Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If ID theorists are right, how should we study nature?

arroba Email

Science-Fictions-square.gif One can at least point a direction by now. I began this series by asking, what has materialism (naturalism) done for science? It made a virtue of preferring theory to evidence, if the theory supports naturalism and the evidence doesn’t. Well-supported evidence that undermines naturalism (the Big Bang and fine tuning of the universe, for example) attracted increasingly speculative attempts at disconfirmation. Discouraging results from the search for life on Mars cause us to put our faith in life on exoplanets — lest Earth be seen as unusual (the Copernican Principle).

All this might be just the beginning of a great adventure. World-changing discoveries, after all, have originated in the oddest circumstances. Who would have expected the Americas to be discovered by people who mainly wanted peppercorns, cinnamon, sugar, and such? But disturbingly, unlike the early modern adventurers who encountered advanced civilizations, we merely imagine them. We tell ourselves they must exist; in the absence of evidence, we make faith in them a virtue. So while Bigfoot was never science, the space alien must always be so, even if he is forever a discipline without a subject.

Then, having acquired the habit, we began to conjure like sorcerer’s apprentices, and with a like result: We conjured countless universes where everything and its opposite turned out to be true except, of course, philosophy and religion. Bizarre is the new normal and science no longer necessarily means reality-based thinking.

But the evidence is still there, all along the road to reality. It is still saying what the new cosmologies do not want to hear. And the cost of ignoring it is the decline of real-world programs like NASA in favor of endlessly creative speculation. It turns out that, far from being the anchor of science, materialism has become its millstone.

But now, what if the ID theorists are right, that information rather than matter is the basic stuff of the universe? More.

See also:Science Fictions


“Yes Chad, the multiverse is an existential crisis in physics”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

G2: Kindly, stop projecting loaded strawman distortions of what ID is about. By now you are responsible to know that the design inference is about chance and/or necessity vs the artificial, acting through design manifest in evident contrivances that show FSCO/I. You need to wake up and read the UD weak argument correctives (see resources tab) and take them seriously. KF PS: Your question and its underlying assumptions, reveals an ideological indoctrination driven lack of knowledge of the history and foundations of modern science. Start with Pearcey, here. kairosfocus
Can anyone give a real-life, practical example of the supernatural leading to an improved understanding of the real world ? Graham2
It's a sort of whistling in the dark (sic) by atheists. They must realise that they are irrational fundamentalists, bigoted against honest research that might a allow a divine/purposive foot in the door. Very like the synagogue in the Gospels. Axel
Denyse, If meaning and intention and teleology are part of our universe, then when we find something we don't understand or don't expect, our first question should be "What does this mean?" Materialism will not allow that question. So instead we ask "How did this get here (randomly)?" This has completely distorted studies in the "Origin of Life" (OOL), the "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) and Astrobiology. For example, when scientists first discovered that remnants of extinct comets (carbonaceous chondrites) had fossilized lifeforms (Nagy 1961, Hoover 2011, etc) they would not believe it was life. Why? Because it meant something. When the scientists first discovered that carbonaceous chondrites had bio-minerals made of magnetite (1968 etc), and that on Earth, magnetite biominerals are routinely used as a "compass" for navigation, they refused to consider it purposeful, but instead spent many years puzzling over the temperature of the proto-solar nebula that might produce them. Many, many other examples demonstrate just how distorted the thinking becomes when purpose is not permitted in a scientific paper. And frankly, it holds the field back for decades--or in the case of archaeology--for centuries. Robert Sheldon
"For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history." One way of looking at the problem is: It isn't what naturalism leaves out that is the problem, it's what it lets in. News
Many times I've heard Darwinists claim that science proceeds exclusively on the assumption of naturalism (methodological naturalism). In fact I was surprised when I recently read where Dr. Craig claimed that methodological naturalism is assumed by science:
Excerpt: That’s guaranteed by science’s assumption of methodological naturalism. It prohibits supernatural explanations from even being included in the pool of live explanatory options. Only for theorists who are willing to challenge the assumption of methodological naturalism, like creation scientists or advocates of Intelligent Design, is there the possibility that a naturalistic explanation might give way to a supernaturalistic explanation. They argue that it should in the case of biological complexity. But because they are working with a conception of science outside the mainstream (namely, they reject methodological naturalism), it’s highly unlikely that their view will ever become the paradigmatic view of science, no matter what the evidence. - Dr. Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting
Perhaps Dr. Craig wrote that a few years ago before Plantinga's work and now his views have changed, but Alvin Plantinga has recently, and rigorously, in an argument full of poetic justice, shown that the assumption of naturalism within evolution itself is a epistemologically self defeating assumption that precludes it from possibly being 'the scientific worldview' for evolution. That's right, you read that right, assuming naturalism as true for evolution defeats naturalism! Poetic justice if ever there was!
"Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness" Dr. Alvin Plantinga - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8
In fact, Plantinga's recent work undermining the epistemologically integrity of Naturalism, which had had a stranglehold on higher philosophy in America for many decades prior to Plantinga's arrival on the scene starting in the late 1960's with his book God and Other Minds, led him to comment in no less than the New York Times that,,,
Philosopher Sticks Up for God - 2011 Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Although it may take many years for this paradigm shift in higher philosophy in America to 'trickle down', it none-the-less is very pleasant for me to know for a fact that Naturalism is self-defeating philosophically. In other words, assuming Naturalism as 'the scientific worldview', (i.e. methodological naturalism), as atheist do (and apparently many Theists too), is, regardless of what they may believe to be true, no longer a logically defensible position, since Plantinga has now rigorously shown that Naturalism sows its own seeds of destruction from within. An easy example, to understand how naturalism sows its own seeds of destruction from within, is naturalism's undermining of the 'consequent reasoning' necessary for rationally practicing science in the first place:
Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
Moreover, in one of the many ironic twists of life, it turns out that the free will that is necessary to practice science rationally (i.e consequent reasoning), the free will that die-hard Naturalists insanely deny they even possess, is found to be axiomatic to our best tested theory in science, i.e. quantum mechanics:
What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? – By Antoine Suarez – July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will
Also of note, (as News has pointed out) assuming naturalism as true for the origin of the universe is also a epistemologically self defeating assumption:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Verse and Music:
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. Letters From War - Schultz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvbBwsMTgI

Leave a Reply