Books of interest Intelligent Design Naturalism

Book: Naturalism and its Alternatives now available at Amazon

Spread the love

From Blyth Institute:

Many volumes have addressed the question of whether or not naturalism is a required part of scientific methodology. However, few, if any, go any further into the many concerns that arise from a rejection of naturalism. If methodological naturalism is rejected, what replaces it? If science is not naturalistic, what defines science? If naturalism is rejected, what is gained and what is lost? How does the practice of science change? What new avenues would be available, and how would they be investigated?

This volume is divided into three parts. The first part considers the question of methodological naturalism and its role in the demarcation problem – deciding what is science and what isn’t. The second part discusses the impacts that different boundaries have on scientific thought in a general way. Finally, the third part looks at how non-naturalistic methodologies can be beneficially incorporated into specific fields, and how in a few cases non-naturalistic methodologies have already been successfully incorporated into certain fields.More.

Note: Special comfort seating offered for trolls at Amazon reviewers’ bench.

See also: Design the cover for: Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies

Follow UD News at Twitter!

29 Replies to “Book: Naturalism and its Alternatives now available at Amazon

  1. 1
    Joshua G says:

    Excellent stuff! Thanks for this 🙂

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    A few thoughts on methodological naturalism:

    Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions of the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use Atheistic Materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
    It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.
    Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity!
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

    To reiterate the conclusion of the preceding paper, it would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic naturalism in general, have turned out to be.

    As much as it may shock some people, even Darwinian evolution itself is absolutely dependent on Theistic presuppositions.

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic/naturalistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it.

    Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was in (liberal) theology and not in mathematics are any other field that would be considered scientific at that time:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    “During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh & at school. I attempted mathematics, & even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra.”
    Charles Darwin, 1887 – Recollections of the Development of my Mind & Character, the work which Darwin himself referred to as his autobiography

    To this day, since Darwinian evolution still has no experimental evidence that it is remotely feasible, leading Darwinists are still absolutely dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of their supposed ‘naturalistic’ Darwinian claims:

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    Thus, since theology is essential to Darwinian evolution itself, I think it is fairly obvious that artificially imposing methodological naturalism onto science beforehand is a complete joke.

    Further more, although Theists are often accused of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure a materialistic answer out to that mystery some day” style argument.

    To clearly illustrate the ‘materialism of the gaps’ style argument that atheists make, the naturalistic/materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.
    These contradictory predictions, and the evidence we have found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either naturalism/materialism or Theism is true.

    Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video
    https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    Thus, as far as the comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy is concerned, naturalism is again shown to be false as a supposed scientific worldview.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Finally, the third part looks at how non-naturalistic methodologies can be beneficially incorporated into specific fields, and how in a few cases non-naturalistic methodologies have already been successfully incorporated into certain fields.

    Really? Such as…?

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 2

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-nagain77 @ 6matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    Both contenders for the crown in cosmology – Big Bang and Steady State – were naturalistic/materialistic (nat/mat) theories

    The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.82 bn years, somewhat older than the 6000 years predicted by one theistic faith.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    Theism covers a number of faiths. Not all of them hold that God is sustaining the entire universe from second-to-second.

    Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality

    Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate. A living brain exhibits consciousness, a dead brain does not. The signs of consciousness that were once exhibited by a dead brain have so far proven to be unrecoverable in all cases.

    The “observer effect” in quantum physics is produced by measuring instruments as much as by any human observer. It doesn’t support the claim that consciousness is what holds reality together.

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.

    None of the theistic faiths that I’m aware of make specific predictions about the rate at which time passes.

    Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” refers to God’s perception of time.

    2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” concerns salvation.

    Neither make any prediction concerning the speed of light.

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist. The vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge leap of faith from those observations to the conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez).

    Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could certainly be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of. On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life. Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth.

    Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were created by a god.

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

    The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary onsiderably. The 20-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. […]

    Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so there many transitional fossils have already been found. Theism makes no predictions about the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel”. If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    Nothing in that research contradicts Darwin’s original claim that it was a question of degree not of kind.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.

    Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case. Theism said nothing about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    Nat/mat theory always held that more mutations were detrimental than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right. With the advent of neutral theory, the majority of mutations are held to be neutral or nearly so, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are positively beneficial, all of that being dependent on circumstances.

    As noted before, theism made no predictions concerning the existence of DNA, let alone the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. […]

    Nat/mat argues that morality is subjective. Theistic faiths simply argue that the morality dispensed by their chosen deity overrides all others. That doesn’t make it objective. The claim that morality is somehow embedded in our genes or in the fabric of the universe is nonsense.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As noted above, quantum theory is a nat/mat theory. It just deals with nat/mat reality on the very smallest scales. It lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul which at best is poorly-defined and at worst is incoherent.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    I placed my order!

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    Seversky:

    Really? Such as…?

    Two fields that have been doing a lot in non-naturalistic methodologies are economics and computer science.

    In the Austrian school of economics Ludwig Von Mises pioneered “methodological dualism”. This has been brought into modern macroeconomics by Gilder’s “Knowledge and Power” and into microeconomics through Thiel’s “Zero to One“.

    Modern AI implementations are actually moving toward the route of AAI – Artificial Artificial Intelligence, such that humans are now becoming a permanent part of the loop. Systems such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk provide an API to access humans for computation tasks that computers can’t do. The related field of Human Computation, pioneered by Luis Von Ahn, is very similar, using humans for tasks that are essentially algorithmically impossible. Even when the term “dualism” isn’t used, these are, at least methodologically speaking, establishing a fundamental dualism between mind and matter.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky you are, to borrow Pauli’s phrase, ‘not even wrong’. And to add to Pauli phase, ‘you are not even on the right playing field to be wrong’.

    I’ve addressed you false counter claims before,,

    a short defense of all 16 predictions:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-564709

    Frankly your blatant intellectual dishonesty in your supposed rebuttal is embarrassing. I grimace that someone could actually put forth such tripe and expect to be taken seriously. But hey, thanks for showing others how pathetically dishonest the atheistic mindset can be.

    But anyways, let’s go a bit beyond that short defense.

    There is no advancement within science that can be attributed to naturalism/materialism.

    For instance, mathematics, which is considered the backbone of modern science, is thoroughly theistic in its implications:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared:

    ‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’

    Kepler also stated:

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler

    And Galileo stated:

    “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
    Galileo Galilei

    And the theistic implications of mathematics, and its applicability to the universe, has only grown stronger, not weaker, since the founding of modern science,

    Werner Heisenberg stated:

    “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
    Werner Heisenberg

    In fact, both Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are on record as to regarding it as an ‘epistemological miracle’ that we can reliably model the universe with mathematics:

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”
    Albert Einstein – Letters to Solovine – New York, Philosophical Library, 1987

    Even the atom, the supposed bread and butter of atheistic materialism, gives every indication of having been designed by God:

    Why Science Does Not Disprove God – April 27, 2014
    Excerpt: “To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature.”
    Amir D. Aczel – mathematician
    http://time.com/77676/why-scie.....prove-god/

    Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet – LAKHI GOENKA an Engineer – May 2012
    Excerpt: Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.
    http://www.annarbor.com/news/o.....-designer/

    Max Planck, the main originator behind quantum theory, had this to say about atoms:

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – The main originator of Quantum Theory – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)

    Kurt Godel, Einstein’s confidant at Princeton, and discover of ‘incompleteness’, stated something similar to Planck’s quote:

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

    Godel also stated:

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13

    Moreover, besides mathematical breakthroughs in science being thoroughly Theistic in their implications, modern science has also advanced by man ‘intelligently designing’ better and better experimental instruments.

    Specifically, infusing mathematical/logical information into material substrates in a more and more integrated and precise fashion has enabled man to peer from the smallest elements of the atom to the farthest reaches of the universe, to build atom bombs and nuclear reactors etc.. etc.., and to also build better and better computers in order to better analyze his findings from experimental science.

    Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011
    Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging.
    Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time.
    “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/p.....-math.html

    The Baffling and Beautiful Wormhole Between Branches of Math
    Excerpt: But the weirdest thing about Euler’s formula—given that it relies on imaginary numbers—is that it’s so immensely useful in the real world. By translating one type of motion into another, it lets engineers convert messy trig problems (you know, sines, secants, and so on) into more tractable algebra—like a wormhole between separate branches of math. It’s the secret sauce in Fourier transforms used to digi­tize music, and it tames all manner of wavy things in quantum mechanics, electron­ics, and signal processing; without it, computers might not exist.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/11/eulers-identity/

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    ,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con.....s_2012.pdf

    Naturalism/Materialism infused not one bit of information into those intelligently designed engineering breakthroughs that allowed man to advance in science as he has now done.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, whereas Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon, and whereas quantum theory has opened up many unforeseen technological treasures for man,,,

    10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics – 2013
    Excerpt: The study of quantum mechanics led to some truly astounding conclusions. For instance, scientists found that electrons behave both as waves and as particles, and the mere act of observing them changes the way they behave. Revelations like this one simply defied logic, prompting Einstein to declare “the more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks.”
    Einstein’s sentiments still resonate today, more than a century after humanity’s first insights into the quantum world; quantum mechanics makes perfect sense mathematically but defies our intuition at every turn. So it might surprise you that, despite its strangeness, quantum mechanics has led to some revolutionary inventions over the past century and promises to lead to many more in the years to come. Read on to learn about 10 practical applications of quantum mechanics.
    10. The Transistor
    9. Energy Harvesters
    8. Ultraprecise Clocks
    7. Quantum Cryptography
    6. Randomness Generator
    5. Lasers
    4. Ultraprecise Thermometers
    3. Quantum Computers
    2. Instantaneous Communication (highly debatable)
    1. Teleportation (with a huge caveat)
    Go here to read details of each
    http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-sh.....hanics.htm

    ,,, whereas Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon, and whereas quantum theory has opened up many unforeseen technological treasures for man, Darwinian evolution has zero technological breakthroughs under its belt that it can brag about, and in fact Darwinian evolution has hindered the advancement of science (i.e. junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc.. etc..)

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    besides being useless to medicine, Darwinian evolution, to the extent it has influenced medical diagnostics and research, has been harmful to medicine (i.e. medical malpractice, and pointless, even misleading, testing of medicines on animals based on the false assumption of common ancestry) – December 2016
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-622443

    To reiterate what I said in my earlier post after I outlined the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent in the naturalistic worldview: “it would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic naturalism in general, have turned out to be.”

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:18-21
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    Evanescence – Bring Me To Life
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    Seversky –

    A quick point – one of the main criticisms of Newtonian physics when it was presented was that it was *not* a nat/mat theory. In other words, our definition of naturalism had to change to accommodate it. Likewise, the 19th century view of nat/mat was overturned by quantum physics. Many quantum physicists themselves (such as Richard Conn Henry) view qm as being in conflict with nat/mat. If nat/mat has a real meaning, it has been refuted. If it just means “the stuff we already know” then it is useless for progress.

    Additionally the Big Bang theory was proposed by Lemaitre to reconcile cosmology with Thomism. In essence he was doing the Catholic version of Creation Science. In Genetics, Mendel was doing the same thing (as was Redi and Pasteur). Every time you go to the store and see “Pasteurized” stamped on a carton, you should think “applied creation science.”

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    of note:

    “Zeno Effect” Verified: Atoms Won’t Move When They’re Being Watched – 1/07/2016
    Excerpt: Yogesh Patil and Srivatsan K. Chakram generated and cooled a gas of about a billion Rubidium atoms inside a vacuum chamber and suspended the mass between laser beams.
    This is when the team detected something exclusive: The atoms wouldn’t show any movement as long as they were under any kind of observation. The more often the team used a laser to measure the manners, the less movement they saw. The only way the atoms would move was when the researchers turned down the strength of the laser, or turned it off completely. Then the atoms organized themselves easily into a lattice pattern, just as they would if they were crystallizing.
    It must feel pretty awesome to stop atoms just by looking at them, but there are much greater consequences for this discovery. For instance, it demonstrates that quantum cryptography should work— meaning an intruder can’t spy on your communications without destroying the data.
    “This gives us an unprecedented tool to control a quantum system, perhaps even atom by atom,” said Patil, lead author of the paper.
    http://www.physics-astronomy.c.....-move.html

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 7

    There is no advancement within science that can be attributed to naturalism/materialism.

    On the contrary, I think you would be hard put to find any advancement in science that can’t be attributed to naturalism/materialism (or physicalism, if you want to be more accurate)

    Both quantum and relativity theories are naturalistic and materialistic theories in that they describe and explain the physical world. It’s true that they have revealed that the natural, physical world is structured and behaves in radically ways from those conceived by classical physics but they are still about what we think of as the natural, physical world.

    While no one is denying that many scientists have been Christian, it is disingenuous, to say the least, to pretend that there have not also been scientists who were Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist, for example. While Christianity has certainly contributed to science it is neither necessary nor sufficient for its practice.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    johnnyb @ 9

    Additionally the Big Bang theory was proposed by Lemaitre to reconcile cosmology with Thomism. In essence he was doing the Catholic version of Creation Science.

    Not according to Wikipedia:

    In 1946, he published his book on L’Hypothèse de l’Atome Primitif (The Primeval Atom Hypothesis). It was translated into Spanish in the same year and into English in 1950.[citation needed]

    By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.

  13. 13
    johnnyb says:

    Seversky – that’s the modern gloss. But if you look at his unpublished writings and what the people who knew him at the time said, you get a different story. It is very similar to how creationists in Europe act if you call them creationists. He was coy and defensive because he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist, not because the connection between his science and faith was some bizarre accident.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, science owes nothing to atheistic materialism. The physical world, while it is certainly ‘natural’, is certainly not materialistic nor atheistic.

    I ask that you refrain from trolling me any further with your tripe.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    johnnyb @ 13

    Seversky – that’s the modern gloss. But if you look at his unpublished writings and what the people who knew him at the time said, you get a different story. It is very similar to how creationists in Europe act if you call them creationists. He was coy and defensive because he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist, not because the connection between his science and faith was some bizarre accident.

    You may be right. I don’t know enough about Lemaitre to know one way or the other. What I would suspect is that, for Lemaitre as for other believing scientists, his scientific integrity was as important to him as his faith. It would not allow him to introduce any religious concepts into his science that could not be scientifically justified, no matter how important they might have been to him personally. I don’t doubt he believed that his God was behind the world he studied but it was not something he could demonstrate through science.

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 14

    Seversky, science owes nothing to atheistic materialism. The physical world, while it is certainly ‘natural’, is certainly not materialistic nor atheistic.

    The physical world is certainly physical in the sense of physicalism, which is the successor to classical materialism and refers to the nature of the world as revealed to us by physics. And not being a conscious entity, as far as we know, the physical world is unlikely to be atheistic or theistic since it is incapable of forming a belief one way or the other.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, I’ve asked you to refrain from trolling me any further. Please respect my request. I wasted countless hours on your worthless tripe. I have better things to do than to get involved in conversations with people who refuse to be reasonable.*

    (*Presuming that there are real people, instead of mindless automatons, to be reasonable with in the first place within atheistic materialism.)

  18. 18
    johnnyb says:

    Seversky –

    I agree with you 100% that,

    It would not allow him to introduce any religious concepts into his science that could not be scientifically justified

    I agree. But that does not make it methodologically naturalistic. Methodological naturalism did nothing for LeMaitre. In fact, it was his religious beliefs which led him to his science and gave him the ability to understand the implications of physics. If he had tied himself to methodological naturalism, he wouldn’t have been able to see what the science was saying.

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    johnnyb @ 18

    I agree. But that does not make it methodologically naturalistic. Methodological naturalism did nothing for LeMaitre. In fact, it was his religious beliefs which led him to his science and gave him the ability to understand the implications of physics. If he had tied himself to methodological naturalism, he wouldn’t have been able to see what the science was saying.

    I have no problem with the many scientists who were and are led to their disciplines by their faith and who view their research as a means of revealing God’s creation in all its glory. But equally I don’t see that one particular faith or any faith is necessary to practice science. It is perfectly possible to begin with observations of the ordered universe in which we find ourselves, to construct testable explanations for what we observe and to slowly expand our understanding by what amounts to a methodical process of trial-and-error. Where theistic and atheistic science seem to agree, at least for the present, is that methodologically natural explanations are the best way to proceed regardless of the faith – or lack of it – of the researcher.

  20. 20
    johnnyb says:

    But equally I don’t see that one particular faith or any faith is necessary to practice science.

    I think you are reading waaaaaay too much into what other people are saying. Nothing I have said goes against this.

    Where theistic and atheistic science seem to agree, at least for the present, is that methodologically natural explanations are the best way to proceed regardless of the faith

    But this is contradicted by the evidence from the history of science. Big Bang theory, Mendel’s genetics, Pasteur’s work on biogenesis, Redi’s work on created kinds, and, as I show in the book, even Newton’s work on mathematics, are all against methodological naturalism. Other sciences (such as certain branches of economics, computer science, and, as Dr. Rakover has been advocating for, some people in psychology) actually operate on a methodological dualism.

  21. 21
    Origenes says:

    Seversky: It would not allow him [Lemaitre] to introduce any religious concepts into his science that could not be scientifically justified, no matter how important they might have been to him personally.

    How about the religious concept that all matter is compelled to obey laws?

    Joel Primack, a cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, once posed an interesting question to the physicist Neil Turok: “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws.” Turok was surprised by the question; he recognized its force. Something seems to compel physical objects to obey the laws of nature, and what makes this observation odd is just that neither compulsion nor obedience are physical ideas.
    [Berlinski]

    Nota bene, we are talking about laws of nature for which there is no naturalistic—bottom-up—explanation.

    Paul Davis: But what are these ultimate laws and where do they come from? Such questions are often dismissed as being pointless or even unscientific. As the cosmologist Sean Carroll has written, “There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops… at the end of the day the laws are what they are… And that’s okay. I’m happy to take the universe just as we find it.”
    [source]

    There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.

    Paul Davies: Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.

    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.

  22. 22
    daveS says:

    johnnyb,

    even Newton’s work on mathematics, are all against methodological naturalism.

    This is thought-provoking. Have you already published on this issue?

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If this is the correct definition of methodological naturalism:

    Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to evaluate supernatural causes.

    Then I don’t understand the ID critique of it.

    (I received a very long explanation from gpuccio a while back on it, but I honestly didn’t understand.)

  24. 24
    johnnyb says:

    even Newton’s work on mathematics, are all against methodological naturalism.

    I meant to say “gravity”, and that is covered in the book. However, one might be able to make a case from infinitesimals as well, though I am less sure of it. With gravity, Newton’s detractors were accusing him of, essentially, violating methodological naturalism (they used different terms but it had the same meaning).

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    How are non-natural causes directly observed or identified?
    Gravity is considered a natural cause because it gives repeatable, testable outcomes that can be observed. One does not need to cite a supernatural cause to scientifically show the effect of gravity on an object dropping to the ground.

    Can science do the same for supernatural causes? I’d be glad it if did, but I have never heard of that before.

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    johnnyb

    … Big Bang theory [is]… against methodological naturalism.

    Could you explain this more?

  27. 27
    daveS says:

    johnnyb,

    I meant to say “gravity”, and that is covered in the book. However, one might be able to make a case from infinitesimals as well, though I am less sure of it. With gravity, Newton’s detractors were accusing him of, essentially, violating methodological naturalism (they used different terms but it had the same meaning).

    Thanks. If sometime in the future you work out a case based in ifinitesimals, I would be interested in reading it.

  28. 28
    daveS says:

    Eh, “infinitesimals”, rather.

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Regarding my 23, 25 & 26. I did some research on my own so I don’t need an answer now.

Leave a Reply