Two Questions for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Here are two multiple choice questions, but you must not look at the second question before answering the first.

1. What makes a theory a religious theory?

A. The theory incorporates religious premises.
B. Proponents of the theory are religious people.
C. The theory mandates certain types of solutions.
D. The theory allows for all types of solution.

Continue reading here.

Comments

My first thought after reading the two questions is... " huh? o0 " The multiple choice answers are two vague, 'The theory mandates certain types of solutions'? wtf? that one could fit but it is too vague to mean anything useful. Sometimes me thinks empty vessels ask the stupid questions.Nnoel_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Correction: Me #3: "what’s wrong with 'All causes are empirical - which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically?' I know what’s wrong with it, and I suspect that you know as well, but let me spell it out: “naturalistic” is inserted precisely to tie the definition of MN to philosophical naturalism." Woops, that doesn't flow quite right. How about "I know what's wrong with the first version....."CannuckianYankee_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Mr. Sibley, ID does not really violate one of the rules of MN. I say "one of the rules," because the rules appear to keep changing with regard to a definition of MN in order to suite the Darwinist's convenience. Let me illustrate: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Methodological_naturalism Notice in the linked article the first definition is: "Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method." So far, so good, ID does not violate the scientific method depending on which definition. If it's a definition that "requires" naturalism, then it loses by default. ..."Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." I would like to see the empirical sceintific evidence via methodological naturalism that supports the above statement. i.e., "God-of-the-gaps" is an effect caused by defining causal relationships with the supernatural. How vacuous is that? It's a circular argument not supported by anything remotely close to what can be deduced from the "scientific method" these methodological naturalists cling to. I would call it the "God-of-the-gaps-of-the-gaps" argument. Then there's this gem: "To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic — which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically." I have no problem with "empirical" whatsoever. However, where do they get off inserting "and naturalistic" to a definition that was fine by itelf? what's wrong with "All causes are empirical - which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically?" I know what's wrong with it, and I suspect that you know as well, but let me spell it out: "naturalistic" is inserted precisely to tie the definition of MN to philosophical naturalism. So as Dr. Ruse would say: "It's a bit of a fib" (referring to ID, of course). When seen in this light, ID does not really violate the scientific method, so long as "naturalistic" is not inserted into the definition. And to further the fib, we have Eugenie Scott later in the article declaring: "The scientific definition of evolution makes no mention of theological issues such as whether God created. Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes. Johnson´s crucial error is not distinguishing between these two kinds of naturalism. That some individual scientists are philosophical naturalists does not make science atheistic any more than the existence of nonbelieving bookkeepers makes accounting atheistic." (DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review - Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education) I would say to Eugenie; this is not an issue regarding the existence of nonbelieving bookkeepers; rather, it is an issue of requiring bookkeepers to only account for that which is naturalistic, which would by default, be atheistic. If God deducted money from the bookkeeper via "supernatural" means, the bookkeeper could never know via the rules set up by MN. But there would be one problem: how would he account for the missing funds? And the rule assumes that God and the supernatural cannot be detected, because the rule artificially established by MN, does not allow for such detection. So while the rule does not specifically state "God does not exist," it limits knowing about God's existence by its methodology, therefore in effect, ruling out God. Few atheists I know will state "There is no God." Most of the ones I have come to know state: "I find no evidence for God." So MN clearly supports atheism by limiting science to that which is naturalistic. Since God is not naturalistic in the strict sense of the materialists, no evidence for him could ever be detected via the "scientific method" mandated by methodological naturalism. So ID does not really violate methodological naturalism, rather methodological naturalism violates ID. So as the evidence for ID countinues pouring in, one will eventually trump the other. Take a guess which one.CannuckianYankee_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

What is this meant to demonstrate?Gaz_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

There are two claims against ID that seem be disjunctive. 1. To be accepted as science ID must make testable predictions. i.e. Elliott Sober, John Mackie. 2. It isn't science because it doesn't follow the rule of methodological naturalism. Ruse etc. Claim 1 I would suggest is closer to the truth.Andrew Sibley_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Gee, I guess that means that the Big Bang theory and Relativity are also religious theories. The Big Bang theory, because many religious people rely on its implications to make an inferrence about the existence of God. Relativity, because again, many religious people rely on its implications to make inferrences regarding the existence of God. Out with them all! I say.CannuckianYankee_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply