Philosophy Science

Saying “science will know the answer some day” is often just an IOU dated: Infinity

Spread the love

In science, “we’ll have a naturalistic answer some day” is pseudo-science and should be ruled offside, says Don Johnson, author of Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability, writes UD to say,

While acknowledging that science continues to gain new insights (as
should be the case), the claim that “we don’t have a natural explanation yet, but we will someday” is not a scientific statement It amounts to a “naturalism of the gaps” dogma.

When that dogma violates known science, particularly information science, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate stances that purport to be science, but are actually pseudo-scientific speculations.

The question is whose gaps are more reasonable? We can readily empirically examine information, and when we KNOW its source, it invariably had an intelligent source. The anti-IDists believe making logical inferences where we don’t know the source is unscientific, so real scientists can dogmatically assert “science will know someday, but it definitely involved no intelligence.” (See POL, p. viii)

Saying “science will know the answer some day” is often just an IOU dated: Infinity 😉

3 Replies to “Saying “science will know the answer some day” is often just an IOU dated: Infinity

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    IOU “Infinity”???; It is interesting to note that it was in the intense studying of ‘infinity’, by many brilliant minds over several decades, that enabled Godel’s infamous ‘incompleteness’ theorem to finally be arrived at. And the incompleteness theorem is certainly not what the naturalist wants to believe!!!

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

    Georg Cantor – The Mathematics Of Infinity – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
    entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90

    As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be ‘true’ unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Godel’s story can be picked up here in part 7 of the video:

    BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 7-10)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0

  3. 3
    Foxhole Atheism says:

    Considering every conclusive answer we have is a naturalistic one, I’d say the odds are ridiculously on the side of saying, “If an answer is found, it will be natural.” And, considering science is concerned with probability over the much harder to establish proof, this doesn’t sound like a problem to me.

Leave a Reply