Philosophy Science

Can acknowledgment of design in nature be a part of science?

Spread the love

Recently, Joshua Gidney linked to a piece by philosopher Robin Collins on why design in nature is not part of science.

Really, it’s a misleading question that enables academics to huff and puff casuistries, while ducking the key question, as follows: If the evidence clearly points to design in nature (fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, etc.), must science refuse to acknowledge that and accept any alternative as a starting point?

The price is high.

A multiverse, in which the fine-tuning of our universe is just a fluke, is accepted as an alternative, without evidence. A war on falsifiability ensues.

Claims for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation within the genome) must be accepted, even though they defy any meaningful relationship to probability. So probability must go too.

Claims for the random evolution of the human mind lead swiftly to the idea that human consciousness is an evolved illusion, which makes all conclusions of science or even mathematics moot.

The cumulative damage includes the inability to fend off the social justice warriors’ assault on science education (objectivity is sexist, algebra is racist, etc.).

The outcome is that science in the relevant areas reduces itself to accumulating evidence for propositions that will slowly make science untenable and undoable.

Vast numbers are willing to pay the price and at least they chose it. It was not forced on them.

A Swedish math prof put it best,

After reading Leisola and Witt’s book, it is clear that a paradigm shift is needed in order to explain the origin and diversity of life, from chemical and Darwinian evolution towards a design explanation. This raises the question of whether the research community is willing to follow the evidence and allow such a shift to take place. If not, there is a great risk that the judgement of future generations will be hard. However, such a change will not come easily, since ultimately our worldview is at stake. – Ola Hössjer, Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University

* See also: Swedish math prof’s review of Heretic captures a key point

At Psychology Today: Opponent asks, does ID have a valid point about agency? It goes downhill from there. If I were a Darwinian, I would be embarrassed by this stuff.

External testicles another instance of bad design? Oddly, in making such a dramatic claim (“there is no good reason that sperm development has to work best at lower temperatures”), Lents does not quote any expert on the subject of temperature and sperm development.


Does Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book really teach biology? A doctor looks at his claims about the human sinuses

27 Replies to “Can acknowledgment of design in nature be a part of science?

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    Really, it’s a misleading question that enables academics to huff and puff casuistries, while ducking the key question, as follows: If the evidence clearly points to design in nature (fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, etc.), must science refuse to acknowledge that and accept any alternative as a starting point?

    I’m curious to know – if demonstrating design in nature is the starting point, what follows on from that?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the question of “Can acknowledgment of design in nature be a part of science?”

    Science is impossible without presupposing Design.

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,

    “virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence.”
    William J Murray

    “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    —Paul Davies (cited in, The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science)

    Basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility lay at the founding of modern science.

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

    The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.
    The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Moreover, as News pointed out in the OP. denying Design in nature, and more specifically denying Agent Causality in nature as well as denying our very own agent causality, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science.

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Paper with references for each claim page; Page 34:

    Thus, although the Atheistic Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    @ 1 Bob O’Hara asked:

    I’m curious to know – if demonstrating design in nature is the starting point, what follows on from that?

    Well what ‘follows from that’ is that if we justly toss out methodological naturalism as the supposed ground rule for all of science and rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science had originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then, besides science itself returning to some semblance of sanity,,, then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything”

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video


    Matthew 28:18
    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 2 –

    Well what ‘follows from that’ is that if we justly toss out methodological naturalism as the supposed ground rule for all of science and rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science had originally envisioned,

    So you’re basically saying that Intelligent Design is a Trojan horse for creationism?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    “So you’re basically saying that Intelligent Design is a Trojan horse for creationism?”

    No, I’m saying science is impossible without Theistic presuppositions and that methodological naturalism is a Trojan horse for atheism and even insanity.

    Intelligent Design, in its most basic form, is simply the acknowledgement that the ‘appearance of Design’ we see in nature and biology is real instead of illusory.

    You asked, basically, what follows when someone admits that the design we see in nature and biology is real instead of illusory.

    For someone who is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, a very plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ readily follows. For you the committed atheist, as your comment itself makes abundantly clear, denial and slander follows.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    I’m curious to know – if demonstrating design in nature is the starting point, what follows on from that?

    Everything. We study it so that we can understand it. We understand it so that we can properly maintain and repair it. We try to reverse engineer it so we can duplicate it. That is for starters.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Bob O’H:

    I’m curious to know – if demonstrating design in nature is the starting point, what follows on from that?

    Fall on your knees and beg for forgiveness.

  7. 7

    Mung @ 6: Well said. Empirical science would still continue (and thrive), but no longer would it be hijacked by a/mats to exclude the obvious… the existence of a Designer.

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 4 –

    For someone who is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, a very plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ readily follows.

    And that solution would be that God did it, right? Is that not creationism?

  9. 9
    News says:

    The question I am interested in is the cost of not recognizing design if it is really there, no matter how we attribute it.

    Arguments for God or the God portrayed in the Bible are a separate and secondary question. There are alternatives, to be sure, in eastern philosophies. But that is not an argument worth having if one ignores dismisses, or mistrusts evidence for design in nature. One does not seek an explanation for genuinely random events.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Can acknowledgment of design in nature be a part of science?

    It always has been.

  11. 11

    Bob —
    “I’m curious to know – if demonstrating design in nature is the starting point, what follows on from that?”

    That there is real design in nature is clearly evident all around us and within us (see Romans Chapter 1). This design is not illusionary, nor is it merely “apparent” as a/mats such as Richard Dawkins claims, a man who has been in the business of deception for the entirety of his career.

    If “design in nature” is rejected in spite of clear evidence, then I’m afraid there is no starting point in studying the abundant life we all see regardless of the string of letters following a name.

    As to “what follows on from that?” That remains an individual choice for each human capable of rational thought. We have the choice of rejecting design in nature, in which case what follows becomes a dead end.

    If we see and recognize what is actually real, around and within us, then the next rational and logical step would reasonably be to ask of our selves “who or what is that designer?” Is there anything else in our human experience, or available to us that might lead us to further illumination on the question “what follows?”

    The history of man shows a near universal quest to seek “what follows” in the form of religious structures and institutions as well as religious scriptures. So “what follows?” is a buy-in to some sort of transcendent truth and truth giver(s). Atheism is no exception to this in that the buy-in is a buy in to “nothing follows.”

    So having accepted design as real, which of these “what follows” should one take.

    The study of Judeo/Christian scriptures is a very rational next step to follow. If there is a designer, and that designer sought to communicate with a curious and thinking human mind, what method might be used in addition to the revelation of the natural universe?

    Language is an obvious possibility. Humans almost universally use language to express ideas, give direction, express emotion and offer persuasion. So why not a transcendent designer using human understandable language?

    “What follows” might then reasonably be to test the scriptures available. But there are so many, and there seems to be so many contradictions and apparent falsehoods between and amongst the competing “truth” claims. Are there truth tests available that would validate scriptural authorship that would be beyond human capability? Just as a Steinbeck novel has distinctive characteristics that point to Steinbeck as author, might there be distinctive characteristics that would point to an entity or entities beyond time and space?

    How about predictive and verifiable prophesy? Prophesy of events, places and people, of such quantity as to be beyond the creative minds of humans to concoct such stories? How about the recording of historical events that can be verified in future years, often with verification at times far distant from the recorded event?

    I suggest the “what follows?” in such a quest will lead many, including Bob O’H, to a place they did not intend to be, and an understanding of how they got there – to a place they will be very happy to be, though unexpected.

    Again, “What follows” is an individual choice, but the rewards can be immense along the path of the “what follows” choices.


  12. 12
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Can acknowledgment of design in nature be a part of science?

    The real question is, can any philosophical presupposition be part of science?

    And the answer is a resounding yes. Indeed, if science is a rigorously logical exploration of our environment, we have already smuggled several such presuppositions into the subject.

    That the world around us is rigorously logical, operating on fixed principles we identify as laws, is already present. Science doesn’t invent or create the laws but merely discovers them. But as others have amply described already, science only arises when this philosophical presupposition is already present.

    The next “real” question thus becomes, what kind of pity should a rigorously logical person have for someone who thinks they can build a rational argument* without any foundational presuppositions or axioms?

    As BA77 notes, such a person is not rational.

    (*Theories are essentially arguments in the Monty Python sense; “a connected series of statements designed to establish a proposition“. Logic is the “connection” between the series.)

    For myself, I don’t fault unbelievers for having different presuppositions (“There is no God,“) to my own (“There is a God.“) since it is axiomatic that we cannot prove our axioms. That’s the definition, after all.

    But I draw the line at the pretense that you can either (A) have no presuppositions at all or (B) must be bad/mad/stupid if you don’t share the unbeliever’s smuggled-in presuppositions.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) asks in response to Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing a very plausible solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:

    “Is that not creationism?”

    “New Creation” might be a more apt phrase for Christ’s victory over death:

    2 Corinthians 5:17
    Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

  14. 14
    blip says:

    News @9 and Bob all over the place but right.

    Have a look at this very interesting article below for an answer to your point News.

    Consider this paragraph a while, will you Bob?

    It’s a “new realm” because even though the placenta is a crucial organ in pregnancy, it is also one of the most neglected by scientists. In fact, the placenta is the only organ removed from the body that is not routinely examined.

    Ask yourself why, Bob. Hint :

    Was der to see eh? Mooove along now. Moo…

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    Of course, you do realize that it was methodologically naturalistic science that has uncovered this new understanding about the role of the placenta, that presuming design apparently had no bearing on it? Just saying…

  16. 16
    blip says:

    Seversky @15 Just saying

    Actually, we’d all be better off you NOT saying anything, because you keep trying to take everyone down a dead end. And that’s about the best that can be hoped of methodological naturalism: a misleading label for a method with no logic, headed forever to nowhere.

    I know you won’t follow this because it’s logical and not emotive (kill God!), but if scientists had started with a design view in mind, they would have been thinking all along that the placenta is a highly advanced system worthy of deep study because it has purpose beyond our understanding. Behind purpose there is reason. We seem to have the ability to reason, so we can have a reasonable measure of faith that if we reason carefully, we will discover good and important things.

    But MN won the day. Placenta became waste. Vital portions of DNA became junk. Important organs became vestigial. Unborn children became parasitic tissue to remove.

    Decades upon decades of scientific progress halted and derailed by the religion of meaninglessness that is at the root of MN.

    And if it were just time wasted. But the body count is staggering. It was not MN that discovered the importance of the placenta, junk DNA, and so much more. These things were all discovered in spite of MN.

    News is completely in the right to ask how much damage has been done.

    Hear the drums Seversky. Molech is calling you.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    blip @ 14 – how does that answer my question? I don’t see any design detection in the study.

  18. 18
    ET says:


    Of course, you do realize that it was methodologically naturalistic science that has uncovered this new understanding about the role of the placenta, that presuming design apparently had no bearing on it?

    Nonsense. No one went into that research saying “nature is all there is and nature produced life”- no one. Clearly Seversky doesn’t have a clue.

  19. 19
    blip says:

    Bob @14

    The article points out the placenta is routinely discarded without examination.

    Ask yourself why you would routinely discard something without examining it. The obvious answer is because you do not expect to find anything of value there.

    What promotes this tendency among scientists in particular? The number one reason is blindness caused by the root worldview ideology of atheistic, meaningless, methodological naturalism built on the sandcastle of Darwinism.

    The Universe doesn’t make sense. When you think it does, it’s just that you got lucky! In between, make up narratives.

    However, science progresses, not because of that root world view, but in spite of it, and necessarily against it.

    The same ideology that has made people blind to the value of studying the placenta for decades made them blind to the value of “junk” DNA, “vestigial” organs, and many other things.

    Because the operating root world view is: “So much of it is junk. Maybe most of it is junk. That’s how Darwinism works, you see! It advances by fits and starts, trials and errors, mostly ending in failures. Why would you expect most anything to work? After all, it’s not like it was designed. It was sheer dumb random luck.”

    Why study it then? Just go to a casino and gamble your life away.

    This has happened many times, thanks to Darwinian ideology. It has literally arrested the progress of science many times.

    If, instead, scientists had been working from the perspective of a design hypothesis, they would have started with the assumption that the placenta very likely, not with 100% certainty necessarily, but very likely, provides an invaluable opportunity to learn things of great value. This would have motivated them to ask appropriate questions (Can it tell us something of value about the state of the organism? Might it provide valuable indicators?) and would have been more careful and methodical (SCIENCE!) in their research. Science, and many lives, would have been enriched much earlier. Instead, it was swept away as waste, until some people woke up from their slumber decades later, not because of, but in spite of the Darwinian dogma that keeps telling people “Think waste! Don’t be deceived! Design is anti-science!”

    The same goes for “vestigial” organs, “junk” DNA, unborn children as “parasitical tissue” to be discarded at will, eugenics, elimination of the “undesirables”, the “unproductive”, …

    Yes, it’s all connected. Denying it does not make it go away.

    Contrary to your continual insistence that methodological naturalism saves the day, it has actually arrested progress over and over again. Science does not uphold it. Politics does.

    Here’s the problem with the phrase “methodological naturalism”. It is not in the word “method”. This is good, because science needs good methods. It is not in the word “logical”. This, too, is good. Science needs to rely of methods which are built on sound logic, reason. “Natural” is also good. Science obviously studies the natural world. Science can’t say many things about art, can it? Sure, it can tell us things about the physical properties of the canvas and pigments. It might even tell us something about changes to a viewer’s body chemistry when presented with a specific painting. But not much more.

    But where is the problem then? It’s in the little ending, “ism”. Root world view. A view which neither gave birth to science, nor has sustained it, but will certainly kill it if not stopped in time. And the patient is grave, as has been documented here at UD numerous times. Interestingly, here the methodological naturalIST might chime in “Nonesense!”. Meanwhile, the person open to design will be analyzing the placenta of the chatter among scientists as calls for “evidence free science” and “algebra as racism” grows and will rightly conclude: “It does not bode well for this child. We must take measures to save its valuable life.”

    That, Bob, is the problem. Art as chemistry. Literature as ink congealing on paper. Music as perturbations of a medium. Reason as chemicals sloshing around in your brain…

    Just as the little ending “ism” kills methodological study of the natural, so the root world view you espouse kills everything.

    A more appropriate name would be: Rot World View

    And it’s doing its cruel work on you.

    We need to get back to sanity.

    If geothermal activity, water and wind errosion account for the shape of a mountain, then leave it there and make no more of it. Certainly, keep learning about geothermal activity and errosion. But there is no need to postulate that some extraterrestial intelligence toiled over building the mountain to make us think it actually happened according to the laws of physics rather than by its intelligence.

    If the laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for the way ink spilled on paper to form the Magna Carta and, by repeated experience, me know that monkeys flinging feces can’t ever manage to spell “Me thinks it’s like a banana”, well then ascribe it to intelligence.

    If you point a radio antennae to Andromeda and pick up prime numbers in ascending order then, after having ruled out all signals originating from devices on Earth and our technology in space, it would be a reasonable thing to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we really are receiving signals from an intelligence source in Andromeda. What would be totally inappropriate, however, would be to postulate (given your dread of intelligent life on Andromeda) that a neutron star is responsible for the signal, when we have observed repeatedly that the only root source behind generation of prime numbers in ascending order is intelligence.

    So, contrary to your insinuations, the possibility of including design in science is no show stopper. On the contrary, it will lead to a renaissance.

  20. 20
    hnorman5 says:

    blip @ 19

    Regarding methodological naturalism —

    I’ve always thought of the word “methodological” as being the problem whereas you think “ism” is. However, I think it may come to the same. “Methodological” is antithetical to “ism”. In science, good methods are necessary to search for confirmable truths, but an ism is not a method for seeking truth. An ism exists to confirm a preconceived point of view.

  21. 21
    hnorman5 says:

    Actually, methodological naturalism could be considered a fair approximation of empirical science if only the assumption of naturalism were used to guide search rather than make conclusions. In real science, the need for assumptions — naturalistic or otherwise — should go away once a solution is found.

  22. 22
    blip says:

    hnorman5 @ 21

    Well, there are always a few assumptions that function as bedrock and that we just can’t do without, as contributors here remind us repeatedly, and rightly so, most notably, kairosfocus. They are as necessary for doing science as they are for living. The law of noncontradiction comes to mind as the most fundamental.

    And if we accept this, which is the logical, reasonable, and common sense thing to do which, by the way, has no peer among possible alternatives, then we see methodological naturalism vanish like smoke. For it eats at the very fabric required to sustain it.

    It is a fools errand made just for fools. Totally self-contradictory. But oh! So necessary to falsely, but almost convincingly, reject the bedrock of an objective meaning and purpose in life defined by the Creator of reality! It is solely for this reason that it exists. It has no other purpose, whether in science or in the rest of life. A parasite on truth is all it is, created simply for the purpose of controlling the narrative. It shares much with tyranny. It is tyranny.

    It is because of respect for this bedrock of truth that you see kairosfocus and friends confidently speaking of logic, reason, observation, evidence, etc. Always pointing away from themselves and their opinions to the other, the factual, that which is outside themselves, to reality, to coherent abstract thought.

    In contrast, you see AK, Bob O’h, Sev, rvb8, and company, sometimes speak truth, then suddenly slip into obfuscation, dive deep into lying, twist discussion as needed so they can justify themselves, and possibly end with another bit of truth for good measure. They treat discussion like making concrete: start with some truth, add some doublespeak, pour large amounts of lies mixed in with loads of emotional outbursts, add another pinch of truth for needed cohesion, blend all together vigorously, and present as gift shoes to their opponents while on a fishing expedition. Notice how they rarely point outside themselves. It’s all about making their opinions the matrix of reality. Because their ideology is not sustainable by reality, they seek to subject reality to their ideology. If you reject the Lord of the Bible, all that’s left, really, is the Will to Power. Nietzsche was absolutely right. He only made the wrong choice.

    It’s “ism” over what is. And certainly over what ought to be. Sad. Very sad. And ultimately, deadly.

    For a couple more examples of how methodological naturalism has hurt science, see:

  23. 23
    hnorman5 says:

    Just saw your response yesterday. It’s difficult for me to see the law of noncontradiction as an assumption. I would call it a self-evident truth. As such it can be used to generate knowledge — what I term real science. Everybody — theist, deist, atheist and whatnot should be able to come to science and feel like they get some sense of what we know and can confirm from observation.

    The assumption of naturalism is not a self-evident truth but simply an assumption – an assertion without proof. It cannot be used to seek truth but merely to corroborate naturalistic ideology.

    The assumption would be doable if it were truly a methodological assumption but it’s not. Methodological assumptions cannot govern truth claims — only actions. We can conduct ourselves as though an assumption is true but we cannot make it true.

  24. 24
    blip says:

    You are correct that the law of noncontradiction is a self evident truth, not an assumption. I used the wrong word. As for assumptions, we still can’t live without them in practical terms. We can’t accomplish much if every morning we are arrested by the thought that the sun won’t rise. Of course, what is wrong is to continue believing in an assumption as facts to the contrary continue to accumulate. Assumptions need to be validated or discarded.

    In any case, the point I wanted to make is that methodological naturalism is a self-refuting ideology that continues to advance in the culture, not because it is valid or has evidence, but because too many people have ceased to think clearly and are being led by a smaller group of people who like it just so, because it gives them power they would not otherwise have.

    Methodological naturalism is easily refuted by logic. All the more “reason” to reject the teaching of logic, grammar, critical thinking, and other essential tools in school. It’s more about indoctrination than about following the truth wherever it may lead. And not just in North Korea.

  25. 25
    blip says:

    I would dare add that if the atheist materialist really does seek to follow logic and the evidence of science wherever they lead, he will be unable to validly sustain his world view. It is self-refuting. The honest ones will cease to be a/mats. The curious ones will seek further. The rest will hunker down and get nastier.

  26. 26
    Seversky says:

    blip @ 24

    Methodological naturalism is easily refuted by logic.

    Okay, explain what you understand by “methodological naturalism” and how is it easily refuted by logic?

  27. 27
    blip says:

    Sev, you have been told literally dozens of times what MN is and why it is self-refuting, thereby refuted by logic. You have been told by numerous contributors, including kairosfocus and ba77. Surely you can’t have missed what everyone has been telling you, so I’m of the opinion you are being dishonest.

    I will say this: There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. It is a great tool. What is wrong is when people turn it into an ideology, which is what MN has done: “It’s the only way to find truth!” Really? Is that statement itself true? Because it wasn’t determined scientifically. Therefore it must be false according to MN. The true statement that is false. There you have it. The glaring self contradiction.

    But you *do know* that don’t you? So why do you ask? Want to waste my time?

Leave a Reply