Intelligent Design

Liberalism as social policy arm of materialism – or even Kansas isn’t in Kansas any more

Spread the love

Recently, an analyst of the Kansas state science standards controversy drew my attention to the fact that “every newspaper in southeast Kansas was against the standards and went out of their way to promote the candidacy of [x’s] opponent and his defeat.”

Yes, I’ll bet. Most media people are liberals. And just as materialism is the organized religion of the school system (and Darwinism its creation story), liberalism – in its modern form – is the social policy arm of materialism.

(That’s why so many litmus tests for liberalism (legal partial birth abortions, stem cell research, euthanasia) attack the uniqueness of humans. It’s not incidental.)

One outcome is the astoundingly ignorant legacy media coverage of “religion” stories. Since the mid-Nineties, I’ve yawned with peers through lots of meetings on the subject but don’t consider the problem resolvable until there is more diversity of ideas and cultural background in the newsroom. But now, on Darwinism in particular, media pros can understand private non-rational dissent (“I just don’t believe it in my wee little heart”), but not public, evidence-based dissent (“In my professional opinion it did not happen that way”).

Actually, it doesn’t even matter to the media materialist whether Darwinism is true. What Darwinism UPHOLDS is seen as true. That is, of course, promissory materialism – the belief that even if the evidence is weak now, we will find strong evidence one day because materialism is true. Lying about or suppressing contrary evidence or persecuting dissenters isn’t a serious problem because materialism is true, and anyone who doesn’t believe it is mad, bad, sad, or stupid.

Two complexities:

– legacy mainstream media are declining steadily in social importance. Declining organizations interpret the march of events as malice aforethought.

Thus, the ID folk can’t just be mistaken; they must be a conspiracy. The same sources never assume that the activists they support (e.g. on global warming) might be a conspiracy. Yet the odds are the same.

– most American Christians/theists/karmics/perennial philosophy types have unintentionally but fully accommodated to materialism. The Christians isolate a little tiny bit of reality called “the Word of God,” or “Scripture,” and announced that it and it alone is divinely inspired … Of course, if there is anything to ID, all of nature must be top down, as George Gilder proposes, not bottom up. In other words, either mind is at the top or matter is. Or, as physicist James Jeans put it, the universe is either a great thought or a great machine (he plumped for the former). So, to accommodate top down thinking, many people who are not hostile to ID must reorient to the whole of reality.

(All this is separate, of course, from the evidence problems of Darwinism. A different materialist theory in biology might be correct. It just won’t be Darwinism.)

Here’s what I told my friend: “If you divert a spring at its source, you change the landscape. Trying to divert it when it is a raging river could get you drowned. Right now, in Kansas, you face a raging river [of materialism]. Also, you are taking on the system right at its heart, the public school system. You might have better luck chipping away at the edges.”

Materialists need the public school system desperately because:

1. Kids are compelled to go there

2. It is paid for by everyone, not just by them.

3. Theirs is the only legal religion there.

And

4. Materialists’ birth rates tend historically to be low , so they ain’t growing them at home.

 

 

18 Replies to “Liberalism as social policy arm of materialism – or even Kansas isn’t in Kansas any more

  1. 1
    BK says:

    What’s with the inconsistent formatting between posts?

  2. 2
    antg says:

    Denyse,

    While you make some fair points in your post, I find all this talk of ‘liberal bias’ extremely simplistic and as a detached observer from the other side of the big pond, quite alienating. While you have the right to post whatever you wish on this blog, I just don’t think articles like these are becoming for this blog. Leave that to Ann Coulter please. The concept of ID is a big idea, far bigger than American partisan politics and I suspect there are others like me from the US or around the world who are interested in ID but not the politics surrounding it. Yes, there is a political facet to the ID controvesy but this doesn’t help! Is the red/blue issue so pervasive in America than we always have to reduce it to this?

    I think if ID is ever to be accepted, this advice given to Paul Nelson should be heeded:

    http://www.idthefuture.com/200......html#more

    Nevertheless, I still think it is a great blog (I read it daily)so thanks to you, Bill and all involved.

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    Hi Antg,

    Actually. liberal media bias (LMB) is a fact of life here, and probably in the UK as well.

    I regard LMB as critical to any discussion of Darwinism in public because a reflexive defense of Darwinism motivates the vast majority of journalists who approach the subject. LMB enables highly accurate predictions as to their behaviour.

    For the record, I am a Canadian and not particularly conservative. I am the “centrist” on the media-driven panel TV program Behind the Story. I am anti-capital punishment, for example, pro gun control, and no fan of “lock ’em up and throw away the key.”

    However, after spending years analyzing popular media coverage of issues related to either Darwinism or ID, I have concluded that it is not possible to meaningfully interpret many of the episodes without factoring in the biases I have cited above.

  4. 4
    russ says:

    “Actually. liberal media bias (LMB) is a fact of life here, and probably in the UK as well.” – Denyse

    Denyse, I agree with this, and I wonder if it isn’t more difficult for Europeans to see bias since they lack the level of alternative media that we here in the U.S. enjoy: Fox Cable TV News, thousands of conservative/libertarian talk radio outlets, etc.

    Of course a liberal media/academic/government bias is bad not only for conservatives, but also for liberals, because it allows bad ideas and arguments to go unchallenged and therefore unimproved. Two perspectives are almost always better than one perspective when one wants to come up with solutions to problems.

  5. 5
    timcol says:

    You make it sound as if ‘materialism’ is a distinct school of philosophy that people deliberate choose to ascribe to. I have many liberal friends, and I don’t think I know any of them who would willingly describe themselves as ‘materialists’ — and if they do, I think it would be rather reluctantingly. I myself am an ex-Christian, and at least 3-4 days a week I would call myself an atheist. I didn’t get to be here by choice, but by necessity – of examining the evidence for different faiths and drawing the conclusion that there really isn’t any evidence for the existence of gods (although plenty of evidence that psychologically we can manufacture them in our heads!). And as an atheist I live a very fulfilled and happy life and have long seen come to grips that “this is all there is”. But that doesn’t stop me wondering and exploring new ideas — hence my interest in ID. After all if the evidence warranted it, I could consider being a Deist (sorry, but my experiences with Christianty were far too distasteful to contemplate THAT route again!).

    So before you just paint all “materialists” as part of some evil faction or conspiracy, remember we’re just ordinary people trying to figure what this Universe is around us and how it got to be there – just like yourselves.

  6. 6
    idadvisors says:

    Hi antg, materialism is the foundation naturalism stands on. Yet scientific materialism is not interested in the supernatural(paraphrased Johnson), the supersensible, the immaterial. How do those in university Psycholinguistic departments percieve informations immaterial nature? Are there scientific materialists studying information theory in these departments?

    “Information is information, not matter or energy, any materialism which denies this will not survive past one day.” Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician.

  7. 7
    Tom English says:

    Denyse,

    “That is, of course, promissory materialism – the belief that even if the evidence is weak now, we will find strong evidence one day because materialism is true.”

    Scientists qua scientists do not seek to establish that materialism is true. To the contrary, they operate under an explicit ASSUMPTION of materialism. Most scientists do not personally believe in materialism. Last year a survey indicated that about six in ten biology professors believe in God.

    Science is a workhorse, and methodological materialism (naturalism) is the blinders. The blinders keep subjects like astrology from distracting the horse from its work. They also give the horse a limited worldview. In essence, the ID movement claims it will make a warhorse of the workhorse by taking off the blinders. Most scientists find that a highly dubious proposition.

    I cringe every time I see the tentative, operational truths of science conflated with Absolute Truth. The fact that we can say that a scientific explanation is true and the word of God is true does not mean that the two are true in the same sense. Science is not in the business of discovering Absolute Truth.

    “most American Christians/theists/karmics/perennial philosophy types have unintentionally but fully accommodated to materialism.”

    This is true and tragic. In the case of Christians, the fault lies not with scientists or secular culture in general, but with spiritual leaders. It was the responsibility of those leaders to realize that scientism was polluting the stream of faith. But they instead mistook technological magic tricks as Miracles of Modern Science. In their naive “One Way” syncretism they made truth into Truth, and haplessly participated in scientizing religion. Put more simply, spiritual leaders did not teach about the “blinders” of science, but instead advocated the notion that Good Science discovers the Truth God has revealed in nature, and bad science does not.

    “In other words, either mind is at the top or matter is.”

    False dichotomy. It excludes dualist and monist dialectics in which neither mind nor matter is “on top.” Christians who say that Darwinists cannot be Christians would do well to apprise themselves of dialectics.

  8. 8
    mynym says:

    Scientists qua scientists do not seek to establish that materialism is true.

    If you define science as explanations that fit what you define as “material” or “natural” then you have contructed a tool which will constantly act to build up a philosophy of and faith in materialism, whatever materialism may happen to be said to be. I.e., it could be said to include the mystical notion of an infinite number of universes and still comport with “materialism” if people simply assumed it so.

    To the contrary, they operate under an explicit ASSUMPTION of materialism.

    The interesting thing about constructing and defining by ASSUMPTION a method that can only verify and build up materialism is that any scientists are convinced of a philosophy of materialism by their own assumptions and odd definitions, for at least a few are thorough going materialists followed by many who seem to be impacted in some way by the same. I.e. many actually seem surprised that when a group of people begins by defining the only allowable explanation in science to fit with naturalism, that all evidence found is counted as evidence for naturalism. Surprise!

    Yet supposedly the fact that humans only see what they define themselves to be seeing has something to do with God or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, etc.

    Most scientists do not personally believe in materialism. Last year a survey indicated that about six in ten biology professors believe in God. Science is a workhorse, and methodological materialism (naturalism) is the blinders.

    If the ever elusive and mysterious Herd of “most scientists” don’t believe or sympathize with the blindness typical to materialism then one would think that more would criticize those who argue in favor of a Blind Watchmaker based on little more than their own blind assumptions combined with assertions about how what is commonly seen is just an illusion. There are those that do criticize half-witted notions about creatures with eyes that see supposedly being made to watch a Blind Watchmaker through time and the like, yet there is at least a small Herd of biologists and such who seem to attack the critics for their criticism.

    All the while “most scientists” remain elusive, although it seems that most have an urge to merge and run with the Herd.

    The blinders keep subjects like astrology from distracting the horse from its work.

    Oh, the distractions and the time wasted! Not to mention the collapse of civilization and so on…

    Actually, the new Policemen of Knowledge use such claims as an excuse to avoid challenges to a scientific establishment that has come to be based on some sort of pseudo-Newtonian worldview that Newton would never agree with. In that view of the world it is all so simple, supposedly, we have our old “superstition” and/or belief in “magic” over here with things like religion while all of science and progress is over here combined with the grand Darwinian creation myth that conveniently explains all progress through time. So issues of astrology cannot be explored as issues of knowledge that can be known by more than the charlatans typical to the occult and astrology, not because it is utterly impossible to scientifically study the issue of planets having subtle forms of impact on organisms but because charlatans who believe in a pseudo-Newtonian worldview will not allow some issues to enter science based on their professional identities and so on. For again, it’s all so simple, we have the crackpots over here and everything they say must be kooky while the scientists are over here and they are rational when they’re not too busy being more “natural” than everyone else. So it would seem that anyone interested in whether or not the planets or celestial bodies may be effecting our lives in ways that are any more subtle than some sort of extinction event such as: “Here it comes, we’re dead now.” will be met with charlatanism on all sides and very little systematic or studied knowledge about the issue. It’s odd, because that’s despite the fact that the mystic Newton from which half-wits have derived a sort of blind worldview came up with the craaazy idea that the planets are united by an invisible force called gravity, etc.

    They also give the horse a limited worldview.

    Actually, you would kill the horse as well as all Life given your blindness. And yet you blame those who keep beating your dead horse! At least now we know though, scientists are not interested in what is true because they are only interested in “explanations” that are material in nature.

    In essence, the ID movement claims it will make a warhorse of the workhorse by taking off the blinders. Most scientists find that a highly dubious proposition.

    There’s the ever elusive Herd of “most scientists” running around again. See them run, then slow, then turn and run from the stink of their own excrement. It’s a curious thing how “most scientists” used to be eugenicists, yet most scientists these days cannot seem to smell the highly dubious propositions of the past. In some cases that is probably because the past would undermine the assumptions that they are intent on making now, e.g. paleoanthropology and phrenology.

    The fact that we can say that a scientific explanation is true and the word of God is true does not mean that the two are true in the same sense. Science is not in the business of discovering Absolute Truth.

    Nor according to you is it in the business of discovering any type of truth at all because you have turned it into a tool that acts as a verification mechanism for a philosophy of materialism. The odd thing is that half-wits are typically overwhelmed by the imagined verification of their own assumptions. They seem to suffer from the delusion that you can verify your own assumptions with evidence derived from your own imagination about past events. For instance, when they’re feeling sure of themselves or they need to impress an audience with a bit of charlatanism Darwinists have often equated Darwinian theory with the theory of gravity, yet if you ask where the theory of natural selection has been stated in the essential language of mathematics and then verified in the trajectory of adaptations that a group of organisms takes, they cannot seem to cite a single instance. Is it just like the theory of gravity or isn’t it? It is apposite that those who believe in a pseudo-Newtonian worldview also engage in pseudo-Newtonian reasoning. It’s as if biologists believe that physicists also sit around after an object comes to rest, imagine a little story about past events that may “possibly” or conceivably explain how it got there* and then comment on how overwhelmed they feeel by the mountains of evidence for and verification of the theory of gravity in such a way. After, before, etc., time seems to be an essential problem for some fellows.

    *Even as mathematicians tell them that in all probability what they are saying is impossible and just about inconceivable mathematically, supposedly physicists would imagine things against mathematics.

    “In other words, either mind is at the top or matter is.”

    False dichotomy. It excludes dualist and monist dialectics in which neither mind nor matter is “on top.”

    Be careful of spiritual monism and the half-witted illusion of a dialectic, as the urge to merge that it masks is proto-Nazi in form. In modern times that form of “biological thinking” has been expressed as the feeling that mind doesn’t matter and cannot put matter in motion. Mind is part of the crux of the matter. For that matter, it is probably the fact of the matter, as a matter of fact.

    But since you probably cannot understand that and may be good at imagining things perhaps you can imagine one of Nazi doctors inspecting their wards at a concentration camp when it was selection time feeling to themselves that they were not making a selection at all, as instead they were merely living by natural selection, all scientific like. For it would seem that in modern times spiritual monism has become quite scientific. That’s probably why some say that science says this or that, science accepts this or that, or that science whispered in their ear the other day and so on. Of course science didn’t do anything, they did. But it is typical for spiritual monists to conflate intelligent selection with notions about “natural selections” while claiming a passive position in which they select and do nothing. The pattern shows up in their discussions on textbooks, as ID types are said to be “inserting” and “imposing” and so on while the poor effete fellows sit there passively, doing nothing.

    Christians who say that Darwinists cannot be Christians would do well to apprise themselves of dialectics.

    I say that the Darwinian mind cannot be the Christian mind because the negative theology typical to it throughout history serves as evidence that it is the mind of a Christian apostate. And there is evidence of that to this day, so I would say based on evidence derived from the texts typical to the Darwinian mind that it still isn’t the Christian mind.

    Perhaps you can apprise me of some miraculous dialectic by which the Darwinian mind can actually work on its own terms instead of relying on pollutions of language combined with Victorian era theology in a negative form. If the Darwinian mind cannot work on its own terms then there is little point in trying to compare it anything.

  9. 9
    apollo230 says:

    Hello, Denyse!

    I have a keen suspicion that that most of us (even theists) are de-facto materialists until they actually encounter genuine spiritual reality on a regular basis. I am referring about naked contact with spirit, not emotional or mental embraces of it. I propose that “pre-encounter” theists and “post-encounter” theists would be so far apart (in relative terms) on a scale of belief that a pre-encounter theist would amount to a materialist by comparison. The awakening would be so remarkable, in theory, that the difference could be likened to sleeping and waking. A good analogy would be one’s acquaintance with romantic love before, and after, one’s first kiss. One may profess belief in it’s beauty before-hand, but after that first pucker, holy smoke! In fact, as long as we have not experienced spirit, we may not believe in it whatsoever until we are “post-encounter”. That would make us de-facto materialists no matter what our profession of faith is.

    Therefore, by extension, I suspect that direct experience (direct contact) alone arbitrates what we genuinely know about things. Intellectual knowledge is a poor substitute for first-hand empirical proof of something.

    Best regards,
    apollo230

  10. 10
    tinabrewer says:

    Tom English: What you say, although incorrect on many points, might be better received if the world in which we actually lived were not almost completely in thrall to, and under the active control of, materialistic policies which derive their spurious legitimacy from the claims of science. Far from being the “fault” of so-called spiritual leaders, this conditions is a natural development from out of the de-facto materialism of the masses. People worship what they can see evidence of. When the spiritual eye ceases to function, the material eye, better served by science than by God, becomes its substitute.

  11. 11
    mynym says:

    I have a keen suspicion that that most of us (even theists) are de-facto materialists until they actually encounter genuine spiritual reality on a regular basis.

    As one organization that sets itself up as capable of defining science argued, creationists must believe in naturalism every time they walk out the door, etc. There are some positions that amount to a contradiction in terms. I.e., if you demand that some people of light or their like transfigure to manifest physically then are they spiritual or material? I suppose that for all their figuring into the existence of material beings they would be material by definition but then if they transfigured they may as well be Flying Spaghetti Monsters and so on. If go by what seems to be your reasoning then I am a materialist because supposedly by your definitions all I can experience is matter. How amusing…but how about a little story.

    Once upon a time on a far distant planet there were some alien biologists. On their planet there were writings and legends about an ancient civilization of powerful beings who had come down from the sky and created life there. It was because that’s what happened. But as happens with many stories, some groups of aliens began to change and rewrite the story because of the political importance that origins has in any type of civilization. If they knew or admitted to how the powerful beings had made them, then they might have to try to live by and seek the truths that transcended their own desires and so on. So in a short time there came to be a wide variety of stories about their origins depending on what a group of creatures wanted to do and what their own preferences were. Some had a god of gold and riches because that is what they liked while others had a god of sex or fertility because that is what they desired. Given time there came to be a very wide proliferation of various types of gods and godesses. Generally they were confined to each tribe as they fell into their own tribal preferences and culture. Once tribes began interacting the creatures eventually realized that there was a wide proliferation of gods and as tribalism was receding their civilization advanced so they associated the undermining of tribal beliefs with progress. Because of such things more came to the point of believing that there were not any beings who created them in the first place, not really, although some said they had a sort of faith based on no facts and assorted nonsense. By that point most did not believe that there was any higher type of being than their own type of being. How could there be, since there had been so many different stories about gods of all sorts and people could say pretty much anything? They figured that because there were so many different stories that none were true. So they began to make some new stories based on the planet itself and the capacity for self-replication that they and other creatures had been made with by the beings who created them. Then there came to be biologists in the alien culture that fit such stories into their studies and their studies to their stories.

    But as they studied life the evidence began to go against their stories, as they were not true. Yet by this point there were so many alien biologists who believed that all the stories of creative beings were superstition that they made up some little rules about the way they studied. So at any mention of the creative beings they would cry, “That’s not alien biology!” “Horrible things have been done based on legend and in the name of the gods!” “Despite the way the evidence seems we only allow one type of explanation, our own! Besides, I can imagine a little history for it.” And so on.

    In the course of alien history there came to be a nation in which the stories of the biologists there were taken to be truly true. It began to fall apart as a civilization because any sense of its true origins and language was undermined. There was one group of aliens who all seemed to know had a special relationship with the creative beings of light from the sky. The degenerate nation tried to kill them all and one way or another the same thing continued for a time but when all hope that the gift of civilization and language would actually civilize the retarded aliens seemed lost, the beings once again came down from the sky to set things right. Some biologists were among those looking up at the sky as some type of huge being of light came down to their planet and to maintain their scientific mindset they tried to think that it seemed to be bending their very perception of it and so perhaps it was an hallucination but that dissolved quickly to a simple feeling, “Uh oh!” Few recalled that every time the beings of light had interacted with the aliens they began by saying, “Fear not…”

    There was one instance of an addition to that in a historical account that some believed to be holy scriptures, “…and try not to pee yourself while you’re at it. But you can fear a little because I know that you’d be one breath away from blaming me for the design of your excretory system if you weren’t to scared to talk right now. It’s a good excretory system for something that can run on vegetation and water, I’d like to see you mental retards improve it!”

    Intellectual knowledge is a poor substitute for first-hand empirical proof of something.

    Maybe you can’t handle first-hand empirical proof and besides, intellectual knowledge is more handy than you seem to think.

  12. 12
    olegt says:

    mynym,

    Sounds like you insist on expanding the scientific method to include the supernatural. In my view, this is not how science has operated for the last few hundred years, its most successful period. Perhaps, I am mistaken and you can point out a few examples of successful scientific theories where the supernatural is an essential ingredient. If you don’t provide such examples, I cannot see why you should argue so strongly for modifying the scientific method. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

  13. 13
    mynym says:

    Sounds like you insist on expanding the scientific method to include the supernatural.

    Actually, in that story (which I took artistic liberty with) it would be easy to argue that every intervention of intelligent beings from another one of the infinite universes that scientists supposed to exist was perfectly natural even if they did have the technology to seemingly break the laws of Nature as they were known to the lesser beings. Intelligent beings would be perfectly natural in whatever universe that they existed in, after all, and scientists say that universes giving birth to each other and this sort of thing are natural too. So in all these things I have only included what is natural, naturally enough.

    In my view, this is not how science has operated for the last few hundred years, its most successful period.

    You’ve shifted away in your reasoning from science as a search for true scientia/knowledge to a search for knowledge that is useful or progressive. (Or perhaps better yet, useful only for progressives and their type of political philosophy.) It’s ironic that often those who make the shift that you make have little to do with actual progress while those who engage in the search of the truth often have much to do with progress. For oddly enough what we tend to view as technological progress tends to rely more on invention, creation, ingenuity and intelligent design transcending “natural” patterns to things much more than it does on the way of blindly feeling one’s way along recommended by those with the urge to merge. Some seem to believe that technology and progress are associated with a blind sort of feeling that emerges naturally from a Blind Watchmaker simply because some have blurred and merged some notion of “progress” into the imagery and icons typical to the Darwinian creation myth. In fact, the very way we define progress relies on the half of wit that is being denied by such half-wits and ironically the creativity, invention and intelligent design by which technological progress comes about also has little to do with their form of conflating different aspects of time combined with imagining things about the past.

    Examples and contrasts are many, take Maxwell, one who specified some information in the language of mathematics that is currently made use of in the technology that makes every single cell phone work. So according to logic that shifts from what is true to the supposed truth of usefulness every scientist should have to adhere to a young earth creationist position when doing science just like Maxwell because that will bring about “progress.” If the supposed machine isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Ironically, you shift away from what is true to what is useful in a way that Maxwell himself would not, while all the while his form of knowledge results in much more progress. If the Darwinian creation myth is useful or scientific then should we believe it even if it is not true?

    Interesting to note that a minimal amount of historical knowledge demonstrates that scientists and science have not operated the way that you say they do, e.g.:

    Nicolaus Copernicus, Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System:

    “How exceedingly vast is the godlike work of the Best and Greatest Artist!”

    “The Universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

    Johannes Kepler, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion:

    “Praise and glorify with me the wisdom and greatness of the Creator, which I have revealed in a deeper explication of the form of the universe, in an investigation of the causes, and in my detection of the deceptiveness of sight.”

    “God who is the most admirable in his works…deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

    Galileo Galilei, Laws of Dynamics, astronomicalconfirmation of the heliocentric system:

    “The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

    Isaac Newton, Optics, Laws of Motion, Gravitation, Newton’s theological writings, running into a million words, far exceeded his scientific output. Below is an excerpt from his classic work,the Principia Mathematica:

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. 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’… or ‘Universal Ruler.’… And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful Being… he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He endures forever, and is everywhere present…”

    James Clerk Maxwell, Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations:

    “One of the severest tests of a scientific mind is to discern the limits of the legitimate application of the scientific method.”

    “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that becausematter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

    “I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.”

    Lord William Kelvin, Laws of Thermodynamics,absolute temperature scale:

    “I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

    Max Planck, father of Quantum Physics:

    “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

    “Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition… [therefore] ‘On to God!”

    J.J. Thompson, discoverer of the electron:

    “In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

    Arthur Compton, quantum physicist, Compton Effect:

    “For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—’In the beginning God.’”

    Paul A.M. Dirac, quantum physicist:

    “God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

    (The Wonder of the World
    by Roy Abraham Varghese :103-106)

    Perhaps, I am mistaken and you can point out a few examples of successful scientific theories where the supernatural is an essential ingredient.

    They are not successful theories but both notions of infinite numbers of universes as well as notions of the infinite combined with Darwinism include the “supernatural.” E.g.

    Life itself involves a conflict between two antagonistic phenomena: Self-replication can produce, in theory, an infinite number of products; yet, in reality, the world that supplies the materials for replication is finite. Life, then, is a tension between the infinite and the finite. It is inevitable that the finite prevails.

    (Science as a Way of Knowing:
    The Foundations of Modern Biology
    By John A. Moore :1)

    Infinite in theory?

    Once again it would seem that in theory Darwinism works but in fact it does not.

    If you don’t provide such examples, I cannot see why you should argue so strongly for modifying the scientific method. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

    An inference of design doesn’t necessitate the “supernatural,” so when it comes to ID specifically as it has been formulated time and again as a method that needs to be formulated for objective design detection your argument about the supposed modification of the supposed scientific method (Is there just one?) based on the supernatural vs. the natural is irrelevant. Yet for the sake of inspiring fear in the hearts of fear-mongering religious bigots of Dawkin’s ilk I would say that many people will go on from scientific inferences of design to make religious statements about how they feel that science comports with or has converged on knowledge that can be known by their faith tradition. Horrors, I know…the end of the world is expected to proceed shortly even if people have been religious from time immemorial. Most likely such fear-mongering comes about a convergence between different forms of knowledge is a horrible state of affairs if you are a religious bigot that wants to forge the same old socialist associations between science and the state and so on. Eugenicists who sought such associations, political power, State grants for their research and so on engaged in fear-mongering against any who opposed them as well. For people of this sort that abuse science and seek to define it as a method of “progress” by the power of the State I note that ID is probably a threat that should spook you, the Herd. Well go on, fear it! Feel that fear…and perhaps while you feel it you might like to pretend that civilization is about to collapse if you can’t do everything that you think is right in the name of science.

  14. 14
    olegt says:

    mynym,

    So you cannot name a single successful scientific theory where the supernatural is an important part. At least on that we agree.

    Now, it is naive to characterize “science as a search for true scientia/knowledge.“ Again, correct me if I’m wrong, BUT there is not a single scientific theory that we know to be absolutely true. None! Take Newton’s theory of gravity. We know that it fails when gravity becomes strong enough. We are fortunate to have a theory that sueprseeds it, Einstein’s theory of general relativity. But we don’t know whether Einstein’s theory is absolutely true, either. (Most likely not since it neglects quantum physics.) Doesn’t that bother you? Clearly both classical gravity and general relativity are very successful scientific theories backed up by solid experimental evidence. That’s why we consider them successful and not because we know them to be absolutely true.

  15. 15
    mynym says:

    So you cannot name a single successful scientific theory where the supernatural is an important part. At least on that we agree.

    No we don’t, I already pointed out that forms of mysticism based on infinite possibilities or infinite amounts of time are typical to both Darwinism and cosmological hypotheses that supposedly support philosophic naturalism. How it is that imagining an infinite number of Natures overcomes the problems faced by philosophic naturalism in this universe is not exactly clear, all that is clear is that people are essentially including things that are “relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.” Things that are not just beyond it in the tradition sense such as the Mind of God governining it or observing but well beyond it, truly far out.

    Your term “supernaturalism” is a strawman anyway if it is taken beyond the definition of “an order of existence beyond the visible universe” to mean a specific or sectarian God or gods or devils because ID types only claim that it is possible to use methods of science to detect design scientifically. And that is such a trivial claim that it makes those with the urge to merge jump throw hoops of sophistry and philosophic games to avoid it.

    Now, it is naive to characterize “science as a search for true scientia/knowledge.“

    Now, now, it is naive for you to think that people do not always think that what they think is true, as of course we do. Scientists are people and they think that what they think is true just like anyone else. If you try and disagree with me about that then you’ll only be engaging in thinking that what you are thinking is true knowledge, yet again.

    Science is a search for true knowledge…or do you think it a search for false knowledge? Because if you are a Darwinist then your view of science as a search for false knowledge has succeeded fairly well for you.

    Again, correct me if I’m wrong, BUT there is not a single scientific theory that we know to be absolutely true.

    We consider all science to be on the path to truth.

    None! Take Newton’s theory of gravity.

    Let’s not…after all, biologists have not had much of a Newton capable of using the language of mathematics to predict a trajectory of adaptation in a group of organisms before it happens and so content themselves with imagining things. And they probably never will have a Newton because they tend to reject the philosophy that Newton adhered to and so instead begin imagining things about the past while imagining that their own imaginations can act as verification of or evidence for hypothetical goo. But it cannot, that is to say:

    The viewpoint of Coyne et al. (1988) is one in which past events are argued to explain, in a causal sense, the world around us. Such explanations cannot be verified or tested, and the only biological observations they require are that variation and differential reproduction occur. This is not a caricature, as a reading of Coyne et al. will verify. In keeping with this general viewpoint, proponents claim that species are explained with reference to history. Important characters are hence “mechanisms” that have established and maintained the separation between diverged lineages of an ancestral population. According to Coyne et al., even the adaptive purpose of the changes that resulted in these mechanisms is irrelevant.
    We would ask where biology enters into this schema. The answer is that it does not. Rather, biology is interpreted in terms of a range of historical processes, including selection of variation over time. This could, with equal relevance, be used to understand any nonbiological phenomenon such as the development of the automobile, agricultural methods, culture, or men’s suits (Lewontin, 1976).

    (Points of View
    Species and Neo-Darwinism
    By C. S. White; B. Michaux; D. M. Lambert
    Systematic Zoology, Vol. 39, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), :400-401) (Emphasis added)

    The odd thing is that biologists have tried to maintain a pseudo-Newtonian worldview that is devoid of sentience and feel a need to keep trying to assume that is so in order to be “scientific”.* So their work is devoid of basic features of the living Life/Bios that they study such as its selections and actions even as they claim to explain all Life by “natural selection,” as if the inanimate selects the animate.

    *I.e., it seems that they feel that they must act like their level of knowledge is “just like” a science that is ahead of their own in the search for true knowledge. Perhaps that is why arguments of association such as, “It’s just like gravity or somethin’.” or “The earth revolves around the sun…and uh, I can imagine that my hypothetical goo is like that or somethin’.” are common.

  16. 16
    Tom English says:

    Tina,

    “What you say, although incorrect on many points, might be better received if the world in which we actually lived were not almost completely in thrall to, and under the active control of, materialistic policies which derive their spurious legitimacy from the claims of science.”

    People adopt policies and people argue their legitimacy. People sometimes attempt to support policies with spurious inferences from scientific findings. While one may argue that the scientific community is ethically bound to voice opposition to misapplication of scientific results, the community is certainly not bound to change its assumptions and methods to preclude misapplication.

    You might call this the “people commit crimes, not guns” defense of methodological materialism.

    “Far from being the ‘fault’ of so-called spiritual leaders, this conditions is a natural development from out of the de-facto materialism of the masses.”

    When I Google for “ordination leadership christian -co-ordination,” I get 5,920,000 hits. I can argue at least that the semantic association of “ordination,” “leadership,” and “Christian” is very strong. I believe that most members of the clergy suffer extreme cognitive dissonance. They have mix-and-match belief systems that include both supernaturalism and naturalism. I think the same holds true of the Christian masses.

    “People worship what they can see evidence of.”

    Woe to them.

    “When the spiritual eye ceases to function, the material eye, better served by science than by God, becomes its substitute.”

    I recommend keeping both eyes open. One can learn to use both simulaneously. Perhaps you have heard of people who have problems with both near- and far-vision, and who get different prescriptions for the two eyes. At first they see very poorly, because the brain attempts to merge the incompatible streams of visual information. But the brain eventually adapts to process the two streams in parallel, without merging them. And then they see two ways at once, clearly.

  17. 17
    Tom English says:

    Oops. That’s the “guns don’t kill people, people do” defense.

  18. 18
    tinabrewer says:

    Tom English: While I certainly agree that scientists are not responsible for non-scientists misrepresenting science, I totally disagree that it is mainly non-scientists doing the misrepresenting.

    Also, I guess we can agree to disagree that seeing nature and supernature requires seeing things in fundamentally different ways at the same time. My own view is that nature is supernature in a coarser, denser form. “As above, so below” or whatever. Therefore, when I look into nature, I hope to see hints of what lies above, and generally I do.

Leave a Reply