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

---RDK: "Slam-dunk arguments? Are you honestly that self-deluded that you think Anton Schyrleus dedicating his work in astronomy to the Virgin Mary is a death-blow to Darwinism?" You too, must learn to concentrate and focus on the facts being presented. Anton Maria Schyrleus wrote a work on “theo-astronomy” and dedicated it to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now I want you to open up your mind real wide and concentrate on the words, "THEO-ASTRONOMY." Now ask yourself what that term might mean with respect to the methodological rule that science must study nature "as if nature is all there is." Try hard, now.StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB, In response to DK question "is it possible for you to write without condescension?"
No, it is not possible. Anyone who would continue to resist slam dunk arguments with the kind of fact-dodging, context-twisting, false framing sophistry that you have been putting out deserves whatever he gets.
Stephen, you are condescending to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, even commenters like myself who have only responded to you once. You would do well to ponder Proverbs 11:2.specs_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

RDK: "I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness and transparency of Stephen B’s tactics" Obviously we see things differently. What you percieve as "tactics" I percieve as arguments for ones position.After all the topic has to do with methodological naturalism not evolutionary theory or Darwinism. If anyone is employing tactics it is you by trying to change the focus of the stated topic of this thread!! Vividvividbleau_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Vividbleau,
Quite the rant RDK. Looks to me like StephenB has hit a raw nerve. Vivid
Quite the contrary; I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness and transparency of Stephen B's tactics. Any angry inflection that you put on my posts is purely of your creation.RDK_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Seversky, The only thing that is supernatural, meaning not created, is the Trinity. All other entities, angels / souls etc are created. Science will possibly one day confirm what is already known through revelation. But one doesn't need to wait a millenium to have faith confirmed. At the end of the day, if you in your heart wanted evidence of God's existence, the existence of your own soul, and other created entities, you could have it. Its there for the taking. Just ask Father Corapi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyEZR4gUk
We have investigations of near-death experiences cited as an example of research into the supernatural. But suppose such research were to actually bear fruit and it became possible to observe some incorporeal but ordered entity leaving the body at death whenever we chose. Suppose this entity were measured, analyzed and explained as reliably as we now do so routinely with the DNA that was entirely unknown in Darwin’s time. Would that still be supernatural - particularly given that we would have come to have some understanding of its ‘nature’?
Oramus_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Quite the rant RDK. Looks to me like StephenB has hit a raw nerve. Vividvividbleau_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

No, it is not possible.
Clearly not for you.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Hi Stephen,
No, it is not possible. Anyone who would continue to resist slam dunk arguments with the kind of fact-dodging, context-twisting, false framing sophistry that you have been putting out deserves whatever he gets.
Slam-dunk arguments? Are you honestly that self-deluded that you think Anton Schyrleus dedicating his work in astronomy to the Virgin Mary is a death-blow to Darwinism? This whole back-and-forth about methodological naturalism is nonsense anyway, and is classic Intelligent Design Creationism at its finest - distract from the wider issue by nitpicking minute details. What does the origin of MN have anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory? Here, I'll help you on this one Steve - it has nothing to do with it. So the answer to your failed attempts is "So what?". So what if methodological naturalism was coined to keep Intelligent Design from passing as science (which, as it has been shown by both myself and Jack Krebs on at least 5 separate occasions, it was not; but even if it was, it's just as acceptable as using MN to keep astrology or tea-leaf reading from passing as science). That still doesn't change the fact that ID is pseudoscience; you distract from the real issue in prime obfuscatory form.RDK_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, is it possible for you to write without condescension? You have shown nothing of what you claim, though as usual you are full of bluster as self-praise. I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who behaves in such a manner." No, it is not possible. Anyone who would continue to resist slam dunk arguments with the kind of fact-dodging, context-twisting, false framing sophistry that you have been putting out deserves whatever he gets.StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I object to Stephen's condescending tone. I can answer his arguments simply enough. Dedicating a work to the Virgin Mary is not violating methodological naturalism. Being motivated by religioon is not violating methodological naturalism. Kepler's notion of nesting Platonic spheres seems more mathematical than spiritual, but it may violate MN in some small sense. OK, I'll admit that. I'll further admit that the boundaries of science are relatively porous in the early centuries of modern scientific endeavor. But the idea that the method of science freely admitted supernatural causes until 1983 is laughable. Finally, Stephen's tone has been and remains asinine, and he knows it.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

DK:"You have shown nothing of what you claim" Surely you jest!! DK:"I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who behaves in such a manner" Translation " I have lost the argument so I better make a hasty retreat by attacking the one making the argument" Vividvividbleau_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

StephenB, is it possible for you to write without condescension? You have shown nothing of what you claim, though as usual you are full of bluster as self-praise. I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who behaves in such a manner.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: “StephenB, I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Believing that nature shows the wonders of God’s creation or even that it reveals something about the character of God has nothing to do with methodological naturalism. Many scientists who are Christians believe this yet still embrace methodological naturalism as a practice. Your examples seem to be about what motivates the scientists in question or what those scientists believe. But that is not the issue. Methodological naturalism is about how science is done (hence the “methodological”).” Remember now, you must try to follow the context of the argument, so I want you to concentrate. I have provided plenty of evidence that methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983. The great scientists of history that I alluded to were indeed Christians, all of whom believed that the creator designed the universe and left clues about his existence. This belief system informed their approach to science and even their methodology. Newton for example, insisted that God directly animated matter through an “active principle” and conducted his research accordingly. That is more than mere “motivation,” and it easily rules out methodological naturalism. Anton Maria Schyrleus wrote a work on “theo-astronomy” and dedicated it to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Obviously that is not studying nature “as if nature is all there is.” Johannes Kepler’s model of the cosmos based on nesting Platonic solids was directly and explicitly driven by his religious ideas. Does that sound like methodological naturalism to you? That is my seventh example and counting. As I pointed out, I can offer you fifty more examples if you like. Again, this is an argument about the past, not the present. I don’t want you to lose the concept, so try to fix in your mind and hold it there. You argued that methodological naturalism was historical, and I refuted that argument. Have you got it? So, now, as a response to my well-documented argument that, historically, Christians did not embrace methodological naturalism, you counter that argument by saying, “but some Christians embrace methodological naturalism today.” Do you see how easily you lose focus? Under the circumstances, then, I want you to try once again to grasp this distinction between the past and the present. 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………Are you getting the pattern here?StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Supernatural would be "effect without potentially known mechanism". If a mechanism is potentially contactable it's natural. If there is an effect with a cause but it can never be known, it's supernatural. Funding steers science. Only the military was doing serious remote viewing experiments. Art Bell worked with princeton to make gerbils go crazy and make it rain in a drought area by having his audience do a group thought experiment with his radio audience and it worked both times. I wouldn't be surprised if the military took this up. I don't think they suppressed others' research, but this is an example of something very exciting just drifting off into nowhere. Science tries to disprove the paranormal stuff too much, when they should be trying to improve experiments to gain better understanding. They should have a bias the other way, towards making it work.lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't understand what you're getting at. Believing that nature shows the wonders of God's creation or even that it reveals something about the character of God has nothing to do with methodological naturalism. Many scientists who are Christians believe this yet still embrace methodological naturalism as a practice. Your examples seem to be about what motivates the scientists in question or what those scientists believe. But that is not the issue. Methodological naturalism is about how science is done (hence the "methodological").David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 303
—-William J. Murray: “To summarise: there is no reason to even insert “naturalism” in the definition of science unless one can define where “naturalism” ends. Otherwise, it’s just science-stopper that would prevent researchers from hypothesizing about and investigating phenomena that the mainstream believes to be supernatural without even a meaningful definition thereof.”
Precisely.
Precise would be nice. People post blithely here about the supernatural without offering anything approaching a rigorous definition of the word. We have investigations of near-death experiences cited as an example of research into the supernatural. But suppose such research were to actually bear fruit and it became possible to observe some incorporeal but ordered entity leaving the body at death whenever we chose. Suppose this entity were measured, analyzed and explained as reliably as we now do so routinely with the DNA that was entirely unknown in Darwin’s time. Would that still be supernatural - particularly given that we would have come to have some understanding of its ‘nature’?
This looks dangerously close to William J. Murray, StephenB, seversky, and I agreeing on something. Time to take that snow-skiing trip in Hawaii.R0b_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 303
—-William J. Murray: “To summarise: there is no reason to even insert “naturalism” in the definition of science unless one can define where “naturalism” ends. Otherwise, it’s just science-stopper that would prevent researchers from hypothesizing about and investigating phenomena that the mainstream believes to be supernatural without even a meaningful definition thereof.”
Precisely.
Precise would be nice. People post blithely here about the supernatural without offering anything approaching a rigorous definition of the word. We have investigations of near-death experiences cited as an example of research into the supernatural. But suppose such research were to actually bear fruit and it became possible to observe some incorporeal but ordered entity leaving the body at death whenever we chose. Suppose this entity were measured, analyzed and explained as reliably as we now do so routinely with the DNA that was entirely unknown in Darwin's time. Would that still be supernatural - particularly given that we would have come to have some understanding of its 'nature'?Seversky_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

----William J. Murray: "To summarise: there is no reason to even insert “naturalism” in the definition of science unless one can define where “naturalism” ends. Otherwise, it’s just science-stopper that would prevent researchers from hypothesizing about and investigating phenomena that the mainstream believes to be supernatural without even a meaningful definition thereof." Precisely.StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "Nakashima and William J. Murray have come up with the best counter-examples. StephenB, not so much." You are manifestly confused. I am refuting your argument that MN is historical. Hence, I allude to historical scientists. They are refuting your argument that is legitimate. Hence, they refer to contemporary scientists. You seem to have difficulty following context, you really do.StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, I’ll talk about Defoe in a separate post. Why would you want to do that? He was not a scientist. ----"Let me briefly note that Boyle’s argument “that the study of science could improve the glorification of God” does not violate methodological naturalism." It is obvious that Boyle did not practice "methodological naturalism." He believed that "the attributes of God can be discovered by studying nature." ---"I’m taking a look at Ray’s book (available here). It’s worth noting that the Ray institute classifies that book as one of his “theological” works, as compared to his works in science (botany), which were written in Latin. Do his works of botany violate methodological naturalism?" The title of his book says it all: “The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation.” There is really no need for you to go through all this. ---z'Same question goes for Swedenborg. Does he do scientific work that violates methodological naturalism, or does he just speculate some scientific issues.zzzzzz' He like all the rest, considered nature as part of God's handiwork and approach it on that basis. I can't believe that you are still trying to revive this dead issue. ----"The motivations of Linneaus are not relevant. Does his practice violate MN?" Of course. Clearly, you are not getting the drift here. The four scientists I that I alluded to are but a small part of a much bigger picture. I could easily give you fifty more scientists of that era that approached the study of nature the same way. Trust me on this. You will grow old trying to rationalize them all.StephenB_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

BTW, I wasn't being argumentative or facetious when I asked how one separates supernatural phenomena from natural phenomena with unknown causes. The ESP example is a good one (I am not a believer.) It wouldn't be hard tell whether information is being transmitted and received. Would we call it supernatural and ignore it, or conclude that it likely has a natural cause which is presently unknown? It seems that we could choose to label it either way.ScottAndrews_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray, And let's not forget about the recent scientific experiment of the supernatural event of intercessory prayer done by Harvard: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/03/30-prayer.html David Kellogg, Weren't you claiming that such science as above is impossible because MN cannot speak to such immaterial matters?Clive Hayden_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

To summarise: there is no reason to even insert "naturalism" in the definition of science unless one can define where "naturalism" ends. Otherwise, it's just science-stopper that would prevent researchers from hypothesizing about and investigating phenomena that the mainstream believes to be supernatural without even a meaningful definition thereof. Other than bullying scientists into not investigating ideas that contradict the beliefs of the mainstream, what purpose is there in adding the term "naturalism" to the definition of proper scientific investigation?William J. Murray_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

I never made that claim. However I do know that you are wrong in this case. As a matter of fact you don't seem to understand the debate. And you sure as heck can't support your position.Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

I forgot, you're an expert in the "science" of baraminology.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

And even when he changed from species to genus- for the Created Kind, well primate is above genus. Not that I expect you to understand any of that.Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Because, Joseph, in the Bible man is not an animal like the others but a separate creation.
In the Bible all the animals were separate creations. And at first Linne thought the Created Kinds were the level of "species". Therefor grouping humans with primates did not violoate the Bible.Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Because, Joseph, in the Bible man is not an animal like the others but a separate creation. I know you're not a Bible scholar, or you'd have realized your error about plants not reproducing after their own kind, but seriously: would it kill you to read Genesis 1 and 2?David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
He sure doesn’t let the Bible or natural theology guide him when he classifies Homo among the primates.
How do you knmow? He (Linne) definitely let the Bible guide him in his search for the Created Kinds. Was he conducting science when he was doing that?Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
It fails because it has not ruled itself in by demonstrating that there is something there that needs to be studied.
That is refuted by the fact there are some scientists trying to refute it. Also both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined then anything your position has to offer. ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested. What else does it need before it is considered scientific?Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply