Quote of the day: Barbara Forrest on methodological naturalism

_{William Dembski

May 5, 2009

Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

Every now and again it’s good to remind ourselves of just how misguided methodological naturalism is. It is a straitjacket whose donning we wisely decline. Yet many outfitters urge the contrary. Some, like Francis Collins, thinks that it’s de rigueur for science but that it poses no obstacle to religious belief. Barbara Forrest begs to differ:

The relationship between methodological naturalism and philosophical [metaphysical] naturalism, although not that of logical entailment, is not such that philosophical naturalism is a mere logical possibility.” In “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection” Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2000, p. 7.

But if Forrest is correct, then methodological naturalism has religious implications (or anti-religious implications, which are the same thing), in which case it should not be enshrined in the public school science curriculum.

Comments

Well scientific evidence, both from molecular biology and the Privileged Planet Principle, indicates there is no natural reason to presume life on other planets. And as far as overriding theological considerations neither do I find any theological reason to believe God would create intelligent beings such as ourselves on another planet, in fact there is much theological reason against that line of thought. Yet if God in his infinite creative power wanted to create lower animals, who were not made in His image, but just for his delight in creating them, I would have no problem with that. In fact now that I think about it, in looking at the amazing diversity of life around us, I guess it would be fairly reasonable to presume He would exercise His creative power in such a way.bornagain77_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Re: bornagain #5 I can maybe see a literal Biblical interpretation leading to the statement that life is only on Earth, but you stated that all of theism stands by this position, which I definitely disagree with. As far as the Genesis account of the creation of Earth, just because it doesn't mention life outside of Earth doesn't mean there isn't. This seems like interpreting the Bible as the book of all knowledge ever known or knowable, yet it is not meant to be a science book. What was it supposed to say? "Oh, and while God was creating life on Earth, he also created some life forms 200 million lightyears away on another planet." This would have been incredibly confusing for most of human history, to this point, and it also is unnecessary regarding the point of the first chapters of Genesis, which is that God alone created the universe, and created man in His image. Also, I fail to see the connection between the scripture about Jesus before creation and the belief the Bible states that life is only on Earth. Let's say we do find life on another planet. What then? Do you lose your faith in God? Re-interpret the Bible? Deny the findings? My opinion is to avoid tying human predictions and interpretations to God's word. Many claimed that the Bible said that the Earth was flat and/or was the center of the universe. Those were man-made interpretations, and when they were proven obviously false, it made God's word seem fallible in many peoples' eyes I'm not saying ignore God's word, just don't try to stretch it to fill your needs beyond what it actually was, a revelation to men around 6,000+ years ago (at least some of the Old Testament, anyway). True analytic science will discover truths about God's universe (as opposed to materialist historical science which will do anything to prove it is all purposeless), so if it discovers life on another planet, we can celebrate another part of His creation rather than deny it or question our faith because of a human interpretation Just my opinion, thoughuoflcard_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, from the what is worth department, I have some reflections on the implications of your paper: LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW ; The paper is extremely interesting in that for evolution to actually be true it shows that it cannot be random Darwinian Evolution and that God will have to "move within nature", in a teleological manner, to provide the additional functional information needed to make gradual evolution of increased complexity possible, thus the theoretical underpinnings of randomness are completely removed from Darwinian ideology. Yet there are many lines of evidence pointing to the fact that Genetic Entropy is true and that no teleological processes are involved in life once a 'Parent Kind/Species is created by God. For prime example of the evidence for the rigidity of the principle of Genetic Entropy being rigorously obeyed, it is obvious that the "Fitness Test", against a parent species of bacteria, has not been observed to have been violated even one time, by any sub-species bacteria of a parent bacteria, thus, so far after millions of tests, conclusively demonstrating that the "optimal information" encoded onto parent bacteria has not been added to by any "teleological" methods (i.e. by God moving within nature to provide the information needed for a "gradual increase" in functional complexity). Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not moved within nature to increase the functional information of a parent species genome once He has created the parent species, still holds as valid for the principle of Genetic Entropy. In fact to conclusively demonstrate that God has moved within nature, in a teleological manner, to provide the sub-species with additional functional information over its parent species, the "fitness test" must be passed, by the sub-species that underwent a "beneficial adaptation", against the parent species. If the "fitness test" is passed by the sub-species, then the new molecular function which provides the more robust survivability (more fitness), for the sub-species over the parent species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information (Fits) that it gained in the adaptation, and then be found to be greater than the 140 Fits, of functional information, that has been set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit to what totally natural processes can be expected to generate over the entire age of the universe. This must be done to rigorously establish that natural processes did not generate the functional complexity (Fits), and to rigorously establish that teleological processes were indeed involved in the increase of Functional Complexity of the "more fit" sub-species. -------- My overwhelming intuition from Theology is this; Once God creates a parent species, the parent species is encoded with "optimal information" for the specific purpose to which God has created the "Kind/Species to exist, and God has chosen, in His infinite wisdom, to limit the extent to which He will act in nature to "evolve" the sub-species of the parent species to greater heights of functional complexity. ------- Thus I find that Genetic Entropy is in complete harmony with the formal proof of the Law Of Conservation of Information that has now been elucidated by William Dembski and Robert Marks. -------- For general outline of the "Fitness test" required for evolution to pass to falsify Genetic Entropy please see this video - "Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution?" - http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3a4a6e9a34e30ff85177 - For outline of Kirk Durstons universal limit to Funtional Information please see these videos - Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Biology - Kirk Durston - short lecture - http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=150b275e64afb2a1c58a - Full video - Part 1 - http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=441f2c3e44361e91801f part 2: - http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=61111e89397f87960ff9 As well you may like to know, believe it or not, there is a controlled violation of the first law in the quantum teleportation experiment, and the violation actually establishes the primacy of information in reality, i.e. Information is shown to be transcendent by quantum teleportation i.e. "Deeper than reality" (Zeilinger). The fact that information is conserved is proved by the controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics in the teleportation experiment i.e. "As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made." http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm ---------- Thus, because of this demonstrated dominion of energy by transcendent information, we surmise that all transcendent information that can exist already does exist. ----------- Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh ------- excerpt --------- In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) -------- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. -----bornagain77_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Here is another proof against materialism: What is Truth? To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock. Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real. A blind man in a darkened cave would feel the rock hitting his head just as well as a sighted man who saw the rock coming. The rock is real and its reality is not dependent on our observation, contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Anton Zeilinger). Having stated the obvious lets look at what the rock is actually made of. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can "theoretically" be reduced to energy. This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs. This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom in the trillions upon trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” of the rock, energy in and of itself is not a "solid" entity. Thus, the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces can be said to be what actually gives the rock its physicality of being solid; Gives the rock "solidness even though constants/forces are turning out to be transcendent of any known material/energy basis. In fact transcendent universal constants/forces can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising "thing" in the rock. Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place. Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the "truth" tells them they can and cannot do (Anthropic Principle). To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet truth can exist without the rock. Energy and force must obey the truth that is above them or else the rock can’t possibly exist. Since truth apparently dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do in order that life may exist in this universe, it follows that truth dominates energy and force (multi-verse not withstanding). Energy and force do not dominate truth. It is alos obvious that if all energy and/or force stopped existing in this universe, the truth that ruled the energy and force in the rock would still be logically true. Thus, truth can be said to be eternal, or timeless in nature. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it mildly, if this uniformity of truth were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “real” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding "particle". Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal awareness of transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this "truth' of the speed of light). This scientific proof of quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality and quantum teleportation, to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that "truth" has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates our reality in this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist (Anthropic Principle). Thus truth, which is not subject to time, has demonstrated foresight and purpose in this temporal universe and as such can be said to be "alive" from the fact that a "decision" had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that truth inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to be real in the first place. i.e. truth is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, "uncaused cause" that created all reality. The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "specified dominion" of a photon energy by "a truth" (actually truth is shown to be "a specified truth of infinite information" in teleportation) satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the "missing Dark Matter" in that the needed explanation would have to dominate energy in just such a fashion, as is demonstrated by teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destoyed upon the teleportation of its truth (infinite specified information) to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. This is direct empirical validation for the law of conservation of Information, since "the truth" exercises dominion of that which cannot be created or destroyed by any material means, and provides another primary evidence that "the truth" is the foundational entity of this universe (i.e. truth cannot be created or destroyed). The fact that simple quantum entanglement shows a "coherent long-range universal control" of energy, by "a truth", satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain why the universe is expanding at such a finely-tuned degree in such a manner as it is. Thus "transcendent eternal truth" provides a coherent picture that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (it is aware of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe); Truth is active (it is aware of everything that is happening and instantaneously makes appropriate adjustments); and Truth is alive (it has created a temporal universe from a reality not subject to any physical laws of time, for the express purpose of creating life; Anthropic Principle) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. active and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that truth comes from, or is, God as far as the scientific method is concerned. To bring this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth”. In regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim! If Jesus is speaking the truth, which I believe He is from the personal miracles I’ve seen in my own life, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus exactly equivalent to God Almighty as far as this universe is concerned. Well,,, Is Jesus the author of this universe and all life in it??? Though this is somewhat difficult to bear out scientifically, Personally I believe He is, since all the foundational truths in what could be termed the "transcendent" philosophy of human character and behavior (i.e.Love your neighbor as yourself, Don't bear false witness etc..etc..), have found their ultimate authority and expression in Jesus Christ. i.e. by his "sinless life" and by his resurrection from the dead he has indeed testified to truth's primacy and authority over the material realm. Plus, I find it extremely poetic that Jesus has overcome death and entropy by leading a sinless, decay-free, life and which was testified to by his resurrection from the dead by the Shroud. (of note: entropy is the law of universal decay; it is also known as the second law of thermodynamics) I also find it extremely poetic that we too can escape death by accepting this “transcendent eternal truth” of Jesus atoning sacrifice for us into our hearts. of note: (In regards to the argument that some universal constants "may change" over time, It should be noted that the four primary forces/constants of the universe are said to be "mediated at the speed of light" by massless "mediator bosons". And thus, since time as we know it comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, this gives the universal constants the characteristic of being timeless, and thus unchanging, as far as the mass/matter of this universe is concerned. i.e. We should never expect something that is "timeless" to ever change in regards to the mass/matter of this universe which is itself subject to time and is thus obviously subject to change. (it should be noted that mass is subjected to entropic change).bornagain77_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Though I am sympathetic with ID, I disagree with the ID’ists who insist that methodological naturalism is necessarily a bad thing. As long methodological naturalism is honestly kept distinct from philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism I don’t see that it represents that much of a problem. On the other hand, there are ID critics like Barbara Forrest and Eugenie Scott who don’t make much distinction between the two. In fact, I suspect there is an intention to deliberately blur the distinction. Of course, I don’t think that ID is anywhere close to establishing itself as a science, nor do I have any idea if it ever will. But I also think that natural science is very limited about in what it can tell us about the real world. And while, science can tell us some things about origins it cannot give us the full story. I would argue that ID rather than naturalism is the picture that emerges when we interpret the evidence as a whole. This is a top down vs. a bottom up approach. In his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Anthony Flew makes this observation: “You might ask how I how I, a philosopher, could speak to issues treated by scientists. The best way to answer this is with another question. Are we engaging in science or philosophy here? When you study the interaction of two physical bodies, for instance, two sub atomic particles, you are engaged in science. When you ask how it is that those subatomic particles-- or anything physical-- could exist or why, you are engaged in philosophy. When you draw philosophical conclusions from scientific data, then you are thinking as a philosopher.” P89 Did Flew arrive at the conviction that the universe has evidence of design because it has been proven scientifically? I think the answer obviously is no, rather it is that design is the best interpretation of the evidence as we presently have it. That interpretation is a top down interpretation, a philosophical interpretation of the scientific evidence.john_a_designer_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

It seems that materialism's contribution to modern science and popular western culture has been the express aim of eliminating religious thought more than it has the advancement of science. Theists of NCSE beware. Your time is coming. You're merely helping it along. The NCSE plays no small role in establishing an anti-theological faith, using scientific and philosophical terminology to impress somehow redefine science along materialist guidelines. But this isn't the way it has always been. Throughout human history, the study of nature has always been attributed to have some kind of theological origin. It's only been the relatively recent couple thousand of years that alternatives to theological explanations for what is observed in nature have taken root in society. The thinking biologist would wonder why that is (no, I don't mean Richard Dawkins). Christianity poses the most severe threat to the materialist worldview, one which Barbara Forrest believes in with as much faith as the Christian does in God. It is no surprise then, that Christianity is associated with ID. Why no other religions? Why not the Raelians? Scientology? Islam? The materialist, at all costs, wishes to avoid ultimate moral accountability. The materialist knows this accountability is to the Judeo-Christian God. As such, If the NCSE and other Darwinist/materialist groups are allowed to become more influential in popular culture, we will be the first to reap the benefits. Amoralism, hedonism, relativism, socially acceptable rape, child abuse, incest and bestiality. Just wait a few years. If the materialists get their way, all these things that appear heinous to civilized cultures today will be acceptable in later generations. Give materialists a say in defining science, and a materialist morality will follow close on its heels. Barbara....FYI. The American people are not stupid. We don't need you to redefine the terms in favor of your philosophical position favoring methodological naturalism. Furthermore, IDers have a good, reasonable reason to believe some features of the universe and of living things are best explained by design. If Barb prefers her faith in chance, natural processes..then I submit to you that that is what is religious. This religion of materialism does not belong in science classrooms.Bantay_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Well uoflcard, the account in Genesis is pretty straightforward that God considers the creation of the earth pretty special. I mean to get God creating other unique planets in this universe out of the Genesis text you have to do some pretty convoluted mental gymnastics in my opinion Genesis 1:1-10 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. As well God the Son, Jesus Christ Himself, was ordained to visit this insignificant pale blue dot, as Sagan would put it, before the creation of time. "....... the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8 "...... the grace that was given to us in the Messiah Jesus before time began" 2 Timothy 1:9 Thus I think it fair to say, we can surmise that this world was created in this universe for a special, specific, purpose of God before time began. i.e. I think extremely unique is a fair call. This following paper by Dr. Hugh Ross may blow your socks off: http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004 excerpt: Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters =10^388 Dependency factors estimate =10^96 Longevity requirements estimate =10^14 Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters = 10^304 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe =10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Proverbs 3:19 "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth: by understanding He established the heavens;"bornagain77_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

bornagain
7. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted that this Earth is unique in this universe
I don't follow this one. Why is theism tied to only life on Earth?uoflcard_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Here is a video I uploaded on this topic with a short essay following; Scientific Materialism And the question Of Origins - Dr. Thomas Kindell http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8a84fc84322c7035dadc The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation to these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method by itself makes absolutely no predictions as to what the answer (best explanation) will be prior to investigation, to this question of origins. In fact the main purpose of the scientific method is to relentlessly pursue the truth no matter what the explanation is. In the beginning of a investigation all answers, explanations, are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed, through the years, to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say that by limiting the answers that one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology that would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. 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, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, in this completely different question of origins. In fact, I have heard someone say that, "Science is materialism." But Science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy with the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves with no recourse to intelligence whatsoever. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or the scientific method, in reality, as I say again, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true of the science in questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning whether the materialistic philosophy itself is true in this question!! i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" And when we realize that this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to, within the scientific method, then, of course, it is readily apparent that we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things that scientists who have been blinded by materialism miss. This is because the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy make, or have made, several "natural" contradictory predictions (hypothesis\') about the evidence we will find. And these predictions can be tested against one another within the scientific method. 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 that time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in Big Bang ----------- 3. Materialism predicted that space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang --------------- 4. Materialism predicted that at the base of this material reality would a solid indestructible material particle (atom) that rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted that the basis of this "material reality" was created by a being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the atomic basis of our material reality that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space --------------- 5. Materialism predicted that the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted that God is eternal and is thus outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light ---------------- 6. Materialism predicted that the universe did not have life in mind and that life is ultimately "an accident" of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every universal constant that scientists can measure is exquisitely finely-tuned for life to exist in this universe.----------------- 7. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted that this Earth is unique in this universe ------ Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. (Rare Earth; Brownlee, Privileged Planet; Gonzalez: Probability For Life On Earth: Ross) --------------------- 8. Materialism predicted that much of the the DNA code was junk, Theism predicted that we are fearfully and wonderfully made ------- ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "jungle, deeper, denser. and more difficult to penetrate that anyone had dared imagine". (Boston Globe)------------------ 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA that was ultimately responsible for all the diversity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted that 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)---------------------- 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form that accidentally "came from a warm little pond". Theism predicted that God created life ------ The simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. --------------------------- 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism would have naturally expected life to appear abruptly on Earth-------- We find evidence for "complex" photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. Moreover we find the first bacteria produced oxygen, and other bacteria detoxified the earth of poisonous levels of Heavy metals turning them into useful ores. both of which demonstrate foresight where none should be noted. (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, "U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland-Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) ----------------------- 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicts life to appear abruptly in God\\\'s fifth day of creation. ----- The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils over a very short "geologic resolution time". (Valentine; Meyer: Chein 5 to 10 mil.)--------------------- 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within kinds ----- fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group (Kind), and then stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group and within the specific species of the group over long periods of time, until finally, the entire group goes extinct in the fossil record. (A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Mark Webster 2007). Of the few fossils touted as transitional, There is not one uncontested example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils.--------------------- 12. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created ------ man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -------------------- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy upon the scientific method and look at the predictions (hypothesis\') of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find that the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the right direction of Theism as a rational explanation.--------------------------- In fact, as a Christian, I would be very remiss if I failed to ask you to accept the gift of eternal life from the living God who created everything. In fact, almighty God has made a very clear path for us "fallen human adults" to completely reconcile with Him so that we may be able to stand before him in heaven spotless. We do this by humbly accepting what he has done for us through Christ on the cross so that we may be "worthy" to inherit eternal life, In fact by accepting Christ into your heart, you will be cleansed spotless in the presence of almighty God. So how about it, Will you accept this priceless gift of Jesus Christ into your heart today so that you may have eternal life in heaven? ------------------ John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.bornagain77_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

I fail to understand why we MUST exclude supernatural causes to do "good science". Obviously we cannot study the supernatural causes themselves. But it is possible to infer that no natural origin probably exists for a certain phenomenon. I stated this a couple of months ago when the exchange occurred, but I'll say it again. Mike Klymkowsky, of Colorado University, was given $500,000 from the NSF to integrate abiogenesis theories into HS biology and chemistry classrooms. I e-mailed him and asked him why that should be in public classrooms, and he responded:
Well, from a scientific perspective, life must have arisen from non-living physiochemical systems
This just shows the misguidance of science. Real science doesn't require anything. It is just the methodological study of the natural world. This is what I thought methodological naturalism was for a long time, so I had no problem with it. But once I learned that it required natural origins, I knew something was wrong. So if we find out something even the most militant atheist scientists couldn't defend on natural terms, what would happen? Let's say we figure out that a mountain range on a distant planet spells out the word "Hello" perfectly. What would science have to say about it? Nothing? Or how about... "We require that it had a natural origin, so we will envoke a multiverse of multiverses, so the total number of universes is now 10^10,000,000,000. Now that this fact is established, chance and necessity require every word ever known to man (and any other intelligent life that has ever developed in the multi-multi-verse) to have been spelled out numerous times in different universes. We just happen to be in this universe where 'Hello' is spelled." I believe we have already made discoveries (and continue to make them) that confound philosophical naturalism. Defeat has rarely been admitted so far, but the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that chance and necessity are not up to the task. Even human intelligence is not up to the task of engineering some of the most basic lifeforms from scratch.uoflcard_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

There was a long discussion of methodological naturalism within the last 10 days. There was also a discussion of it at ASA within the last month. I made the comment that someone there said that the interpretation of MN that there exist nothing but natural causes is not neutral in the separation of state issue. The true neutral position is that there may be other causes in addition to natural causes. In other words science as it is practiced and taught in the United States violates the separation of Church and State interpretation.jerry_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply