Science and Miracles

_{Barry Arrington

October 17, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

“Disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray

My “Mirror” post has generated quite a few comments concerning “miracles” and the relevance of “miracles” to ID. Further thoughts are in order.

First, let us define terms. My dictionary defines “miracle” as “an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.”

Second, ID does not posit miracles. In this post I established the following contest: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” The prize has gone unclaimed. It should be clear by now that ID is a theory about the detection of patterns that point to design. ID is agnostic about the nature of the designer.

Conclusion: However one comes out on the question of whether science may take account of miracles, the question is a sideshow vis-à-vis ID, because ID does not posit that a miracle is necessary to create one of the “patterns that point to design” that are described by the theory.

Third, plainly scientists may take account of miracles. If Jesus were to appear today and divide a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands and a scientist were to observe that event, the scientist would not be bound by naturalistic explanations. He would be perfectly entitled to conclude the event constituted a miracle.

Would such an explanation be a scientific explanation? Well, in one sense it does not matter whether we append “scientific” to the explanation, because whatever category we place the explanation in, it remains the fact that it is the best explanation for the data. I would suggest, however, that it is perfectly valid to call the explanation a “scientific” explanation. Science is the process of forming hypotheses and testing them. Here the investigator has a null hypothesis that it is not possible to divide a few loaves and fishes such that they can feed several thousand people with several baskets of leftovers. He compares the data with the hypothesis and finds the hypothesis falsified. At this point the scientist can either throw up his hands or posit an alternative hypothesis: The laws of nature have been suspended, i.e., a miracle has occurred. He can then compare the data to his alternative hypothesis and find that it has been confirmed.

Some read my comments in the “Mirror” thread and concluded that I believe science cannot take account of miracles. I never said this. In fact, I said exactly the opposite when I wrote the following in response to one of Mr. Murray’s comments: “Certainly a scientist can “take account” of a miracle in the sense of saying “this is beyond the ken of known natural causes” with respect to any given event. A scientific theory cannot, however, be predicated on the occurrence of miracles, because they are, by definition, unpredictable. That was all I was saying. It is illustrated nicely by the following: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php “

Comments

I think you are missing my point :) I am quite unable to "evaluate the laws of physics". I am not a physicist. But I am prepared to accept if laws that they propose make reliable predictions about future observations, then they are valid. And it turns out that the way we parse the world from the point of view of smallish short-lived creatures on a large planet turns out to be quite inadequate to the task of describing the astronomically large and the infinitessimally tiny, and that even time itself, the dimension along which we measure our lives, is just one of several, perhaps many, dimensions in which the universe exists. Even more weirdly, solid stuff turns out to be mostly "empty" space, and even the parts that aren't empty are only "full" statistically, not absolutely, leaving open the possibility of other parallel realities in which things are slightly, or radically different, and thus calling into question the entire basis of our human-sized, earth-bound ontologies. To my mind, therefore, to insist that scientists who raise questions about the nature of causality are simply unlearned in philosophy seems to me to be an invitation to hubris. If I was I betting woman, which I'm not, I'd put my money on the scientists. Elizabeth Liddle

'I know of no evidence for “laws of thought” but considerable evidence for “laws of physics”'
Elizabeth, how do you evaluate the laws of physics? Do you take nothing for granted in evaluating those laws? To say that Jupiter can both exist and not exist at the same time, is to say that it both exerts gravitational influence on the other planets, and that it doesn't. This is nonsensical in an examination of mechanics. material.infantacy

it will always be true that Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time
Really? And does the same apply to Schrodinger's Cat? And what, in any case, does "at the same time" mean? Or are you philosophically opposed to the Theory of Relativity?
Quantum events are unpredictable, but, like all other effects they are not uncaused. Any scientist who makes claims to the contrary is simply untrained in the laws of thought.
Do you rule out the alternative, namely that any philosopher who insists that quantum events must be caused is untrained in the laws of quantum physics? Because I would favour the second possiblity. I know of no evidence for "laws of thought" but considerable evidence for "laws of physics" :) Elizabeth Liddle

Your comment about the 20th and 21st Century indicates that you do not understand the difference between changing and unchanging realities. Both the law of non-contradiction, and its corollary, the law of causation, are timeless. The findings of science are subject to change, but the metaphysical foundations by which we interpret evidence does not change. You can study cosmology and astronomy until the cows come home, but it will always be true that Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time. It will always be true that Jupiter could not have begun to exist without a cause. Quantum events are unpredictable, but, like all other effects they are not uncaused. Any scientist who makes claims to the contrary is simply untrained in the laws of thought. No amount of evidence can change the metaphysical truths that underlie science. Evidence does not inform the rules of right reason; the rules of right reason inform evidence. StephenB

rhampton7, Thank you for your reply. I am aware that there are several competing ontologies of quantum mechanics, but the point is that they provide roughly the same empirical predictions regardless of their ontological backbone. That is, the ruckus is primarily over the philosophy of nature rather than the many fascinating empirical discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries (two-slit interference, photoelectric effect, radioactive tunneling and so on). And just as there are those who call into question the notion of causality (such as the first article you cite), there are also those who seek to maintain it: see Ian J. Thompson's work 'The Philosophy of Nature and Quantum Reality' which examines quantum theory and modern science in the light of an Aristotelian framework (potentialities and so on). Thus I do not agree that those who hold the law of causality as a first principle are "behind the times" or stuck in last few centuries or something. There are clearly attempts at reconciliation. You say: "At this point in time, humanity can not prove nor disprove that radioactive decay has a specific cause, and a metaphysical appeal is not proof." At no point in time will humanity be able to prove (inductively) that radioactive decay does not have a cause. That's the point: it's impossible in principle to empirically determine if there are causeless effects. Causation must be accepted a priori, for the operation of science necessarily presupposes the existence of causal powers. That is, the existence of causal powers must be assumed if we're to provide a systematic account of the inherent dispositions of physical systems (descriptions of static properties are not sufficient). For example, if we happened to perceive some object appearing out of thin air, disappearing, and then reappearing, even under such spectacular circumstances we would still be unable to conclude that such an a thing lacked any causation (as opposed to some pre-existing thing being transported, say). As to the rest of your reply, I honestly (just skimming) am not quite sure I understand you here. I will try to take a more in-depth look later tonight, and also read the 2nd article you linked. School is keeping me busy right now (senior design project and such). HSR HouseStreetRoom

Please see my reply 21.1, as it applies to your comment as well -- and welcome to the 20th (and 21st) Century! rhampton7

HouseStreetRoom, At this point in time, humanity can not prove nor disprove that radioactive decay has a specific cause, and a metaphysical appeal is not proof. Because classical determinism has failed to predict quantum behavior, we must consider that weirdness is not merely a theoretical artifact, but a true description of reality. Hence it may be that A does not cause B although B may immediately follow A (that is, a match may light immediately after being struck, but not because of the individual cause-effect relationship of the match being struck). Instead, "the knowledge of the state in all respects in a particular moment determines the distribution of the state in all later times." In other words, the sum of the universe in one moment, C, is the reason for the sum of the universe in the next moment, E (that is, the lighting of the match is a direct result of the entire system - the universe - in part because quantum entanglement introduces non-locality). Thus radioactive decay may have no other direct, prior cause other than the entire state of the universe. Of course Quantum theory is much deeper with many competing views of causality (see W.M. de Muynck Quantum mechanics the way I see it for a very detailed but agnostic discussion), but as yet none can claim to definitively disprove the others. rhampton7

Hello rhampton7, You commit the same mistake as Hume (in his Treatise) when he attacks causation on the basis that because a person can "conceive" of a thing beginning to exist without a cause, the principle must be suspect or doubtful in some way. However, the problem with this is that conceiving of a thing is not the same as imagining something. We can imagine rubber balls and watermelons popping into existence in some "other" universe, but this is not the same as to conceive; to rationally comprehend it. It is like "conceiving" a square-circle. It cannot be done. We can blurt the words out, but it is nonsense just the same. My guess is that you would have a great deal of trouble even beginning to coherently describe how a thing can begin to exist non-causally, regardless of what universe it takes place in. HouseStreetRoom

Gil, in like fashion, you seem to have an almost preternatural capacity for tapping in on the things that matter most. I think the 80/20 rule applies here: A vital few causes generate most of the results, and personal experiences are part of those select strategies because they move minds and hearts in ways that facts and statistics cannot. That is why I hope that you will continue to share your intellectual rags to riches story. StephenB

Gil, Belief (worldview) precedes examination of the evidence, as an aspect of human nature. Of this I am convinced. It's no wonder that belief is the chosen "mechanism" of spiritual transformation. Grace permits the otherwise impermeable worldview veil to be parted ever slightly, permitting that very necessary ray of light to illuminate the truth -- for those who have asked; or perhaps for whom a request was made in the throne room of God. material.infantacy

StephenB, You have an extraordinary talent for expressing my insights much better than I. I'm not a philosopher or theologian. I'm an engineer who pursues the discipline of figuring out how stuff works, and who devotes his daily efforts to designing stuff that works. It was my engineering background that caused me to realize that Dawninism (and, as an inevitable consequent, a materialistic interpretation of all of reality) is more junk philosophy than legitimate science. The thing that still mystifies me is the fact that so many well-educated people are unwilling (or unable, for whatever reason) to recognize that they have been deceived -- in the name of "science," which they claim to admire and pursue -- into believing stuff that makes no sense. GilDodgen

The evidence says you are confused. Joseph

No, I'm not confused, Joseph. And no, of course I don't get to say what science can and cannot detect. You'll find it any methodology textbook. Elizabeth Liddle

DrREC, Everyone cries ignorance but curiously no one wishes to correct it. Evolution posits a genetic variation which is either selected or otherwise spreads across a population. This is followed by another variation, and another selection. And another, and another, and another. (Or they all happen simultaneously and then conveniently drift together. It depends entirely on who you talk to. So take your pick.) I repeat, and no one has offered to challenge it, that no evolutionary changes are described in these terms. They invariably fall back to vague narratives. A series of variations. Apparently it was selected. Probably the result of drift. A tree that cannot explain selection. A series of fossils that cannot depict distinct, incremental genetic variations. No narrative has been constructed which explains an evolutionary event in detailed evolutionary terms. That some specific combination of these factors can result in some significant evolutionary change has not even been clearly hypothesized let alone tested or demonstrated. Ignorance is believing everything you read, not questioning it. ScottAndrews

Elizabeth, You are confused. ID is about the design, which exists in this physical/ natural world. Also YOU don't get to say what science can and cannot detect. Joseph

If the designer is not natural, then scientific methodology won't be able to detect the designer, because the methods simply don't cover supernatural hypotheses. The best you will have is an explanatory gap. Elizabeth Liddle

What if the designer is not natural? And what about the origin of the universe, ie nature? Ya see science says the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. Yet natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin. Joseph

DrREC,
I’d really like a refutation of that point, and an answer to questions 2 and 3 before someone else rails against methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism presupposes that we understand nature as we understand logic or that 2+2=4, we don't understand it in that way; it is not a logical fallacy that a bird would give live birth instead of laying eggs or that a blue rose would be a logical contradiction. The entirety of our "understanding" of nature is based solely and purely on observations, not on any logical necessity in the character of nature. So, yes, nature is not, by any logical necessity, stuck or frozen into its character as mathematics and a logical deduction are stuck or frozen in their character. It could be changed or guided or directed; since we don't see the logical necessity behind it, we have no assurance that it couldn't have been otherwise, or that these observations haven't been, or couldn't have been, different in the past, present, or future. If a conscious entity could've lived in the singularity before the Big Bang, then yes, the conditions of nature as we find them now, would've been a totally foreign nature, akin to a miracle. it is a confusion to consider observations as real understandings of the character of nature. Mere observation doesn't provide an argument for any necessity, if there is one (which we do not know), behind the character of nature. The supreme irony is that the only things we really do understand, that is, see the reasonableness behind, don't physically exist, like mathematics, morality, and logic. We understand why 2+2=4, or why it's reasonable to send a pick-pocketer to prison. We cannot understand the reasonableness of why any two things are connected as physical events in the same way. The simple test is to ask yourself if it is a logical contradiction for anything in nature to have a different character than it does now; ask yourself if a tree doesn't have leaves if it is a non sequitur, or a rose not having thorns is a logical fallacy. So our "understanding" of nature is a series of observations, strictly, not a logical argument like a modus tollens. Therefore, the unwarranted assumption in methodological naturalism is that our observations are arguments, they aren't. The argument for methodological naturalism literally boils down to "well, we've seen nature behave in regular patterns so often, it must be the only way it could ever be", but this is not an argument, it is only an assumption, an unwarranted assumption, which provides for its only warrant the hunch that nature will continue to behave regularly "just because"....."just because it seems to." But that is not a valid reason. Clive Hayden

The law of causation, which is the basis of the first cause argument, is one of the first principles of right reason. It applies to one universe or to all universes. Like the law of non-contradiction, we don't reason our way TO it, we reason our way FROM it. We don't demonsrate it to be valid, it is the standard by which validity is demonstrated. StephenB

"evolutionary theory which never explains a single incident of evolution in its own terms" This is ignorance of your own making. "or OOL which boils down to, ‘something happened, and it’s possible that something like this or that' Here you have a point. OOL is perhaps the least fleshed out of all biology, as might be expected. But is a gap in human knowledge your only winning point? Sad. "Sorry, you don’t get to ask for details, ever." Pity, my career is based on asking for details at the atomic level. Life at 1.5 angstrom or better. "Science is a method, and it doesn’t work if you try to impose God or miracles on it." Agreed. Is the rest of UD listening? I'd really like a refutation of that point, and an answer to questions 2 and 3 before someone else rails against methodological naturalism. DrREC

StephenB, The first cause argument, unfortunately, can only be demonstrated to be valid within this universe. How causation works outside the universe is unknown; a matter of guesswork. To say that the other realm(s) must operate the same is an a priori assumption. rhampton7

DrREC, I'm pointing out that you are oddly selective about when you expect a hypothesis to be detailed. You don't seem to have a problem with evolutionary theory which never explains a single incident of evolution in its own terms, or OOL which boils down to, 'something happened, and it's possible that something like this or that might be related to whatever did or didn't happen.' Sorry, you don't get to ask for details, ever. These questions? 1) If ID is methodologically naturalist, why rail against methodological naturalism? M.N. does not rule out ID, but somehow it is applied that way anyway. Even though it has no real implications for ID, it does demonstrate a jaw-dropping willingness to fit reality to ideology. It's not the philosophy, it's the mindset that science is the definition of reality rather than a way to explore it. Partner that with a willingness to limit what is or isn't science arbitrarily and it's a recipe for profound self-satisfied ignorance. 2) What discovery has come from a research program that has rejected methodological naturalism? 3) Formulate a hypothesis and experiment in a framework that rejects methodological naturalism. See the above. Science is a method, and it doesn't work if you try to impose God or miracles on it. But realize that reality is under no obligation to exist within the boundaries of what science can examine. Don't mistake the limitations of science for the limitations of reality. Or do. Against such reasoning the gods themselves contend in vain. That's beside the point. Both intelligence and design are within the scope of science. Arguing otherwise has made many learned men look stupid. ScottAndrews

rhampton 7: "Of course, that depends on which philosophical suppositions you accept (see Cosmological Argument) – the most important of which, perhaps, is what is presumed to exist outside this universe." The only thing necessary to show that the first cause is immaterial is to show that a first cause must exist. From there it is just a matter of deducing that, if it exists, it must be unchanging, which means it must be immaterial, which means it must be personal. It is totally independent of, though consistent with, ID's scientific argument for design, which, of course says nothing about the first cause or the nature of the designer. StephenB

Elizabeth, "How is it logical to say that the establishment of a law is contrary to that law?" Very simple; Johnny designs a computer and builds it in his home lab. The computer does everything Johnny has programmed it to do. The computer is limited to the program (laws) that Johnny has determined for the computer. This does not mean however, that Johnny can only do the things that he has designed his computer to do. Johnny is the establishment of the laws (regularity) in his computer. Yet Johnny can be and is contrary to that regularity in his computer. CannuckianYankee

"When exactly did you get on this new kick where a hypothesis requires details?" Did you ever do a science fair project? Btw, what are the answers to my question? And why did you leave "intellegent" out of your scenario? "If you don’t understand why design is inferred in biology but not dark matter and after all this time you haven’t bothered to find out," Gil is arguing for cosmological ID below. DrREC

DrREC, Thank you for making my point for me.
Scott, those aren’t exactly functional hypotheses. Its pretty easy to draw comparisons when you leave out all the details.
This is what I mean when I talk about selective, capricious application of principles. When exactly did you get on this new kick where a hypothesis requires details? You don't seem to mind as long as it's an evolutionary transition without specific genetic variations or selective pressures, or OOL, the biggest "something happened" of science.
Hi, I’ve inferred a cause that I am unable to directly observe. It’s called dark matter. I can’t tell you one thing about it, but I’m sure it has an Intelligent origin.
If you don't understand why design is inferred in biology but not dark matter and after all this time you haven't bothered to find out, then I don't see how it's possible to discuss the subject with you. There are plenty of people who actually understand what they don't agree with. ScottAndrews

Agreed. Biological ID fits easily within a framework of methodological naturalism, which I have demonstrated on a number of occasions. (The $1,000 prize remains unclaimed.) Cosmological ID not so much. I don’t see that as a problem, because it seems to me that in response to the question “why is there something instead of nothing” there are two and only two possibilities: (1) a necessary being brought about the existence of a contingent universe; or (2) the universe is necessary. The first implies the existence of God, which seems to make materialists froth at the mouth. The second is logically incoherent, but materialists seem to be OK with that. Barry Arrington

On the other hand, philosophy, using the principles of deductive reasoning can easily establish the fact that the first cause must be immaterial and personal
Of course, that depends on which philosophical suppositions you accept (see Cosmological Argument) - the most important of which, perhaps, is what is presumed to exist outside this universe. rhampton7

"Design is a function of intelligence. You observe design in nature, therefore, unless proven otherwise" Talk about leading with your conclusion! Perhaps I should say "appearance of design to avoid nauseating word games. Maybe I should just argue that natural selection is the intelligence. But more to the point, how would I ever prove otherwise in a non-methodological naturalist framework? A non-falsifiable inference isn't exactly science. Anyway, we'll go in circles forever, but: 1) If ID is methodologically naturalist, why rail against methodological naturalism? 2) What discovery has come from a research program that has rejected methodological naturalism? 3) Formulate a hypothesis and experiment in a framework that rejects methodological naturalism. DrREC

I think I study design in nature. I do it with methodological naturalism. Design is a function of intelligence. You observe design in nature, therefore, unless proven otherwise, it most likely was caused by intelligence. Some inferences can be made about the kind of intelligence that was involved in the design (although this is outside of what ID attempts to show). If it's possible that a non-natural agent was responsible for the observed design, then science should be open to that possibility. Multiverse speculations are considered (by your "politicians, teachers, etc.") to be scientific. But if what we call "nature" originated at the Big Bang, then this is scientific research into the non-natural. Proponentist

Gil is correct. The laws of the universe, or more precisely, the regularity that they symbolize, cannot be their own cause. Among other things, they are fixed in their nature and do not have the flexibility to perform a creative act. They must do what they do and nothing else. Logic dictates that they must be the direct or indirect effects of a first cause (law/lawgiver). If one should object to the notion that the first cause is "contrary to" these physical laws, then just substitute the words "prior to" or "distinct from." Granted, from an ID scientific perspective, a designer, could, in principle, be material, but that is only because science, given its limitations, cannot speak to the metaphysical realities. Science is powerless to pass judgment on the texture of antecedent causes using inductive logic and, for that reason, cannot rule anything out. On the other hand, philosophy, using the principles of deductive reasoning can easily establish the fact that the first cause must be immaterial and personal, which means that a creative act that issues forth from that first cause would obviously be a miracle by any reasonable definition. StephenB

Scott, those aren't exactly functional hypotheses. Its pretty easy to draw comparisons when you leave out all the details. Know what HUGE detail you left out? Intelligent. I think I study design in nature. I do it with methodological naturalism. I think (and demonstrate at times) that these designs are the result of natural processes. Pretty much what every scientist does. But you left out the INTELLIGENT part. Curious omission. If we superimposed that on the first statement, we'd get: Hi, I’ve inferred a cause that I am unable to directly observe. It’s called dark matter. I can’t tell you one thing about it, but I'm sure it has an Intelligent origin. See the devil in the details? Can you tell what tacking "Intelligent" on gained anyone? "Educated people who can read still think that ID is creationism. Is that accident?" No, I think it is historical. It is fairly undeniable that ID the public knows emerged as a new creationism. This is why politicians, teachers, etc. still refer to "intelligent design creationism." *Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004 "cdesign proponentsists". Etc etc..... DrREC

DrREC, You are missing the point.
The limit isn’t arbitrary, and it is accepted by many people of diverse ideologies.
How is it not arbitrary, if one theory is considered within the limit and another outside of it on purely ideological grounds? The limitation is not the problem. The problem is that it can be applied inappropriately, like pulling someone over in a 55mph zone when they were going 50 because the officer doesn't like the way they look or disagrees with their bumper sticker. The supposed violation of methodological naturalism is cited capriciously. In the guise of protecting science from sorcery it is used to censor ideas that some find personally distasteful and protect others from valid questioning. You're asking, what is the problem with the 55MPH limit if you're driving 45? I'm answering, none, but why did I get pulled over? ScottAndrews

DrREC, I'll tell you exactly what's being limited. Statement: Hi, I've inferred a cause that I am unable to directly observe. It's called dark matter. I can't tell you one thing about it, but it seems logical that we should take a closer look. Response: Of course. Good scientist. Here's your funding. We look forward to your research. Statement: Hi, I've inferred a cause that I am unable to directly observe. It's called design, in the context of biology. I can't tell you one thing about it, but it seems logical that we should take a closer look. Response: That throws a big red flag. Science can't examine what it cannot observe directly. Although your premise doesn't mention anything supernatural or miraculous, we've decided to place it in that category anyway, outside the boundaries of proper science. A dark cloud shall follow you hereafter for attempting to sneak in religion and bring back the dark ages. Educated people who can read still think that ID is creationism. Is that accident? The open-minded pursuit of knowledge, that is what is being limited. No big deal, right? ScottAndrews

"If you’re comfortable with arbitrarily and ideologically limiting scientific inquiry" The limit isn't arbitrary, and it is accepted by many people of diverse ideologies. No one can tell me a SINGLE DISCOVERY, or even a coherent hypothesis and experiment in a framework that explicitly rejects methodological naturalism. So what is it I'm limiting? "you don’t consider it important enough to protect ideas from censorship" I'm the one defending HIV research from censorship in your absurd scenario. DrREC

DrREC, It's not weak at all. If you're comfortable with arbitrarily and ideologically limiting scientific inquiry, then you must accept the consequence that until that fog has lifted, there are certain things we cannot be permitted to know. Then I ask you to look at past scientific discoveries and ask whether you would object to their having been prevented based on the same type of censorship. Your reply is telling. When it's "real" science, like investigating diseases, you would consider that extreme. But the origin of life and of species is a sandbox where research has much less immediate impact. And in this case either you don't consider it important enough to protect ideas from censorship or you're just content that it's your worldview being defended. ScottAndrews

How so? If the designer in ID is natural, as Barry suggests, ID can adhere to methodological naturalism. And no one seems able to come up with a method of doing non-methodologically naturalist science, or a single example of a research program that rejected methodological naturalism and had success. So what is being limited? DrREC

Because it is unnecessarily limiting. Joseph

"ID is perfectly comfortable assuming a natural designer." Is usually the response I get when I start asking what non-methodologically naturalist science is. Fine, but it seems at odds with the rants against methodological naturalism, such as the topics here: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#scivsup 17,18,19 for example If ID is methodologically naturalist, why rail against methodological naturalism? DrREC

Resorting to extreme hypotheticals, in which the problem (HIV denialism) seemingly contradicts the question at hand (methodological naturalism/scientific method/respect of empirical data) is pretty weak. DrREC

DrREC, what does your question have to do with the topics discussed on this site? ID is perfectly comfortable assuming a natural designer. Barry Arrington

DrREC, I'll go out on a limb and say none. A better question is, what outstanding scientific discoveries of the last 50 years would not have been made if the research were arbitrarily decreed to be outside of methodological naturalism? There are nut jobs who claim HIV didn't cause AIDS. What if it caught on and suddenly researching HIV or even mentioning the connection was career suicide? Granted, this isn't a case of life and death. But it is de facto censorship because ideas are filtered through ideology and then both arbitrarily and selectively said to violate principles of science. ScottAndrews

I didn't see an answer to my question, so I'll repeat it: "What outstanding scientific discovery has been made in the last 50 years by a research program that explicitly rejects methodological naturalism?" I'm especially curious as to the non-naturalist hypothesis and methodology. DrREC

Mr. Murray is correct. "Law" is shorthand for forces acting in a lawlike way; "Chance" is shorthand for forces acting randomly. Barry Arrington

The birth of the universe is contrary to the established laws of nature (matter, energy, chemistry, Newton’s laws, etc.) because these laws are not capable of creating a universe.
How is it logical to say that the establishment of a law is contrary to that law? Anyway, never mind! I just don't think that "miracle" is a terribly appropriate word for the creation of the laws of nature if we are going to define it as a violation/suspension of the laws of nature! However where I think you have a good point is in your implication that if the laws of nature themselves are created by a divine creator, that all of nature is miraculous. But then we don't need a specific word. That's why I suggest that the distinction should be between events where God directly acts creatively within the universe and events that are the consequent working out of previous creative acts. In that context, human free will can be seen as a direct creative act of God - the suspension of causality within the human being to create space for free choice - a true miracle. As my favorite theologian used to say (paraphrasing): we are never so free as when we are subject to the direct creative action of God's will. (Herbert McCabe). Sometimes I miss theology :) Elizabeth Liddle

Maybe the laws of nature did exist prior to nature? Maybe nature is a consequence of 'laws'. Really we just have observations, no explanation. butifnot

An explanation, The explanation, must account, must explain everything including the 'cause' as well as the description. We have 'explained' very little. We know no cause of the 'fundamental laws' we have observation and description. If a miracle is contradictory to natural law, is something merely independent of natural law 'supernatural'? Then everything ever made by a person is supernatural. As the materials, the atoms even, lay embedded in the earth, no law or force acting has anything to do with causing them to become arranged into say a music box. Total description of every particle will not allow prediction of their future description. Now if the chemistry going on in a 'neural cascade' happening in a brain is accounted for... butifnot

The birth of the universe is contrary to the established laws of nature (matter, energy, chemistry, Newton's laws, etc.) because these laws are not capable of creating a universe. GilDodgen

Sorry, somehow I got logged in under the wrong name. Meleagar = William J Murray. William J Murray

I think saying that chance and natural law cause things is a shorthand way of saying that chance and natural law (necessity) describe the cause & effect relationships of events. It is the ID position that a third description - intention - is necessary to account not just for the gaps that those descriptions leave, but because, unlike chance and natural law, we regularly experience intention as a causal factor in generating the effects known to be unaccounted for by chance and natural law. It is interesting that the only descriptive commodity that we actually experience directly - intention - is the one that physicalists deny is necessary, or even exists as its own independent category. The other two descriptive categories are arrived at by noting their variance from intention, and from each other. Meleagar

Got it- but if nature could not have produced those laws, what does that mean? Joseph

I mean, "both are reliably predictable and **not** immutable". Meleagar

Gil asks: "This is simple reason and logic. How can this not be obvious?" Here is why I think it is fallacious. Gil's argument can be written thus, I think: P1: a miracle is an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature, P2: the established laws of nature did not exist “before” nature (time included) came into existence C: therefore the origin of the universe [i.e. the origin of nature] is a miracle. OK? But how can an event that occurred "before" there were natural laws be "contrary" to them? To defy the law of gravity there has to a law of gravity to defy! To defy a predictive rule, there has to be a rule whose prediction fails! Thus, unlike, for example, a miraculous levitation, which violates the law of gravity, the creation of the natural laws can violate none at all, because there are none to violate. So the creation of nature, with its laws, cannot be said to be "contrary" to those laws, and thus cannot be said to be miraculous (although it could well be said to be something else, e.g. Divine). But then, presumably, if you believe in God the Creator, all events are Divine in origin. So why single out miracles? Elizabeth Liddle

It doesn't matter if it is circular (you haven't shown it to be). Gil asked "How can this not be obvious?" Joseph

No, it means your grandson’s behavior can be modeled in a statistically significant way, which is what behavioral scientists do every day.
That sounds like another way of saying that my grandson's behavior is predictable. Since neither phenomena guided by natural law or whatever is guiding my grandson's behavior is 100% predictable, but both are reliably predictable or immutable, then by your own claim, they must both be caused by natural law. Which I disagree with; free will, IMO, is a supernatural agency, and it is as predictable as many things which are described by reference to natural law. William J Murray

Because it's circular, Gil :) Elizabeth Liddle

I disagree with Aristotle :) I don't think "Chance" is an "cause" at all. Nor, in fact is "Natural law" if the law in question is considered "fundamental". And a fundamental law is one with no more fundamental "cause" (unless you count God). Elizabeth Liddle

Gil: "How can this not be obvious?" It's the elephant in the room. The beginning, (t=0), as identified by the equations of relativity and evidenced by cosmic microwave background radiation is the singularity event that brought the laws of nature into existence. Therefore the singularity event was outside nature, by definition, a supernatural creation event. It follows that a creation event would logically support a creator, rather than ~creator. junkdnaforlife

I think it does follow, William, but I'd do it this way: Rather than defining the supernatural as simply as events that are "contrary to the laws of nature" I'd first define "the laws of nature" as laws - regularities- that allow us to predict events. That is all they are. They are not "explanations" - a law is not a theory, it's an observed regularity - a heuristic that allows us to predict that "if this, then that". That means that if a "miracle" is predictable, it is no longer contrary to the laws of nature; what we have instead is the discovery of a new law, for example "if you pray for x in manner y, x will occur". We may have no idea why this law exists, but then we have no idea why any of the fundamental laws of nature exist. That's why they are "fundamental"! They are not derived from more fundamental laws. This is why I think why attempting to assign regularities to nature and irregularities to the "supernatural" is ultimately incoherent. If you believe in a creator God, then the distinction should not be between "natural" and "supernatural" but between "lawlike" and "arbitrary". It may well be that when God created the universe God left open a port for tinkering with the program in ways that would defy any attempts by his/her Creation's denizens to predict the universe's behaviour. In which case, as Barry says, those events might fall into a different category as being "contrary to the laws of nature" - but not because they are divine and other events aren't, but because they are events when God intervenes directly. In which case, by definition, they are outside the domain of science to explain, or even predict them. And because science is necessarily always incomplete, we cannot even infer an irregularity from our lack of an existing known law to cover it. We cannot - and must not - rule out the possibility that we have merely come across the workings of a hitherto undiscovered natural law. It is not anti-theistic to do so. Indeed, I'd argue theologically (heh) that it is much better monotheistic theology to ascribe all events to God, and merely distinguish between those that result from the workings out of the laws embedded in God's creation from the beginning, and those (if there are any) that result from some kind of direct bypassing of those laws. Elizabeth Liddle

"At this point the scientist can either throw up his hands or posit an alternative hypothesis: The laws of nature have been suspended, i.e., a miracle has occurred." By that definition, the possible breaking of c as recorded by CERN (assuming there was no error and it stands that the suspension of c can not be reproduced), would be (by the above definition), a miracle. And as we speak, prominent physicists all over the globe are studying (as it stands now) a "suspension of natural law". Science studies what it studies, and the "science does not study miracles" is a materialist strawman. Rather, science does not determine what is considered a miracle. That is a theological/philosophical question to be addressed in a theological context. Science simply studies phenomenon in the universe, it does not assign meaning. Thus, if the breaking of c holds error free and is not reproduced, in a theological context, there would be no basis to consider a miracle occurred. Contrasted with the phenomenon of the Shroud of Turin, whereas in a theological context, there would be grounds to consider a miracle had occurred. However, in all cases, consideration of these events in a scientific context could only lead to a shrug and an astrisk. junkdnaforlife

"If a natural law is simply an observed regularity, then it isn’t immutable; its predictability is just based on an observed pattern of regularity which it may or may not meet. Nothing is 100% predictable" That is exactly correct. It is a point I expanded upon in this post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gravity-in-elfland/ "many things that are ostensibly products of natural law acting on matter can only be described stochastically – within a range of potential outcomes" That is correct too, but it does not change the conclusion. Dr. Liddle is correct in her comment at 7.2 and 7.2.1.2 about probability distributions (I do not endorse her comments about prayer, which I see as fundamentally misguided). "So, if I am able to predict my grandson’s behavior 85% of the time (within a narrow stochastic range), does that mean that my son’s choices must be caused by natural law?" No, it means your grandson's behavior can be modeled in a statistically significant way, which is what behavioral scientists do every day. For example, I can tell you with over 75% confidence whether you will vote Republican or Democrat if I know whether your family says grace at dinner. Barry Arrington

If a miracle is an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature, the origin of the universe is, by definition, a miracle, since the established laws of nature did not exist "before" nature (time included) came into existence. The birth of the universe is therefore a miracle by definition, and on the grandest scale imaginable. This is simple reason and logic. How can this not be obvious? GilDodgen

Indeed, a natural law is simply an observed regularity. Agents act or not as they will. As I have explained, one cannot build a scientific theory which presupposes the immutable actions of agents. You just can’t count on those angels.
If a natural law is simply an observed regularity, then it isn't immutable; its predictability is just based on an observed pattern of regularity which it may or may not meet. Nothing is 100% predictable (quantum uncertainty), and many things that are ostensibly products of natural law acting on matter can only be described stochastically - within a range of potential outcomes. So, if I am able to predict my grandson's behavior 85% of the time (within a narrow stochastic range), does that mean that my son's choices must be caused by natural law? William J Murray

notes: Where's the evidence for Darwinism?
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html
Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance?
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
That doesn't seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch almighty evolution in action???
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Shoot that doesn't seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???
Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html
Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!!
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html
Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!! bornagain77

DrREC, Let's see what does methodological naturalism REALLY mean?? A bunch of materialists decided to get together to define science in such a way that ONLY materialistic answers are allowed no matter what the evidence says, and then say that any answer, no matter how overwhelmingly compelling to a conclusion that does not point to materialism, is not science!! Fortunately the evidence itself shows you to be a liar:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594 “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video
DrREC, How transparently shallow of you guys to do allow only materialistic answers in science, especially when classical materialism, as has been held before the ancient Greeks, has been falsified by Quantum Mechanics, (A. Aspect)!!! I'm sure Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendel, and the rest of the Christian founders of modern science would be very angry at what you atheists have tried to do to the modern science they brought forth!!!
Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153
Skipping over the rest of your shallow rationalizations we come to this in your post DrREC
That humans are not the newest species on the planet is fairly indisputable. Do you really want to debate that?
Well, perhaps you want to debate Dr. Michael Behe's findings: bornagain77

In the case where predictability implies necessity, miracles certainly can't be predictable (as in, calculable, regular, repeatable). They fall into the realm of the contingent. Speculatively, a miracle could be defined as any contingent event for which known causes, including reasonable probabilities, can't be reasonably implicated. material.infantacy

Why yes, that is exactly my claim. Why should this be surprising? Since Aristotle all phenomena have been explained via three and only three causes: mechanical necessity (natural law); chance; and agency. Mechanical necessity is defined by its predictability. Indeed, a natural law is simply an observed regularity. Chance is, by definition, unpredictable (at least with respect to any particular event). Agents act or not as they will. As I have explained, one cannot build a scientific theory which presupposes the immutable actions of agents. You just can't count on those angels. Barry Arrington

Well, no. A natural law is called a “law” because it is predictable; a miracle does not conform to natural law, i.e., it is not predictable. An object subject to earth’s gravity will accelerate 9.81 meters per second per second every single time according to natural law. It is predictable. Certainly I do not discount the logical possibility of an object floating in mid-air thus achieving an acceleration rate of zero. That’s certainly not an event that I would predict knowing what I do about the earth’s gravity, i.e. it is unpredictable.
Natural laws = X. Predictable = Y. Miracle = Z All X's are Y. Z is not X. Therefore, Z is not Y. That's erroneous logic, unless you are going to claim that only things explicable via natural law are predictable. Is that your claim? William J Murray

"Check Engineering and Computer Science." Who? What program rejects methodological naturalism, and how? "In addition, kindly note that Nobel Prize winners and equivalent prize winners include people not practising in the meth nat paradigm." Again, who? Please describe the research, particularly a hypothesis tested by non-methodologically natural means. "it has only been very recently imposed" Nicole Oresme (1320–82), and Roman Catholic bishop "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us." DrREC

Barry:
A natural law is called a “law” because it is predictable; a miracle does not conform to natural law, i.e., it is not predictable.
The last part of your sentence should read: a miracle does not conform to natural law, i.e., it is not predictable from natural laws. Jesus predicted that "that the Son of Man will be put to death, and in three days he will rise to life." The Miracle of Fatima was predicted by the three young visionaries. I've blogged about this already. PaV

Check Engineering and Computer Science. In addition, kindly note that Nobel Prize winners and equivalent prize winners include people not practising in the meth nat paradigm. Furthermore, the problem is tha the paradigm is both demonstrably flawed as an epistemological matter -- it breaks down the integrity of science, and it has only been very recently imposed as an explicit a priori, largely as a club to hold off a rising paradigm, design, that looks like opening up vistas to explain cosmological origins, origin of life and origin of body plans. Which of course, the reigning orthodoxy has no sound level playing field explanation for. kairosfocus

"So DrREC you disagree with the predictions???" Yes, 1) They are post-dictions, not predictions. 2) Many are not inherent predictions of materialism. "Materialism predicts" Who? When? Aristotle? 3) That the Bible "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" is not a functional hypothesis regarding biological function. It is a silly power grab, trying to take the work of methodological naturalists and grab it for yourself. So, what is the scientific advance that resulted from rejecting methodological naturalism? What was the hypothesis and what were the experiments conducted? That humans are not the newest species on the planet is fairly indisputable. Do you really want to debate that? DrREC

So DrREC you disagree with the predictions???, perhaps you would care to show me the exact materialistic prediction that predicted a beginning for the universe??? Since you are so dishonest as to not even admit that materialism had predicted a eternal universe, why should your credibility on the rest of the predictions be any better than a used car salesman's???,,, as for your claim here:
Many species have emerged since Homo sapiens-some in our lifetimes.
,,, a materialist will try to assert evolution of species is happening all the time, all over the place. Yet, once again the hard evidence betrays the materialist in his attempts to validate his evolutionary scenario.
The Mirage of "Evolution Before Our Eyes" - August 2011 Excerpt:,,,the important implication of the massive study by Oregon State University zoologist Josef C. Uyeda and his colleagues. They write in PNAS: "Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 [million years], the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/no_evolution_before_our_eyes049911.html “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall-falsified-predictions-backpedaling-hgts-and-serendipity-squared/#comment-392638 The Receding Myth of "Junk DNA" - Jonathan Wells - October 6, 2011 Excerpt: Farrell is shocked by my statement in The Myth of Junk DNA that biologists have never observed speciation (the origin of a new species) by natural selection. He refers to "extensive work being done in the field" by two biologists, H. Allen Orr and Matthew L. Niemiller. But Orr and Niemiller study the genetics of existing species and try to find evidence supporting hypotheses about their origins. As I documented in my 2006 book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, there is nothing in the scientific literature showing that they or any others have ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection. In plants, new species have been observed to originate by chromosome doubling (polyploidy). But speciation by polyploidy is not due to natural selection (nor to genetic drift, another process mentioned by Farrell), and even evolutionary biologists acknowledge that polyploidy does not solve Darwin's problem. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/post_32051651.html New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist
As well, materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) which are often touted as solid proof of evolution are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with never a continual deviation from the norm. This blatant distortion/omission of evidence led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal:
"When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble." Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898
bornagain77

Anyway, my quick search through Einstein's quotes succeeded in giving me another very interesting phrase by him. "No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" Elizabeth, are you listening? Eugene S

A longer non-answer. ""but let’s see what SCIENCE itself has to say about methodological naturalism/materialism: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” William Shakespeare – Hamlet"" Shakespeare as your reference to what "SCIENCE itself has to say." Curious choice. "Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image." Methodological Naturalism vs. Philosophical Naturalism. How many times do we have to do this? As for your list-the things "materialism predicted" are a bit curious and unreferenced. Who predicted those things? Some are debatable (junk DNA, transitional fossils ), and others outright false: "Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record" Many species have emerged since Homo sapiens-some in our lifetimes. At and rate, the list doesn't address my question. Which of those findings resulted from a research program that rejected methodological naturalism? DrREC

Sorry, seems to be no good, because there is no actual reference there. Eugene S

But it is pure nonsense to suggest that if we take the story at face value science may one day explain how Jesus did it without suspending natural law.
Which is a pretty good reason why we should not take the story at face value, especially since we know that people tend to exaggerate truth claims over time. However, even if it did happen as written, how would we ever know that, for example, Jesus was not a member of some advanced alien race in possession of food replication technology? That's why a "miracle" always really just means "I don't know how it happened" and nothing more. NormO

Try here. I have long known it but in Russian translation :), so I cannot vouch for its word-to-word accuracy. Eugene S

DrREC, you ask:
What outstanding scientific discovery has been made in the last 50 years by a research program that explicitly rejects methodological naturalism?
I don't know about a 50 year demarcation, but let's see what SCIENCE itself has to say about methodological naturalism/materialism:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, to find 'material' solutions for design problems, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins.
A Question for Barbara Forrest http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html
In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is NOT materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins agrees:
"The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." Richard Dawkins https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/free-to-think-why-scientific-integrity-matters-by-caroline-crocker/
In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
For a quick overview, here are a few:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. 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)- 7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 8. 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 life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 9. 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.". - 10. 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 mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 11. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 12. 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) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 13. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse 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. - 14. 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, then rapid diversity within the 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. - 15. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - references for each of the 15 predictions: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys
,,,for a far more detailed list of failed predictions of neo-Darwinism see Dr. Hunter’s site here:
Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it, the scientific method, minus dogmatic materialism, is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to a very plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists stuck in their methodological naturalism rut http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/ General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355
Music and verse:
Natalie Grant – Alive http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F09J9JNU 1 Corinthians 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
bornagain77

Collin, I cannot agree with 4. Free will assumes a choice between good and evil. It can be predicted, p = 0.5 :) Of course, in practice there are complications and one faces choices between "bad" and "very bad", but anyway in essence the choice is typically between two options. I agree that everything has finally supernatural origin. But we cannot prove that by reasoning because this would otherwise have eliminated faith. Eugene S

A non-answer, but do you have a reference for that quote? I'd love to use it, but an Einstein quote without a reference is almost certainly made-up. DrREC

Barry, I said, "general usage." I've heard people say, "It's a miracle" after a surprise turnaround in a game. I was just covering the common ways the word is used. A "miracle comeback" is, of course, not a miracle in the sense of Jesus feeding a crowd. Even people who use the word in the first sense would distinguish it from the second, I hope. I don't discount the account of the feeding of the five thousand is not credible. I believe it happened. And it wasn't a miracle to Jesus. It was him doing what he knew how to do. Perhaps one day we'll know exactly how he did it, and then it won't be a miracle in that sense to us either. But I'm not counting on that. In the Bible miracles were typically reserved for identifying God, his prophets, and Jesus. God didn't need a miracle to save Israel at the Red Sea. He led them to a position where they would be cornered to set up the confrontation. It wasn't just about saving them. It was about showing himself to them. I doubt that we will ever need to understand or learn to replicate such miracles, as we will not have the same use for them. But that's just wild speculation on my part. I don't claim to know one way or the other. ScottAndrews

Einstein once said: “Everybody knows that something can’t be done and then somebody turns up and he doesn’t know it can’t be done and he does it.” Eugene S

What outstanding scientific discovery has been made in the last 50 years by a research program that explicitly rejects methodological naturalism? DrREC

Scott Andrews writes: “In general usage, a miracle is something that seemed impossible or seemed exceedingly improbable. Examples are Jesus feeding a crowd, or a sports team coming from far behind to win a game.” This is not correct. In the account of the loaves and fishes Jesus took five small barley loaves and two small fishes and fed several thousand people. After they ate there were twelve basketfuls of left over broken pieces. Surely you will admit that this event is of a different kind, not of a different degree, of an underdog football team winning the game. In the first, the laws of physics are defied. In the second, no law of physics is defied. Now, as you say, you can discount the account of the feeding of the five thousand as not credible. But it is pure nonsense to suggest that if we take the story at face value science may one day explain how Jesus did it without suspending natural law. Barry Arrington

I don't understand the fuss over free will vs. determinism. I believe in both. My view is quite simple actually, we are capable of choice, but in our decision-making we can only choose that which, based on knowledge at hand, appears to be the best option. Hence, we are free to make only a single choice. Contradiction? I say wonderful paradox. ThoughtSpark

In general usage, a miracle is something that seemed impossible or seemed exceedingly improbable. Examples are Jesus feeding a crowd, or a sports team coming from far behind to win a game. In more practical terms, it is just something that we cannot explain. That places miracles squarely in the eyes of the beholders. For one person a solar eclipse is a miracle. For another it is easily explained. A given event has either happened or it has not. If it has happened, it it explainable in terms of present-day knowledge or it is not. The latter of all those possibilities merely indicates that we cannot explain it. We may infer that it was clever trick designed to look impossible, or that it truly is inexplicable. In either case, when we call an observed event a miracle, we refer to our own knowledge and limitation. Perhaps today's miracle will be tomorrow's science. As for accounts or stories of past miracles, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the self-organization of molecules into self-replicating entities with a curious drive toward self-improvement, science just can't help us there. There are too many unknown factors. We must decide whether an event that defies any known explanations actually occurred, or whether the story is too fantastic to be credible. Or we can make our best guess and see if one day science is able to shine some light on it. We can not use any accounts or speculations regarding past "miracles" as a basis for additional scientific explanations without adding the uncertainty of the miracles to the explanation. ScottAndrews

It also does not support the claim that intelligence needs free will. That's at least debatable. Collin

oops, I didn't mean you were right but not deliberately. I meant that I don't think people deliberately use the terms as camouflage, but the result is as you say Elizabeth Liddle

Sorry. Stochastic means "non-deterministic" and stochastic processes or variables can only be predicted statistically, i.e. in aggregate. So, for example, coin-tossing is a stochastic process - so I can predict with a great deal of confidence that over 1000, 50% of them will be heads, but I cannot predict the outcome of any one toss with any certainty at all. Similarly, I can predicate the rate of radioactive decay with great accuracy, but if I am listening to the decay on a Geiger Counter, I will be pretty useless at telling you when the next click will be. Elizabeth Liddle

Mr. Murray writes: “that’s a complete non-sequitur from the definition.” Well, no. A natural law is called a “law” because it is predictable; a miracle does not conform to natural law, i.e., it is not predictable. An object subject to earth’s gravity will accelerate 9.81 meters per second per second every single time according to natural law. It is predictable. Certainly I do not discount the logical possibility of an object floating in mid-air thus achieving an acceleration rate of zero. That’s certainly not an event that I would predict knowing what I do about the earth’s gravity, i.e. it is unpredictable. Mr. Murray writes: “I don’t know what you mean by ‘take account of miracles’. You seem to be using that instead of ‘scientifically examine miracles’” No, I think those terms mean pretty much the same thing. In my OP I demonstrate how a scientist can “take account of a miracle” (which to me means the same thing as “scientifically examine” the miracle.”) I think perhaps the problem is that I am considering the matter from two different levels of generality and you are considering it from only one. With respect to any particular event (e.g., the miracle of the loaves and fishes), a scientist may examine the event using the methods of science: Hypothesize and then compare the data to the hypothesis. That’s one level of generality. At a completely different level of generality, a scientist simply cannot posit “miracle” as an element of a general law of science. I am sure you agree that if Newton were to posit “the angels push the heavenly spheres into place from time to time” that would not be a valid scientific hypothesis. Now, it may be true that angels push the spheres around, but we cannot count on them doing so as part of out theorizing. In other words, miracles are performed by agents, and the actions of agents simply cannot be predicted with law-like regularity. Collin: As Dr. Liddle points out, natural phenomena are often unpredictable. Is Schrodinger’s cat dead or alive or both or neither? We cannot know until we open the box and the wave function is collapsed. While supernatural acts cannot be predicted, “unpredictable” is not the same as “supernatural.” Moreover, like almost everyone who has taken a shot at the prize, your attempt fails to take into account the crucial distinction between “proximate” and “distal” causes. In other words, even if it were true that “free will” equals “supernatural,” that says nothing about whether an intelligent agent needs a miracle to synthesize a simple life form in the lab. Barry Arrington

Given that remarkably honest, intelligent, and rational people can find satisfactory argument and evidence to be with either view, why turn down the opportunity to believe in free will and a spiritual component to life? What does determinstic atheism offer that is preferable to free-will theism? William J Murray

I misspoke. I do not mean to say that ID necessarily has a supernatural component. But IF someone is unwilling to believe that ID is free of a supernatural component, then perhaps my suggestion can apply. Does that make sense? Collin

Please tell me what stochastic means. I think you could apply your methods to ID. While prayer may be supernatural, it starts to become "natural" upon investigation. Perhaps design is the same way. While it has a supernatural component, it has natural components that may be analyzed. For example, the presence or absence of specified complex information. Collin

Though I wouldn't consider the act of detecting design to involve any appeal to the 'miraculous' (unless you want to reclassify human designers as 'miraculous/supernatural' agents), I do consider the study of the foundation of reality itself, Quantum Mechanics, to be a study of the 'miraculous/supernatural': notes: What blows most people away, when they first encounter quantum mechanics, is that the quantum foundation of our material reality blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Most people consider defying time and space to be a 'miraculous & supernatural' event. I know I certainly do! This 'miraculous & supernatural' foundation for our physical reality can easily be illuminated by the famous 'double slit' experiment. (It should be noted the double slit experiment was originally devised, in 1801, by a devout Christian polymath named Thomas Young).:
Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Double-slit experiment Excerpt: In 1999 objects large enough to see under a microscope, buckyball (interlocking carbon atom) molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times that of a proton), were found to exhibit wave-like interference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
This following site offers a more formal refutation of the 'illusion' of materialism:
Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm
Many of the actions of the electron simply blatantly defy out concepts of time and space:
The Electron - The 'Supernatural' Basis of Reality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5312315/ Electron entanglement near a superconductor and bell inequalities Excerpt: The two electrons of these pairs have entangled spin and orbital degrees of freedom.,,, We formulate Bell-type inequalities in terms of current-current cross-correlations associated with contacts with varying magnetization orientations. We find maximal violation (as in photons) when a superconductor is the particle source. http://www.springerlink.com/content/e2830ur84h856618/ Double-slit experiment Excerpt: (Though normally done with photons) The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Quantum Mechanics – Quantum Results, Theoretical Implications Of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: Bohr proposed that electrons existed only in certain orbits and that, instead of traveling between orbits, electrons made instantaneous quantum leaps or jumps between allowed orbits.,,, The electron quantum leaps between orbits proposed by the Bohr model accounted for Plank’s observations that atoms emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation in quanta. Bohr’s model also explained many important properties of the photoelectric effect described by Albert Einstein (1879–1955). http://science.jrank.org/pages/5607/Quantum-Mechanics.html "Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohr Uncertainty Principle - The 'Uncertain Non-Particle' Basis Of Material Reality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172 PhysForum Science Excerpt: We have an upper limit on the radius of the electron, set by experiment, but that’s about it. By our current knowledge, it is an elementary particle with no internal structure, and thus no ’size’.”
It would also like to point out that the hardest, most solid, indestructible 'thing' in a material object, such as a rock, are not any of the wave/particles in any of the atoms of a rock, but are the unchanging, transcendent, universal, constants which exercise overriding 'non-chaotic' dominion of all the wave/particle quantum events in the atoms of the rock. i.e. It is the unchanging stability of the universal 'transcendent information' constants, which have not varied one iota from the universe's creation as far as scientists can tell, that allows a rock to be 'rock solid' in the first place.
Stability of Coulomb Systems in a Magnetic Field - Charles Fefferman Excerpt of Abstract: I study N electrons and M protons in a magnetic field. It is shown that the total energy per particle is bounded below by a constant independent of M and N, provided the fine structure constant is small. Here, the total energy includes the energy of the magnetic field. Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio
etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

I think you are probably right, William :) Not deliberately, I don't think, but I do think the terms obscure the underlying issues. Elizabeth Liddle

I think if we start calling elementary particles "supernatural" because they are stochastic, the word ceases to mean anything. It is certainly possible to do science with stochastic variables, and we do it all the time, it's just that in our predictions we are dealing with probability distributions, not with precise values. But that's not just true of particle physics. In all RCTs for instance, you expect a statistical effect of your treatment, not a precise response of equal magnitude from every participant. If prayer could be shown to be statistically significant on an RCT, that might, in some senses, tell us that science had detected a supernatural effect. But would it? It seems to me that if we did find that, we wouldn't ahve discovered a "supernatural" effect, but a perfectly "natural" one that we don't yet fully understand. The next thing we'd have to do is to figure out what the key variables are - does it matter which God you pray to? Does the format matter? What is the optimum length of prayer? How much would it cost to per patient? How much would we recompense the pray-ers? Would it be covered by insurance? Could we outsource it? Does it sound like a supernatural effect any more? I suggest not :) Elizabeth Liddle

I think that more or less the terms are just used to camoflage the real debate between free-will theism vs atheistic determinism. What does "matter" or "supernatural" even mean in a quantum-physics world? William J Murray

I'm still struggling to understand what we mean by natural and supernatural. To me, science does study some things that border on the supernatural. For example, elementary particles are in many respects unpredictable. It IS possible to plot a probability graph that accurately predicts what a number of particiles will do, but it is impossible to predict what a specific particle will do. Does this make the lone particle supernatural? What about psychology? If somebody has free will are they unpredictable and if so, is psychology the study of the supernatural? If so, what about when you push someone? Does a person not have free will if they involuntarily fall over? Have they therefore lost their supernatural quality? Collin

Let me take another shot at that prize. 1. Life shows signs of design. 2. Design requires intelligence. 3. Intelligence requires free will. 4. Free will is necessarily incapable of being predicted. 5. Being unpredictable, free will is therefore not subject to natural laws. 6. Therefore, free will is supernatural. 7. Therefore, life necessarily requires the supernatural. Collin

I saw the cartoon and I don't find it to be explanatory or helpful. Your supplied definition:
My dictionary defines “miracle” as “an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.”
Then you say:
Yes, miracles are unpredictable. That’s part of what makes them miracles.
As far as I can tell, that's a complete non-sequitur from the definition. Some or many or most miracles may be non-predictable, but "non-predictableness" certainly doesn't follow from the definition you provided. Also, I don't know what you mean by "take account of miracles". You seem to be using that instead of "scientifically examine miracles" for some reason. Are the two different? Can there be no "ongoing" miracles that, even if their appearance was unpredictable, their ongoing presense would certainly render them available for direct scientific scrutiny? William J Murray

Mr. Murray, Again, I agree with you that miracles are susceptible to scientific study. I believe that’s what I said in the OP. Please, take a look at the cartoon. Hopefully you will agree with me that a scientific theory that has one of its steps “and then a miracle happens” is not a valid scientific theory. Yes, miracles are unpredictable. That’s part of what makes them miracles. Barry Arrington

Mr Arrington, I don't see anything in the definition of "miracle" that justifies your claim that miracles are "unpredictable". They may be unpredictable from the predictive resource of natural laws acting upon physical matter, but that doesn't make miracles "unpredictable". Let's say that a man claims to be able to suspend gravity and levitate whenever he wants, and does so in rigorously controlled conditions. Is that not a suspension of physical laws, and so a miracle by definition, and so is predictable and open to further scientific study? William J Murray

PS: anticipating a Lewontin "quote-mining" side-track, I point here to a current discussion. Kindly note the 14 points of concern. kairosfocus

WAC 19 may help: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#scivsup 19] Science does not address the “Supernatural” As a matter of brute fact, Science can address anything it pleases, and has already weighed in on several events that have been associated with the supernatural. Physicists have speculated about the weight of the stone at the time of Christ’s resurrection and the likelihood that Roman guards could have lifted it. Medical doctors have aided the Catholic Church in its canonization process by determining whether or not a medical miracle can be attributed to the special intervention of a saint. Statisticians have calculated the improbability that 459 Old Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ would become realized as historical events as reported in the New Testament. More famously, chemists have calculated the possible age of the shroud of Turin. Indeed, some would say that astronomers “addressed” a supernatural creative event when they found evidence for the “big bang. So, when Darwinist ideologues say that “science does not address the supernatural, what they really mean is that science should not be PERMITTED to address the supernatural, (or anything that could remotely be associated with it). This attitude of mind goes by the name of “methodological naturalism.” It is best expressed by Lewontin, who writes, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories [in evolutionary biology] because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material causes, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” The lesson here should be clear. We should not put science into a politically-correct, materialistic straight-jacket. kairosfocus

Thanks. I think it is fixed now. Barry Arrington

You have a broken link near the bottom. Neil Rickert

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply