School. The evaluation found that third-party prayer has no effect at all on recovery from surgery without complications, and that patients who knew they were receiving prayer fared worse that those who were not prayed for.
David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

-----seversky: "Yes, they do. And the methodology they use is naturalistic. In spite of your concerns, there is nothing to prevent them from postulating some form of supernatural causation if they choose but, almost invariably, they do not choose because they find they have no need.” That is manifestly false. Methodological naturalism has declared ID non-scientific on the SUSPICION that it might be pursuing the supernatural, which, by the way, it is not. ----“As for the history of what is now called methodological naturalism, it clearly has roots that go much further back than 1983.” No it doesn not. 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. Provide evidence for your claims. ----“I have read Hunter’s post and the FAQ but do not find it contributes anything useful to the debate.” Don’t you mean that they contribute nothing to your agenda? -----Forrest defines MN as follows: ----“I am addressing the subject of naturalism in contrast to traditional supernaturalism, which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity.(My emphasis)” ----She also quotes geologist Arthur Strahler: ----"[S]upernatural forces, if they can be said to exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science–that’s simply what the word “supernatural” means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up “from nowhere.” Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore the claims of the existence of supernatural forces and causes." ----seversky: "That is pretty much the same as my definition." No, they are not even close. Forrest describes supernaturalism as a “belief.” Strahler defines it as that “which cannot be observed.” One can have “unobserved” knowledge that has nothing to do with belief. That is not at all the same thing, which, or course, confirms my point and Dr. Hunter’s point, which is that Darwinists have no consistent definition of “supernaturalism.” That is why it is so unwise for you to declare that Dr. Hunter’s thesis, which defines the current debate, “does not contribute anything useful to the debate.” ----"Stark has apparently written at least three books which develop a thesis that Christianity should be credited with a much greater responsibility for the advances of Western civilization than has previously been the case.” That is correct. Christianity built western civilization and launched the entire scientific enterprise. You wouldn’t know that, because you haven’t researched it. I have. ---“Woods has written a similar book about Roman Catholicism. In neither case, does there seem to be anything to deny the possibility that the practice of methodological naturalism pre-dates by hundreds of years the creation of the name.” Don’t you think that, not having not read the book, you are hardly in a position to draw that kind of inference. ----“If you have quotes from any of those books which support your claims then you should provide them. Otherwise we are bound to suspect that your reference to their names is an example of the fallacy of appealing to inappropriate authority.” Everyone on this site knows that I can back up anything that I say. Here we go. From Woods: “Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization." From Stark: "That new technologies and techniques would be forthcoming was a fundamental article of Christian faith. Hence, no bishops or theologians denounced clocks or sailing ships--although both were condemned on religious grounds in various non-Western societies. " From Stark: “Because God is a rational being and the universe is his personal creation, it necessarily has a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting increased human comprehension. This is the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them, the rise of science." Contact Dr. Steve Fuller and he will confirm the points just made. He has also written on the subject and shared his knowledge on this site. Indeed, consult anyone who is on the cutting edge of historical knowledge. There was no methodological naturalism. Quite the contrary, religion shaped science and even informed some of the hypotheses. Stark and Woods have been dealt with above.” Dealt with? To dismiss without knowledge is not to deal with. I have read both books cover to cover. On the other hand, you had obviously never heard of either until I mentioned them. Who is on the cutting edge and who is not? As I have told others, I have plenty more in reserve. I can identify fifty more scientists who never practiced, [or heard of (and would have laughed at)] methodological naturalism. It didn’t happen. Ronald Numbers doesn’t know what he is talking about. Further, and I don’t need Woods and Stark to prove it. You would know that except you haven’t read my relevant posts because,in your judgment, any information that refutes your thesis, does not, in your words, "contribute to the debate."StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"In fact, even if the study had positive results, it would have been silent on mechanism (natural or supernatural). Hard as it is to imagine, a positive result could be the result of some hitherto unknown effect of prayer as mental (brain) activity." 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 Hayden_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank, ------"Indeed, to repeat my point above, even if the results had shown that prayer made a difference it would have established nothing about how they made a difference." Then what was the point of the intercessory prayer experiment?Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"lamarck, if it helps you sleep to think that gravity is supernatural because we don’t understand it entirely, go ahead. Just don’t call that science." lamarck is right. Even if we understood the effects of a law like gravity, we still wouldn't know why the law was the way it was. We have no knowledge "behind" the law that determines the law. It is not like our chain of reasoning where we can see how a conclusion follows from a premise. There are no premises and therefore no conclusion in why a law must be the way it is. We cannot see that laws of nature are necessities, and we cannot see why they couldn't have been otherwise. We have to answer that we just simply don't know why these weird repetitions occur, we can only say that they do. In this regard the things we've deemed to call natural are just as mysterious as what we deem supernatural. Indeed, if we are honest, we cannot see a fundamental difference between nature or the supernatural, because we don't understand the fundamentals of either of them, and can make no comparison. We have no reason to say that nature is any more natural than supernature, for the sample is 1, and all we could hope to do is compare nature to herself to deem her normal or natural, but comparing nature to itself to determine the nature of it is not an explanation. Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

It seems obvious to me that anything William J Murray claims is correct!Adel DiBagno_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

It seems obvious to me that the true reason that many do not wish to "let a divine foot in the door" is not because science would suffer, but rather because their ego would suffer.William J. Murray_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Seversky: Of course we don't know; it's philsophical matter, one that is up for debate, and you seem unwilling or unprepared to answer. If, as you have stated, "supernatural" is that which does not have a natural cause, then I submit that you are left in a rather inconvenient logical position; (1), that nature was caused by something other than nature, or (2) that nature caused itself. Is it your habit to simply refuse to answer any question which you find inconvenient?William J. Murray_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Of course, being a AAAS fellow is hardly a compliment here! It just means he's part of the Darwinist establishment.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

One wishes that Ronald Numbers were a real historian. He's only Hilldale Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin–Madison. He has served as president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History and is currently president of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, Division of the History of Science and Technology. He's received a Guggenheim Fellowship. He has delivered the Sarton Lecture, the Garrison Lecture, and the Terry Lectures (the latter to be published by Yale University Press). He was a Founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of AAAS. In 2008, Numbers received the Sarton Medal, "the highest honor conferred by the History of Science Society, in recognition of a lifetime of exceptional scholarly achievement by a distinguished scholar, selected from the international community." He's edited the definitive collection of American anti-evolutionist writings and now edits a series of books on "Medicine, Science, and Religion in Historical Context" for the Johns Hopkins University Press. Clearly an amateur with no expertise in the field next to the intrepid readers of UD.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 375
No, it is a protocol established by one group of scientists to oppress another group of scientists
So you keep saying but you have not provided any evidence to show that this is anything other than a paranoid conspiracy fantasy on your part. Others pointed out that Paul de Vries seems to have coined the term in 1983 but that is the only connection with that year we have found. If you have better evidence for your claim then please show us.
As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear. There is no need for it at all. Scientists already know which methods they need to use to solve whatever problem they are addressing.
Yes, they do. And the methodology they use is naturalistic. In spite of your concerns, there is nothing to prevent them from postulating some form of supernatural causation if they choose but, almost invariably, they do not choose because they find they have no need. As for the history of what is now called methodological naturalism, it clearly has roots that go much further back than 1983.
This is the fourth time I have asked you to read Dr. Hunter’s post and the FAQ. Since you refuse to do the basic work for dialogue, I will simply take note of the fact that you refuse to become acquainted with the subject matter.
I have read Hunter's post and the FAQ but do not find it contributes anything useful to the debate.
Here is the relevant passage: “To become more than a logical possibility, supernaturalism must be confirmed with unequivocal empirical evidence, and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all, but rather a natural phenomenon which just awaited an appropriate scientific test. “ The key words are these: “and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all” That means that real science will confirm the fact that there is no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon. In other words, if any other conclusion is arrived at, it is not real science. That is pure ideology. The conclusion is set even before the investigatin begins. I know you can’t face it, but there it is.
You still seem to be having problems with comprehension. Forrest is saying quite clearly that to be anything other than a logical possibility, alleged supernatural phenomena would have to be supported by unequivocal evidence. But since the only empirical data we have access to is naturalistic, if we found such evidence we would be proving the existence of a natural phenomenon. Supernaturalism remains a logical possibility because we cannot exclude it. But, in order to infer it, we would have to exclude all possible naturalistic explanations first which, to put it mildly, is likely to be impractical for the foreseeable future. Claiming a supernatural cause simply because we are unable to demonstrate a natural cause as yet is jumping the gun.
—- “Supernaturalism”, presumably, would mean a belief in the supernatural, the only coherent definition of which I gave above. And, no, it has no bearing on the scientific method.” That is not the way Barbara Forrest defines it. Whose definition should I accept, yours or hers?
Forrest defines it as follows:
I am addressing the subject of naturalism in contrast to traditional supernaturalism, which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity.(My emphasis)
She also quotes geologist Arthur Strahler:
[S]upernatural forces, if they can be said to exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science--that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up "from nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore the claims of the existence of supernatural forces and causes.
That is pretty much the same as my definition.
—-“This sounds perilously close to some kind of paranoid conspiracy theory.” I have interacted with many people who have been persecuted by the system. The movie “expelled,” provided the theme that is replayed every day in academia.
Unverified anecdotal evidence carries little weight and there are people who suffer from persecution complexes without necessarily being persecuted.
—–“Methodological naturalism”, according to historian of science Ronald Numbers, was a label created in 1983 for a methodology that had existed in one form or another for hundreds of years before that:” Ronald Numbers has been roundly refuted by real historians like Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods. Indeed, since I have read them, I know more about the subject than does Ronald Numbers, as I have made clear with my examples, which you, at the moment, are blithely unaware of having ignored everything except your own writing. In any case, we don’t accept argument by authority on this web-site. You have to make your case. Explain all those scientists who appealed to theological formulations to inform their science. I know that you don’t know what I am talking about since you didn’t read the posts, but whose problem is that?
Stark is a sociologist of religion. Woods is a revisionist historian who seems to be mostly concerned with libertarian economics and appears to harbor a strange ambition to revive the Southern Confederacy. Stark has apparently written at least three books which develop a thesis that Christianity should be credited with a much greater responsibility for the advances of Western civilization than has previously been the case. Woods has written a similar book about Roman Catholicism. In neither case, does there seem to be anything to deny the possibility that the practice of methodological naturalism pre-dates by hundreds of years the creation of the name. If you have quotes from any of those books which support your claims then you should provide them. Otherwise we are bound to suspect that your reference to their names is an example of the fallacy of appealing to inappropriate authority.
—–So, just who is trying to rewrite history? You are. Ronald Numbers doesn’t know what he is talking about as Rodney Stark, Thomas Woods. [and myself] have made clear.
I have no idea what your qualifications are as a philosopher or historian of science. Stark and Woods have been dealt with above.
Also, you might address William J. Murray’s question. You wrote, The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause.” He asks: “Does this make the big bang a supernatural event?”
Also, see above.Seversky_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray,
What you don’t seem to see is that whether I call it god, or call it gravity, the description is the same, and the cause of the thing in question (god, or gravity) is non-natural, thus supernatural.
Good point. Even more succinctly:
G[od] = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
herb_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Willaim J Murray @ 374
Seversky says: “The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause.” Does this make the big bang a supernatural event?
I think it makes it a 'we don't know yet' event.Seversky_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Well, tone aside, the context of my statement was that there is no history of scientists ever establishing such a RULE of methodological naturalism.
Repeating the same argument I have found unconvincing and has been demonstrably shown as not true several times on this very forum isn't going to get you much headway. It is called The Scientific Method.
Let’s assume that I was too harsh with you and let’s assume further that I will try to communicate with you in a more congenial tone.
You say that a lot around here and always manage to break that promise. You are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right. I can only assume you didn't ponder Proverbs 11:2 like I suggested. But, I tell you what, I will give you one more chance. Maybe you are willing to answer a question Clive seems to want to avoid. I will grant that the Harvard prayer study, as conducted, was a scientific study. I believe it was fully consistent with methodological naturalism, but that is a separate discussion. I grant you that it was scientific. Now, with that formality out of the way, what does the results of the study reveal about supernatural intervention in the world?specs_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

---spec: "Actually, Stephen, I told you once already(at 278) that I read the entire thread, that I found your argument unconvincing, and the flaw I saw in your argument. So, to answer you in the same tone you employ, I would strongly suggest that the reading comprehension problem here is not mine, but yours." Well, tone aside, the context of my statement was that there is no history of scientists ever establishing such a RULE of methodological naturalism. Rather than address that point you sent me to another thread as if someone else had refuted my position, which is not the case. So, clearly that was a distraction. You providded a reason for disagreeing with me, but that reason had nothing to do with my assertion. Let's assume that I was too harsh with you and let's assume further that I will try to communicate with you in a more congenial tone. Do you have anything to say about the point at issue. Here it is again: Never before in history [prior to 1983] had one group of scientists presumed to tell another group of scientists what kinds of methodlogies they could use in the name of science.StephenB_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg states: "Gravity, unlike God, is quantifiable, observable, and in regular interaction with the rest of the natural world. " What you don't seem to see is that whether I call it god, or call it gravity, the description is the same, and the cause of the thing in question (god, or gravity) is non-natural, thus supernatural. You seem to think that merely adding an acceptable label renders your supernaturally-caused gravity less supernatural than if we simply called it "god". David Kellogg states: "Gravity is a verifiable consequence of masses and their relation." Can you support the asssertion that gravity is caused by masses, and not revealed by masses? David Kellogg states: "You’re welcome to substitute “Intelligent Falling” for the theory of gravity, but I can’t see what it is going to get you." It got us the theory in the first place, since Newton surmised that gravity was an intelligently-designed, rationally ordered phenomena in the first place that was consistent and universal because the universe was not at the mercy of chaotic forces. The theory of intelligent falling, as you call it, has provided us with every bit of science we have developed through our understanding of the principles and value of gravity. This is another thing you fail to understand; the only way we got the theory of gravity in the first place was, as you say, by someone (Newton) imagining an intelligent theory of falling. Why would anyone think an unintelligent, non-rational occurrence (something falling) would be intelligible in the first place? David Kellogg states: "It seems odd for you to claim that, on the one hand, all natural laws are indistinguishable from the supernatural, and, on the other, that the supernatural is observable in a God who willy-nilly intervenes to violate natural law at the request of his supplicants." Please support your assertion that I claimed that god violates any natural laws. By the way, I haven't claimed that all such laws are supernatural; I'm merely pointing out that this is the consequence of Seversky's definition.William J. Murray_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Or, in the words of Canadian Christian singer Bruce Cockburn:
Wave your flag, wave your Bible, Wave your sex or you business degree; Whatever you want, But don't wave that thing at me.
David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

lamarck, if it helps you sleep to think that gravity is supernatural because we don't understand it entirely, go ahead. Just don't call that science.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, "Gravity is a verifiable consequence of masses and their relation. " I think the point is: We don't know why masses attract each other, we don't know why that law is the way it is. They could as easily repel each other. So indeed science has a supernatural understanding. They only understand one part of the chain of cause - more mass means more attraction.lamarck_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, "Any way you slice it, even in the counterfactual world in which this study found that prayer was modestly efficacious, there is no empirical finding that would provide dispositive answers to such questions..." But atheist naturalists can never come up with ultimate black and white answers either, using scientific method...yet research is allowed to continue. Science tries for full absolute objective answers but by it's own method it can only come close and never attain full objectivity. Unless in the future full absolutes ARE able to be found. You assume an entirely different paradigm of thought and research can't exist because we can't conceive of it. Yet other paradoxes lurk out there. Time must exist yet can't for there to be a beginning of everything, yet we're living it. Doesn't mean we'll never find a concrete answer withing an undiscovered paradigm which can be communicated to a four year old. The simple wheel wasn't conceived of by man for how many thousands of years? You also go over, to paraphrase your thoughts: "What if these effects were isolated to the point where god could be used as a tool of man. His power could be used at will by science." Well for one, this might be a worthwhile endeavor. Does this negate god or mean he doesn't exist? No, what if he wants us to do this. But this gain in knowledge maybe could have only come about by an investigation into god or the "supernatural". So maybe an unforseen end is in sight is attained, but it's still a valid research path. Also, what if a scientist were able to part the Red sea. Through his research he found a certain prayer was needed. The result would be reproducible, but what if the mechanism evades science forever, beyond just reciting the prayer. We can't assume that science will always find further mechanisms or a cause. Maybe a mechanism or cause is truly beyond our reach, and so from our viewpoint in this universe, supernatural phenomenon in fact exist?lamarck_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray, I'm afraid you are the one who is playing semantic tricks. Gravity, unlike God, is quantifiable, observable, and in regular interaction with the rest of the natural world. Gravity is a verifiable consequence of masses and their relation. You're welcome to substitute "Intelligent Falling" for the theory of gravity, but I can't see what it is going to get you. It seems odd for you to claim that, on the one hand, all natural laws are indistinguishable from the supernatural, and, on the other, that the supernatural is observable in a God who willy-nilly intervenes to violate natural law at the request of his supplicants.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg #409: We aren't talking about the product of science, we are talking about the logic that supports the metaphysical position that nothing "supernatural" can be examined by the scientific method. To that end, we have asked that materialists present their defintion of supernatural. Seversky presented his; if his definition is presented as the epistemological demarcation between "natural" and "supernatural", then the value of gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc., are by definition supernatural - unless one wishes to make the argument that nature caused itself. If then science cannot research that which is supernatural, or make claims based on the supernatural or referring to the supernatural because they cannot be explained (their cause presented) as natural, then we must logically throw out all of science, because it is entirely based upon a supernatural entity - nature, and supernatural forces - gravity,etc. You see, David, claiming "gravity did it" is no more of an explanation than claiming "god did it". One might describe the physical process of the physical phenomena occurring, and call it gravity; or, one might describe the physical process of the physical phenomena occurring, and call it god; in both cases, no one has an explanation of what caused gravity, and no one has an explanation fof what caused god. They would be equally supernatural (by the definition offered) explanations for the phenomena in question. The real problem, you see, is that atheists wish to imagine that the term "nature", the terms "gravity" and "weak nuclear force" and "entropy" - they wish to imagine that those terms are qualitatively different from calling those things "god" or "the laws of god" or "the mind of god"; but they are not. They are semantic tricks that allow the atheistic materialist to ignore the fact that he is accessing and inserting the supernatural every bit as much as his theistic brother is, albeit by using terminology that allows him or her their cognitive dissonance.William J. Murray_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Correcction: embedded in philosophical ways of knowing.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, One doesn't need Lakatos to know that all science is embedded in philosophical. Yet there is nothing in the scientific literature of cosmology that claims a supernatural origin of nature. If the best you can come up with is a reference to Hugh Ross's apologetics, you should just give up.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

The distinction between natural and artificial is not equivalent to the distinction between natural and supernatural.David Kellogg_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply