A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 2, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn’t work. Read more

Comments

PPS: I am on non-US time and I am an insomniac, both. Got it from my poppa; who used to write Ja's budget in the wee hours of the morning. PPPS: And, it has not escaped OUR notice, that here is a very tight coupling between the sort of censoring impositional methodological naturalism we are discussing, a priori evolutionary materialism, atheism and amoralist secularism. That is, if being a theist disqualifies one as a scientist -- and the ghosts of Newton, Pascal, Maxwell and Kelvin will have something sharpish to say about that! -- then the motives and views of the meth nat advocates are just as disqualifying. So, we see plain self referential incoherence on the part of those who play the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" rhetorical card. We need to get beyond personalities and motive mongering to address issues on the merits, sir.kairosfocus_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

PS: On the design inference: Graham, I also see that you have championed the idea that the only credible alternative to "natural" is supernatural, which of course comes with some very loaded associations in a deeply polarised age in which we have militant secularism. I therefore draw your attention to UD Weak Argument Corrective no 17 [cf also no 18 . . . see we are up to 39 now -- but what is going to be 38?], which clarifies the empirically grounded inference being made in design theory work: ______________ >> 17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. For instance, in a pamphlet published in 2008, the US National Academy of Sciences declared:
In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. Emphases added.]
The resort to loaded language should cue us that there is more than mere objective science going on here! A second clue is a basic fact: the very NAS scientists themselves provide instances of a different alternative to forces tracing to chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. For, they are intelligent, creative agents who act into the empirical world in ways that leave empirically detectable and testable traces. Moreover, the claim or assumption that all such intelligences “must” in the end trace to chance and/or necessity acting within a materialistic cosmos is a debatable philosophical view on the remote and unobserved past history of our cosmos. It is not at all an established scientific “fact” on the level of the direct, repeatable observations that have led us to the conclusion that Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. In short, the NAS would have been better advised to study the contrast: natural vs artificial (or, intelligent) causes, than to issue loaded language over natural vs supernatural ones. Notwithstanding, many Darwinist members of the guild of scholars have instituted or supported the question-begging rule of “methodological naturalism,” ever since the 1980’s. So, if an ID scientist finds and tries to explain functionally specified complex information in a DNA molecule in light of its only known cause: intelligence, supporters of methodological naturalism will throw the evidence out or insist that it be re-interpreted as the product of processes tracing to chance and/or necessity; regardless of how implausible or improbable the explanations may be. Further, if the ID scientist dares to challenge this politically correct rule, he will then be disfranchised from the scientific community and all his work will be discredited and dismissed. Obviously, this is grossly unfair censorship. Worse, it is massively destructive to the historic and proper role of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world in light of the evidence of observation and experience. >> _________________ Moreover, you would do well to consider the wider framework of scientific empirical investigations here, which formalises how applied scientists, e.g., routinely operate in a forensic context. And, that context shows that intelligent/ articficial causes are empirically real and observable, leaving reliable traces. Intelligent design, in that context, is the science that investigates such signs and how we may infer from sign to signified intelligent cause. As a consequent of that, it concludes that certain features of the observed cosmos are better explained as to their origins, by intelligence rather than credibly undirected stochastic contingency [aka chance] and/or blind mechanical forces that give rise to natural regularities [aka necessity]. Specific cases of interest include the functionally specific, code-based functional complexity and algorithmic information of the cell, the increments in this FSCI required to explain major body plans, and the finely tuned, organised complexity of the observed cosmos [you'll love the presentation . . . ] that allows it to facilitate such C-chemistry cell based life. You will observe, furter that NONE of this depends on a priori commitment to any metasphysical doctrine or texts from any religious tradition. in fact, it operates by cutting across the imposition of such censorship by the New, Lewontinian materialist Magisterium in places such as NSCE [great catch Stephen!], NAS, NSTA and the Kansas Board of Education, not to mention judge Copycat Jones' courtroom over in Dover!kairosfocus_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: It was just a gentle nudge to remind the ID camp that the tight relationship between ID & religion doesnt go unnoticed. However, I actually feel somewhat chastened that you replied at some length and with obvious feeling. Your colleagues arent nearly so polite. Not that I expect any quarter. But Im confused as to your time zone. Im in Oz so its OK, but you are either non-US time or an insomniac.Graham1_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Ah Graham: I see . . . ye olde intended "outing," meant to prejudice attitudes and polarise discussion. Ironic isn't it when -- Jiu-Jitsu like -- such an intended power move turns against you: for, it never seems to register with Lewontinian secular humanist evolutionary materialists that many of us care deeply for BOTH Science and souls! (Not to mention for the grounding of mind, reasoning, knowledge and morality that such evolutionary materialism undermines through its materialistic determinism on mechanical necessity and chance circumstances, leading to self referential incoherence on the mind and inescapable and utterly destructive amorality on the issue of right and wrong. This last having been well understood since the days in about 360 BC when Plato penned the Laws, Book X.) Nor, that -- per Rom 1:20 -- we find we can do so as freely as Newton wrote as follows in his General Scholium to the Principia. Yes, THAT Principia, the greatest book of modern science:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler . . . . And from his true dominion [i.e. Creation, the law-ordered, complex and elegantly beautiful cosmos in which mathematics is "unreasonably effective"] it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce complex contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, he implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
Y'see, back in C17 - 18, they had a sounder view. they understood that an investigation of the empirical world was a project in epistemology, so they logically saw it as an exercise in natural philosophy. Then, when solid findings, reliable ones, emerged, these, they termed knowledge, i.e. -- they usually wrote in Latin after all (universal language of scholarship and all that) -- Science. And in that context, it was a natural thing to think on how it might be possible that:
Rom 1:20 . . . since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood [i.e. this is where the concept of self-evident truth seen as true on understanding it comes from] from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [cf. here on where that leads, on wider worldview analysis]
So, Graham, I think you need to do some wider reading and thinking beyond the narrow circle of evolutionary materialism wearing the lab coats of Science. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

kairosfous mission: Towards the Transformation of "All Things" Under the Christocentric Fulness Vision as Stated in Paul's Epistle to the EphesiansGraham1_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Vivid I'se been busy elsewhere, now winding down. (I am learning just how royally messed up things are here in the Caribbean, too!) I am also -- slowly . . . -- working with a circle of others on a critical survey of origins science, from ~~soup to nuts~~ hydrogen to humans. (Do drop me a line via my linked page.) Have fun all Gkairosfocus_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

PS: On the side issue over mind s and brains and bodies, I think the diagram and discussion here, tracing to Eng Derek Smith's two-tier controller cybernetic model might just be helpful. In a nutshell, the i/o front end controller is dependent on an imaginative, creative, decisional supervisor to have a reference for servocontrol etc. And the internal organization and physical force mediated cause-effect bonds of such an i/o controller do not explain the imaginative, creative and decisional information that uses it. In short, per Liebniz's discussion of he gearing in the mill, the mill does not explain or originate its own organization.kairosfocus_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously. I have already done that. " If we cannot point to what should be obvious changes in the published literature than the implementation of the 1980's MN rule has changed nothing whatsoever.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Happy New Year to you as well KF. BTW miss your regular posts. Vividvividbleau_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Folks: Greetings, jus a pass tru . .. I note that we can cut tot he chase, once we see that:
Science at its best is the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observational evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed
That is what gave science its credibility, and it is what is being subtly censored by the imposition of so-called methodological naturalism on origins science. For, the underlying issue is as Lewontin long ago acknowledged:
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.
So, regardless of how effectively we may analyse many phenomena on lawlike natural forces and chance circumstances, if we are to address the truth about our world, we must leave room for the study of intelligent action and its empirical traces. And, in fact, we do that routinely -- save where the imposition of a priori materialism is at stake. Lewontin has told us why. (And, the interventions and impositions by the NAS and the NSTA in Kansas tell us even more on why.) Chillingly so. G'day GEM of TKI PS: New Year's greetings to all.kairosfocus_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

----Acipenser: "If we cannot point out these differences then the sensible conclusion would be that nothing has changed." Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously. I have already done that.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

“StephenB, I guess my point is let’s do it on our terms.” . . .What did you have in mind? Agree that meth-nat is just fine and dandy for things like resolving engineering issues but insist that it fails miserably in answering the far more important questions such as how people should live together. And further insist that while it is certainly a legitimate method of science it is clearly not the only one. And since I'm about ready to go to bed, and since someone is likely to challenge me for an example, I'll note that any gedankenexperiment involving Maxwell's Demon or Schrodinger's cat would work. Or they could go back and find that link to Godel's Ontological Proof Of God I posted earlier.tribune7_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

errr...this should read: If we could point to some examples of how implementing the rule of MN caused a shift in the scientific content of the published literature it would certainly bolster the claim that has been made.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"OK. Then we can let my answer to him will suffice as my answer to you." Sure whatever you wish to provide is fine. My interest is in the claim of the types of evidence that once was accepted (and I presume published) and now is not. I think if the claim of a change in 'rules' were true we should be able to peruse the scientific literature and point to examples of a change in content/types of evidence from then and now. At least 20 years have passed since the 80's and it would seem that there would exist a sufficiently large database to draw upon for comparison If we cannot point out these differences then the sensible conclusion would be that nothing has changed. If we could point to some examples of how implementing the rule of MN, in the 1980's, caused a shift in the scientific content of the literature. The Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, have never submitted any of the miracles in a manuscript form for publication in the science literature.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

---Tribune 7: "StephenB, I guess my point is let’s do it on our terms." What did you have in mind? Maybe I could sign on. I am an open minded kind of guy. Meanwhile, take a look at Alvin Plantinga's well researched artical on methodological naturalism and tell me what you think. You can google Alvin Plantinga: Methodological naturalism, one and two.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

StephenB --Indeed, I submit that the term naturalistic causes should not be included in any definition of science at all. And I agree with that as does Popper and Plantinga per Wiki believer it or not tribune7_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

However, most Darwinists who come here have no clue about those kinds of things. It helps when we standardize our vocabulary. StephenB, I guess my point is let's do it on our terms. The way the Eugenie Scotts use the phrase is as propaganda and political dogma not to clarify communication or increase understanding. Like all good propaganda there is a nugget of truth in their claim. Let's take it and turn it back on them. We are pro-science. People who use propaganda to get what they want are not.tribune7_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

---Acipenser: No, Voice Coil was correct that was my question. OK. Then we can let my answer to him will suffice as my answer to you. I will leave it to you to find the published articles on Big Bang theory and the Catholic Church's record of medical miracles, since both violate the principle of methdological naturalism as conceived by the Darwinist academy, the point that seems to interest you.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB–Methodological naturalism does not indicate that natural causes are to be preferred but rather that they are required. ----tribune 7: “And that works just fine in many circumstances.” Agreed. ----“Which gets us into the question of definitions. If science is defined as a systematic study then it would not have always been primarily about natural causes.” Again, I agree. Indeed, I submit that the term naturalistic causes should not be included in any definition of science at all. Taking it one step further, I submit that the whole idea of “demarcation” is misguided. I was simply trying to make the distinction between the hard definition and the soft definition rather than pit science against metaphysics, which overlaps with science in many ways. It is very difficult to cover every conceivable objection coming from every conceivable vantage point. ----“ Metaphysics, which does not deal with natural causes,is the prefect example. — Britannica.com calls it “The Science of First Principles and the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was understood to mean “the science of the world beyond nature” Agreed. We have to be careful even with the way we use the word “science.” In keeping with that point, philosophers used to call Theology the queen of the sciences. However, most Darwinists who come here have no clue about those kinds of things. It helps when we standardize our vocabulary. ----“Something to keep in mind is that to the neutral observer, the soft definition makes perfect sense and he might be wondering what the fuss is about when it is attacked.” Yes, you are right, and yes, some of the onlookers may be neutral. That is why I went to the trouble of defining MN as it is used by the Darwinists who are in power. I think it is important to know that Darwinists use both definitions, the hard definition to persecute ID and the soft definition to claim that MN is historical. We should not let them get away with that. ----“Something else to keep in mind is that the neutral observer would think the hard definition is remarkably silly i.e. since it would require the rejection of things like the Big Bang and The First Law of Thermodynamics.” Yes, of course. Nevertheless, the hard definition seems to be the official definition. Reread Eugenie Scott. Read the Kansas science standards. If you continue to use the soft definition, why not at least point out to onlookers that the Darwinists in power are not using that same definition. Frankly, I think ID advocates should stop using the soft definition. ----“The final thing to keep in mind is that ID perfectly fulfills the soft definition and perfectly follows the tradition of things like the First Law of Thermodynamics.” Yes, I have made that point. Again, however, the Darwinist academy is not using the soft definition when it declares that ID is not science. Neither Judge Jones nor the ACLU nor the NAS nor anyone else I know of that persecutes ID use the soft definition. So, why should we use it when it puts us at a disadvantage by allowing our adversaries to muddy the debate waters? Once we point out that Darwinist methodology rules out the big bang, onlookers will finally get it. They will not get it if we continue to use the soft definition. Indeed, several Darwinists on this very thread have already tried to take advantage of this kind of confusion.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"I don’t understand that to be his question, but I can answer your amendment to his question." No, Voice Coil was correct that was my question. Are you aware of any specific examples contained within the published literature? Prior to the 1980's of course.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

----Voice Coil: "You are not quite grasping the question. He is asking for an instance scientific evidence gathered and accepted as valid before 1980 that would now be “forbidden” in light of methodological naturalism." I don't understand that to be his question, but I can answer your amendment to his question. Using Eugenie Scott's definition, or the Kansas educational standards, any scientific study of a miraculous healing would violate the principle of methodological natrualism. Indeed, even the big bang theory would be in jeopardy since many attribute it to a "supernatural" cause. According to the Darwinist bureaucracy, any evidence that can be construed to hint at the "supernatural," is inadmissible, which is precisely the rationale that is used against intelligent design.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

----seversky: “The same applies today and that is more than enough to ensure it will continue to be used for the foreseeable future.” Which definition of methodological naturalism are you using? Eugenie Scott’s hard definition or your soft definition? ----That is what the Catholic Church does when it investigates claims of miraculous cures at Lourdes. It has to eliminate naturalistic possibilities before it can consider the possibility of a miracle.” According to methodological naturalism, the Catholic Church is not doing science if it considers the possibility that any cause other than a natural cause is responsible for the healing. Reread Eugenie Scott’s definition of MN, which is definitive. -----“This is glass house territory. Both sides have their fair share of the normal human failings. Can you name any ID scientist who fabricated evidence, made up hoaxes, or persecuted his adversary.” ----“Judge Jones ruled that the attempt to open the way for ID to be introduced into the science classroom ……..” Judge Jones said that ID’s methodology depends on religion. That is a lie.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

#137 "Nothing was refuted. None of the scientists listed employed supernatural causation in their work. They employed a naturalistic methodology to study and explain the phenomena they were studying for pragmatic reasons. It worked." I think what everybody is missing is that it was not possible for Newton, Boyle, etc to employ MN. MN requires scientists that when doing science one must assume that PN is true. This concept would be so foreign to them that they would have thought such an idea insane. Vividvividbleau_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Thus, since there was no such thing as inadmissible evidence or any such thing as the science of intelligent design prior to 1980, I cannot provide examples of something that didn’t exist. Does that help?
You are not quite grasping the question. He is asking for an instance scientific evidence gathered and accepted as valid before 1980 that would now be "forbidden" in light of methodological naturalism. An example from the 20th century would be most interesting. Such an example would demonstrate that impact of the so-called "rule" of methodological naturalism upon real science. A specific example of a theoretical model or proposed causal relationship considered valid when proposed but now forbidden due to methodological naturalism would be even more interesting. Again, something from 1900 through 1980 would be best.Voice Coil_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"Does that help?" Sure, thanks! but let me make sure I am clear on what you mean. It is your position that prior to the 1980's the body of science literature was open to the publication of manuscripts that proposed non-natural causes as explanations for observed phenomena. However, for the duration of the published science literature (up to the 1980's) no one bothered to ever publish anything resembling a manuscript that proposed non-natural causes for their observed experimental observations. Is that a fair summary and udnerstanding of why there is no available examples of the forbidden evidence from the literature? thanks again for the explanation it helped a lot.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 105
That point has already been refuted by Cornelius Hunter @83. Even if they had limited themselves solely to natural causes, which they didn’t, that is no argument for saying that everyone else should follow them. There was no methodological rule.
Nothing was refuted. None of the scientists listed employed supernatural causation in their work. They employed a naturalistic methodology to study and explain the phenomena they were studying for pragmatic reasons. It worked. The same applies today and that is more than enough to ensure it will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. If someone wants to propose a theory of origins based on the concept a supernatural intelligent designer, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. But no one is going to accept it, either. Not without being given good reasons and good evidence. Why should they?
Not all questions are alike; not all ways of getting answers are alike. One could not, for example, investigate the possibility of a medical miracle using methodological naturalism.
Of course you can. That is what the Catholic Church does when it investigates claims of miraculous cures at Lourdes. It has to eliminate naturalistic possibilities before it can consider the possibility of a miracle.
Explain that to the Darwinists, whose ethical challenges are legendary— complete with hoaxes, fabricated evidence, and academic tyranny.
This is glass house territory. Both sides have their fair share of the normal human failings.
How about Judge Copycat Jones, who used the power of the state to discredit ID.
Judge Jones ruled that the attempt to open the way for ID to be introduced into the science classroom was a violation of the First Amendment. Evidence like the notorious "cdesign proponentsists" made it abundantly clear that ID grew out of the creation science movement and was little more than a repackaging exercise intended to circumvent previous legal rulings.Seversky_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB:@74: ”There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science.” -----Acipenser: “I really wasn’t interested in when you thought MN came into existence but I was interested in learning from you about the types of evidence that was (and is) no longer accepted as per your claim in #74 -----“It seems obvious from your claim that prior to the alleged rule changes (in the 1980’s)evidence that formerly was accepted is no longer acceptable and publishable. I was only wondering if you had any specific examples that would demonstrate this change in the types of evidence once embraced but no longer." Your question makes no sense. -----“The question seems quite logical, and sensical, given the claim that you made in #74” Well, I am feeling magnanimous today, so I will try to help you out here. Inasmuch as the rule of MN was conceived in the 1980’s, and, inasmuch as the idea of inadmissible evidence was conceived right along with it, it follows that there could be no such thing as inadmissible evidence prior to 1980, since there was no rule to make it inadmissible nor, indeed, was there even a conception of such a thing inadmissibility with respect to scientific evidence. Further, the major ID paradigms, which provide the only evidence that Darwinists now consider inadmissible, had not yet been presented. Thus, since there was no such thing as inadmissible evidence or any such thing as the science of intelligent design prior to 1980, I cannot provide examples of something that didn’t exist. Does that help?StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

#111 "To StephenB: There is no mind" Graham this explains alot. No wonder all your postings are mindless LOL. BTW why post any of your (oops there is no your) mindless (oops there is no mind) ideas (oops there are no ideas)when you (oops there is no you) cant help why you (oops again there is no you)think (oops there is no thinking) the things you (oops for the third time there is no you)think ( oops for the second time there is no thinking)? Furthermore why try to change anyones (oops there is no anyone)mind (ooops there are no minds) when they ( oops there are no they)cant help themselves (oops there are no selves)as to their (oops there is no their there either)thoughts ( oops there is no thoughts)? Vividvividbleau_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"Your question makes no sense. The science of intelligent design did not exist prior to 1980, and therefore there was nothing like it to be published. As I have stated at least five times, methodological naturalism, as I have defined it, did not exist prior to the 1980’s, which is exactly the same time that intelligent design made its appearance." I really wasn't interested in when you thought MN came into existence but I was interested in learning from you about the types of evidence that was (and is) no longer accepted as per your claim in #74 StephenB:"There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science." It seems obvious from your claim that prior to the alleged rule changes (in the 1980's)evidence that formerly was accepted is no longer acceptable and publishable. I was only wondering if you had any specific examples that would demonstrate this change in the types of evidence once embraced but no longer. The question seems quite logical, and sensical, given the claim that you made in #74.Acipenser_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Graham -- What happens to our mind when we die ? How would meth-nat attempt to address that question?tribune7_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply