NationStates Jolt Archive

Anybody else notice how far this thread has strayed from the original topic?

Yes. But that's just the same direction all those other ID/evolution threads took... we just obey the law of gravity. Or should I say theory of gravity?

Maybe I should just have said "weak", or "easily distracted"... it was just an example

Does that mean you think people with faith 'weak' or 'easily distracted'? Careful now.



It doesn't make sense. But then, god tends not to, according to most religions.


I presume that means that it doesn't make sense to you. If so, then it might be a case of your world view being more of a problem than the religious one, if you know what I mean. When someone says that something does not make sense, it generally means that they cannot follow the logic found in such and such a statement. If you cannot see the logic, it is either not there, or there but you cannot see it. I'm not sure which one you mean.

As for gods not making sense, if they were created by man, according to the logic than man was capable of in former times, it is little wonder that they do not make sense according to modern logic. On the other hand, as I pointed out before, we cannot say that we are in a position to know whether a god is sensible or not unless we can demonstrate that--a jolly difficult task. Supposing a scenario in which the Christian God was very real, I'm not sure that He is supposed to make sense in the mind of someone who is a materialist (I'm not assuming you to be a materialist). Making sense appears to be very closely connected to the choices one makes in deciding what to believe.


I would suggest this book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061092177/qid=1137590579/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2720588-1268123?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)
It suggests that gods grow in strength with the number of believers they have, and that faith provides them with their powers. ;)


I thought you may have been serious, until I saw that the writer was Terry Pratchett. The man appears to have a multitude of opinions about god and gods, depending on which book you read.


Actually, not quite. Humans seem to be the only species who felt the need for divine guidance at some stage during its development.
Faith, i.e. belief in something that has supernatural powers even though this something has never been witnessed before, can be created in chimps as well, for example.
I've read about this ages ago and I don't have any links to prove it, but there obviously is a female chimp who firmly believes in an entity called "Susie" (I think). Susie acts very much in the same way as Santa Claus will work for a small child. The chimp never saw Susie, but the biologists she lives with and communicates with told her about Susie and what she can do. Susie sometimes leaves treats for the chimp if she had been nice, and if she has been misbehaving, her "parents" will threaten her that Susie might be angry with her.
Apparently, the chimp has taken to lying, too, telling people that Susie did something like breaking a vase...

I've no idea how anyone can assume that the chimp believes in supernatural powers. Goodness me! For all the chimp knows, 'Susie' might be a special human that the chimp has never met. How does one get 'inside' the head of a chimp?

As for lying, one has to distinguish between intentional lying (doing something which it knows is wrong) and unintentional lying (not even knowing that it is wrong, but just some sort of harmless trick taught to it by humans in order to get a reward).

But to be fair, I haven't read about this situation, so I cannot know the details. But I would hardly feel that one can conclude that a chimp is capable of believing in the supernatural, or knowing the difference between right and wrong on one hand, and rewards and punishment on the other.

Good question, and I have to say that I don't know the answer. I could guess, though. Perhaps because he wanted people to come to him through faith, not through science. Just a guess....

If he wants that why not just create the world with no trace of his presence?

The approach that ID takes may indeed raise some questions that cannot be answered through science, but I find it doubtful that raising such questions means that therefore ID cannot be science. An example of a question that science cannot answer being your point about who designed the designer. However, when you consider that good science is careful to recognise its limitations, and will not try to investigate that which it cannot, then you have a peaceful coexistence of science alongside questions that it cannot answer. As usual, I find it helpful to think about the assumptions upon which naturalism stands, and how the approach that naturalism takes in science is also raising questions that science cannot answer. For an example, you have to wonder how randomness can produce order, not just any old order, but the incredibly complexity that led to the existence of you and me, capable of asking such questions. It isn't that we cannot seek to provide some sort of answers to such a problem, but that those answers must come from mathematics or some such related theoretical approach--not science. We would make very bad scientists indeed if we thought that science should be capable of providing such questions. Our first job would be to find an authentic source of randomness in our universe, and find a way of measuring it's ability to form order. While that may be theoretically possible, no one has found a way of using science to do this, thus the question remains unanswered except for by some untestable speculations. Thus it isn't any better than the so-called speculations that religion might provide for ID.


Simply because both naturalism and ID raise some questions that cannot be answered with science, it doesn't mean that they cannot find truth in our material world. Thus your point about ID 'unfortunately' raising some questions that cannot be answered through science is not relevant to the debate.

And nobody would have a problem with that, if they would actually do this, which is not the case. ID does not simply ask questions, they already have their answer and are on a quest for the questions that lead to this answer.

As you already said, those questions cannot be answered by science, in fact science does not even try to answer them: religion and philosophy do that.

Where did the Universe come from?

Science: We do not know, because the Big Bang (our currently best supported theory) is our event horizon. We cannot see what was before that.

ID: An Intelligent Designer must have done it.

That's why ID fails. The answer that an "Intelligent Designer" did it all (which does not even explain anything - it's just the good old god of the gap argument) can not be part of science, but this answer is part of ID. That's why it's called ID, remember?

Originally Posted by Willamena
EDIT: You use "science" as an all-encompassing ideology, rather than as the processes and applications that utilize the scientific method.
It may help to distinguish between science and the scientific method. Scientific method would be the part of science that is almost neutral regarding the supernatural, although it cannot be free from it. As you pointed out above, one can never remove the motivation from the researcher. While the raw data generated by the scientific method may look the same for both the religious scientist and the atheistic scientist, the interpretation of the raw data may be different, depending on the motivation of the scientist. And since the scientific method does involve interpretation of results, one cannot free it entirely from the issue of the supernatural.
Just one more thing about this, before I leave it. Ideologies are indicated by the presence of things that "should" be or "should" happen in order to support premise ideas --expectations, duties, etc. The person who adheres to a conservative ideology, for instance, can be expected to value things that, for the most part, remain unchanged, the foundations of our society: history, tradition, community, law. The ideology (conservativism) grew out of a value for these things, and in its turn, it is turned into an "-ism" where it becomes the duty of a person holding to that ideology to uphold those values, a duty that they take onto themselves (what I call "buying into" the ideology).

The duty of "the scientist" (talking about an icon, here, not a person) is to support and utilitize the scientific method (and therefore naturalism) to accomplish his end, which is usually some practical application. This is "science", as I used it. This is the ideology that "the scientist" buys into. It doesn't mean a person in the role of the scientist can't hold other beliefs, other ideologies... but these are not part of what is "science" to me.

But I respect that "science" can apply to the field, and to the job, and to the person, and probably to other areas.

Continuing...
True. We have to look at the details here, because people (myself included) have a tendency to misuse terms. An example would be the statement that ''evolution is fact''. It depends on the definition of the word 'evolution'.
...and the definition of the concept of "factual".

Another example would be that 'science tells us that eating chocolate, drinking wine, and enjoying pornography are good for you'. (I have seen all of these statements in the media.) So we need to think about what the definition of 'science' the media is using. Perhaps they should say that there are some people within the science community that have arguments that are based on some data which they interpret to mean such and such (although that kills a sexy article title). If it is a good article, the reporter will include arguments from the opposite side. Then one might be forgiven for going away thinking that 'science' contradicts itself. It doesn't. Interpretation based on data generated by following scientific procedure often does.

At any rate, I think I have demonstrated that even something as objective as the scientific method cannot be entirely free from bias. We need to be careful with that.
Ah, but media bias is to angle things for mass consumption; I'm sure you know this. The statement found in the media cannot be regarded as a scientific conclusion, unless perhaps a scientist is quoted word for word.

That the conclusions contradict themselves is very good for the scientist. It will lead to further testing, perhaps not soon but eventually, that should, if the scientific method is adhered to, produce a more truthful explanation within the context of naturalism. The contradiction has to be explained.

Much of science can 'politely ignore the cause', as you put it, and get on with it. But there is, within science, many areas of research that is not happy with ignorance about the cause. For example, those who seek to understand the development of organelles in prokaryotes (and thus the evolution of eukaryotes) approach the issue by suggesting the causes. They are confined to studying the molecular interactions of the chemical world and the way in which the characteristics of those interactions eventually led to increasing biodiversity. They see the nature of the material world as a general 'cause'. Thus you cannot define scientific investigation as that which ignores causes. Rather, it may look at cause and effect. It cannot know all causes, granted, but it just works within its limitations. Such is the goal of ID, so far as I understand it. The difference with ID is that it allows that some causes may not be directly observable (although evolutionary theory also allows that some causes are also hidden, but assert that such causes would still belong to the natural world).
But that particular 'much of science; that 'ignores the cause' and gets on with it does so on the necessary assumption that the cause is part of contingent reality that may someday be uncovered. That makes all the difference in the world. 'Molecular interactions' have contingent cause; 'biodiversity' has contingent cause --something caused it and it, in turn, causes something else. "The supernatural", the non-contingent cause, simply does not fit anywhere into science.

Does that mean you think people with faith 'weak' or 'easily distracted'? Careful now.

Well, if they were, they wouldn't be the ones distracted by logic, would they?




I thought you may have been serious, until I saw that the writer was Terry Pratchett. The man appears to have a multitude of opinions about god and gods, depending on which book you read.

I was serious. Of course he has a multitude of opinions about gods, who doesn't?
The book is worth reading, though, as it comes up with a concept of interrelationship between a god and his believers as opposed to the old hierachical idea.



I've no idea how anyone can assume that the chimp believes in supernatural powers. Goodness me! For all the chimp knows, 'Susie' might be a special human that the chimp has never met. How does one get 'inside' the head of a chimp?

That's exactly the point. Something or somebody the chimp had never seen, and yet it assumed both its existence and its powers and abilities to be real. Faith.


As for lying, one has to distinguish between intentional lying (doing something which it knows is wrong) and unintentional lying (not even knowing that it is wrong, but just some sort of harmless trick taught to it by humans in order to get a reward).

But to be fair, I haven't read about this situation, so I cannot know the details. But I would hardly feel that one can conclude that a chimp is capable of believing in the supernatural, or knowing the difference between right and wrong on one hand, and rewards and punishment on the other.

To blame somebody else for doing something you yourself have done, that's lying. And it's conscious. My cat knows when it's done something it shouldn't, you can easily tell by its behaviour (avoiding me, sideways looks, hiding away once I come near the side of the crime, etc.), but it is not capable of lying. The chimp is... and not only this one. "Lying" as a form of behaviour has been observed in chimps and apes both in the wild and in captivity.

I consider it a technicality, in which everything in the naturalistic world view is technically testable, but practically isn't, and will never be.
In your contrast of ID and naturalism, you have not been exactly fair, I feel. You described ID as something that can never be tested. This is not completely true, since it is possible to look at biological information systems and make the statement 'If it was designed, one might be expected to find such and such.' Thus, the progress that an IDer makes is not to find out how the designer made life. It never has been. That is the great strawman of this whole debate. Rather, he will find ways to see if the data can be consistently interpreted according to the premise suggested above, i.e., that a designer of life should leave tell-tale signs behind, and that a detailed analysis of the information that one finds in life (e.g., genes, proteins, etc.) should reveal this. This is the testable part of ID. Knowing how the designer did things is not necessary to the progress. Finding data that indicates a designer is.
I meant that if ID contains the idea of "the supernatural" as cause, as designer, then that can never be tested for. If it is strawman to say that ID claims the supernatural as designer, I apologize, but I don't believe that to be the case.

I have yet to research any claims that a designer can be clearly seen in biological information systems, so I can't comment on that.

Within naturalism, while one does have a system for investigating the material world, it is based on assumptions that can not be tested. You have said that they may one day be tested, but I cannot imagine how one is able to test the hypothesis that life arose from a single ancestor, or that there isn't a supernatural interference. Thus naturalism has it's fair share of untestable assumptions.
It is not so much about testability as it is about unprovability. But I reckon you know that. Here is something to wrap your head around: If it is part of a contingent reality, the unknown cause is automatically unprovable. This is NOT because it cannot be tested, but because while it remains unknown it could have one explanation, it could have another, but only one of the theories developed about cause will eventually be supported and accepted as "reality". This is the scientific view.

I cannot imagine how one could test for the presence of black holes, but somehow they do.

What we in science want to know is the truth. However, we know that there are some questions that we cannot answer with science. For example, science cannot KNOW for certain that there is a designer. The best ID can do is make discoveries that make a designer look likely. Likewise, naturalism is forever trying to find ways in which the nature of the material world provides a more likely explanation for life and its diversity. Consequently, in regard to the supernatural, if it considers the possibility of the supernatural at all, it would see itself as pushing back the requirements for a supernatural, or to put it another way, removing ignorance and superstition. In this way, it doesn't do more with the supernatural than to assume that it does not exist, rather than proving that it doesn't exist. It assumes that the non-existence of the supernatural is a truth on which to base it's assumptions. I realize you know this already, but this leads me to a following point.
Heh. I see 'removing ignorance and superstition' through knowledge as different than redefining 'what is supernatural', but maybe that's just me. Science doesn't do more with the supernatural than to assume it adheres to its definition, which necessarily excludes it from science. :)

If the supernatural is true, and God did create the universe....
...and there is not way to ever know this scientifically, then...

...naturalism is very wrong.
Not a valid conclusion.

It's back to the old argument, then, about redefining what science means.

What one might expect from such a situation is a theory that is strengthened by the data that can be explained consistently with this, but full of holes and gaps. That is precisely what we do have in the evolutionary theory.
All based on an "if" that can never be known. How is that "stronger"?

Will address the rest later.

I cannot imagine how one could test for the presence of black holes, but somehow they do.


Its like the wind...you can't see it but you can see its effect on objects. that and also they emit radiation ala Hawking effect.:)

You may like to present an argument for that statement.
The fact that the spirit world doesn't have any physical connection to this one would seem to be a fair argument for that statement.

Originally Posted by Cabra West
Then why waste so much time on setting up this huge, splendid and fascinating world, that works through scientific/natural processes, not faith? To distract the weak-willed?
Hmmm, hadn't thought of that one before. But do you think of faith as being evidence of a strong will, or a weak one? I don't quite get that point.
I thought it referred to the temptation thing.

I meant that if ID contains the idea of "the supernatural" as cause, as designer, then that can never be tested for. If it is strawman to say that ID claims the supernatural as designer, I apologize, but I don't believe that to be the case.

ID allows that the supernatural may be one of several causes. ID specialises in discrimination between causes of the phenomenon of information in biological information systems. It would be a strawman argument to claim that ID is trying to find out HOW the supernatural interferred with the natural world. This is something science cannot do. However, ID tries to see if designs in information systems can be interpreted consistently with the idea that the supernatural may have contributed at one time (at least) in the past with the natural world. It isn't trying to answer the question of 'how did the designer do it', but 'if he/she/it did design life, can we detect design in the material world?'

Your argument seems to be that the moment science recognises or allows the supernatural, it has to recogises its own limitations, and thus falls flat on its face. Not necessarily. I argue that it is simply a case of recognising the limitations, and getting on with the job. It would mean that science would have a humbler position than it is currently thought to have in the public eye, but I see that as a good thing.


It is not so much about testability as it is about unprovability. But I reckon you know that. Here is something to wrap your head around: If it is part of a contingent reality, the unknown cause is automatically unprovable. This is NOT because it cannot be tested, but because while it remains unknown it could have one explanation, it could have another, but only one of the theories developed about cause will eventually be supported and accepted as "reality". This is the scientific view.

I cannot imagine how one could test for the presence of black holes, but somehow they do.


There is nothing in the empirical method which says that it should be capable of investigating every knowledge available to man. Science should be capable of sticking to the pursuit of truth in the material world, and leaving other matters to other disciplines of study.

Naturalism, however, insists that everything that exists can be explained by the interactions that exist in the material world. It is naturalism that cannot accept the existence of the supernatural, and thus naturalism, not science, that is incompatible with ID.


Heh. I see 'removing ignorance and superstition' through knowledge as different than redefining 'what is supernatural', but maybe that's just me. Science doesn't do more with the supernatural than to assume it adheres to its definition, which necessarily excludes it from science. :)


In that case, we differ. Because my idea of science is the pursuit of truth in the material world, not an attempt to exclude the supernatural. It is naturalism that excludes the supernatural, not science.



...and there is not way to ever know this scientifically, then...


Not a valid conclusion.

It's back to the old argument, then, about redefining what science means.


All based on an "if" that can never be known. How is that "stronger"?

Will address the rest later.

I think you missed my point. I was using the above point of naturalism's exclusion of the supernatural and focus on the natural as the source of knowledge and contrasting it with ID's approach, that of allowing for the supernatural as a cause, but not assuming it in every case, to point out that ID is the more careful approach. I was not, however, using the point to show that naturalism was wrong, only not as careful, since it includes a bigger assumption than ID.
Sure, I was using big 'if's' in each case to address different scenarios, not to argue that ID must be right and naturalism must be wrong. I did point out that currently we cannot use science to prove one right and the other one wrong. We can only argue for the most likely scenario.

ID allows that the supernatural may be one of several causes. ID specialises in discrimination between causes of the phenomenon of information in biological information systems.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying that ID has determined multiple causes for the phenomenon of life (via biological information systems) and sets as its target the task of deliberately pointing out the differences between them?

So then, HOW they determined these multiple causes, this is the thing. For the one cause, the "designer hypothesis", I continually read "it is indicated in the data blah blah information systems," but the best example offered for how it is indicated (the watch on the beach analogy) is entirely unworkable. Sadly, I have yet to hear anything convincing about it, or scientifically understandable at my simple level.

It would be a strawman argument to claim that ID is trying to find out HOW the supernatural interferred with the natural world.
Okay, but that was never my claim.

This is something science cannot do. However, ID tries to see if designs in information systems can be interpreted consistently with the idea that the supernatural may have contributed at one time (at least) in the past with the natural world. It isn't trying to answer the question of 'how did the designer do it', but 'if he/she/it did design life, can we detect design in the material world?'
And, all truth-seeking aside, do you still claim that this method you've described here is scientific? It would seem to me that in "seeking the truth" (the goal of science that you propose earlier), ID holds that each of these explanations is truthful (as opposed to potentially truthful), and that can lead to seeing what they want to see in the data, in the natural world. However much scientists might do the same thing, is this really "science"?

Your argument seems to be that the moment science recognises or allows the supernatural, it has to recogises its own limitations, and thus falls flat on its face. Not necessarily. I argue that it is simply a case of recognising the limitations, and getting on with the job. It would mean that science would have a humbler position than it is currently thought to have in the public eye, but I see that as a good thing.
The philosophy of naturalism, out of which science grew, makes that argument.

There is nothing in the empirical method which says that it should be capable of investigating every knowledge available to man. Science should be capable of sticking to the pursuit of truth in the material world, and leaving other matters to other disciplines of study.

Naturalism, however, insists that everything that exists can be explained by the interactions that exist in the material world. It is naturalism that cannot accept the existence of the supernatural, and thus naturalism, not science, that is incompatible with ID.
Agreed! ...for the most part. (I think that science has a different goal in mind than uncovering truth, but that's a matter of opinion.)

Right! Naturalism cannot accept the existence of the supernatural, it is incompatible with ID, *and* it is the philosophy of science. Now we're on the same track.

In that case, we differ. Because my idea of science is the pursuit of truth in the material world, not an attempt to exclude the supernatural. It is naturalism that excludes the supernatural, not science.

Perhaps that is the only significant debating point, then.

I think you missed my point. I was using the above point of naturalism's exclusion of the supernatural and focus on the natural as the source of knowledge and contrasting it with ID's approach, that of allowing for the supernatural as a cause, but not assuming it in every case, to point out that ID is the more careful approach. I was not, however, using the point to show that naturalism was wrong, only not as careful, since it includes a bigger assumption than ID.
Sure, I was using big 'if's' in each case to address different scenarios, not to argue that ID must be right and naturalism must be wrong. I did point out that currently we cannot use science to prove one right and the other one wrong. We can only argue for the most likely scenario.
I saw your point; was just, perhaps improperly, making another. Because the supernatural cannot be explained or known, it will always be a big "if", no? I would think that the bigger "if" would be the broader assumption, no? (the supernatural being the biggest..)

Also, the limited approach of naturalism means that science is more careful in "doing science". Within the confines of that philosophy, the entire contingent universe can be known. I sincerely think science has a different goal than to uncover "the truth", which is something that can never be known.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

You know why we CAN teach history and english? Because we don't claim it to be science like the people do with ID. Now, I agree with the philosophy class, but it could also be a religious studies class.
My only argument against ID is that some people want to be able to replace that for a science class. I don't mind it being a class just not a science class because it isn't science.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That ones harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationism) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.


why not teach all beliefs in schools and not pick and chose "who's" is right or wrong and there is no true science in any of the theories on how we got here and from where . ID is only one way that some believe, then there will be on establishment of religion, plus there is no law against teaching it any where in the constitution.

Wallace

why not teach all beliefs in schools and not pick and chose "who's" is right or wrong and there is no true science in any of the theories on how we got here and from where . ID is only one way that some believe, then there will be on establishment of religion, plus there is no law against teaching it any where in the constitution.

Wallace
Complete and utter piffle: there's an extensive fossil record and genetic evidence for relationships between dissimilar species, which suggests that they descended from a common ancestor. What more proof do you need?
The theory of evolution has a lot of (at least circumstantial) evidence supporting it: id is merely an attempt to do creationism without mentioning God and works primarily by attempting to ignore any flaws or objections anybody can find in it. With an attitude like that, the cretins trying to pass this nonsense off as a science are farting through their teeth rather than taking part in any kind of debate.

ID allows that the supernatural may be one of several causes. ID specialises in discrimination between causes of the phenomenon of information in biological information systems. It would be a strawman argument to claim that ID is trying to find out HOW the supernatural interferred with the natural world. This is something science cannot do. However, ID tries to see if designs in information systems can be interpreted consistently with the idea that the supernatural may have contributed at one time (at least) in the past with the natural world. It isn't trying to answer the question of 'how did the designer do it', but 'if he/she/it did design life, can we detect design in the material world?'
The whole problem with this argument is that to be able to be able to find out if something supernatural may have interfered with the natural world you have to deduct how the supernatural would interfere.
You still have to get yourself a hypothesis on which you can base tests that show that the other established theories are wrong while your hypothesis can explain all that the previous theories explained and give an explanation for the result of the test.
And that is what ID does not have. It does not explain any of the current evidence except saying well it's magic so we can't explain it. ID does not allow for predictions that can be tested against because that would require the ability to explain this magic. All that ID has are attacks on the theory of evolution that exploit the very basics of science (it's only a theory, it does not explain everything, etc, etc,etc).

Your argument seems to be that the moment science recognises or allows the supernatural, it has to recogises its own limitations, and thus falls flat on its face. Not necessarily. I argue that it is simply a case of recognising the limitations, and getting on with the job. It would mean that science would have a humbler position than it is currently thought to have in the public eye, but I see that as a good thing.

No. The argument is that the moment we allow magic as a valid explanation of things we would not have progressed beyond the point where we had to steal fire from the gods.

There is nothing in the empirical method which says that it should be capable of investigating every knowledge available to man. Science should be capable of sticking to the pursuit of truth in the material world, and leaving other matters to other disciplines of study.

Good now lets leave the supernatural and God where it belongs to. That is with people who ask the why questions (philosophers, theologians, etc).
If only the believers in ID would do that instead of trying to force, by hook or by crook, their view of how the world should work on everyone.

Naturalism, however, insists that everything that exists can be explained by the interactions that exist in the material world. It is naturalism that cannot accept the existence of the supernatural, and thus naturalism, not science, that is incompatible with ID.

In that case, we differ. Because my idea of science is the pursuit of truth in the material world, not an attempt to exclude the supernatural. It is naturalism that excludes the supernatural, not science.

Science also excludes the supernatural. The definition of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) does not change because you believe it to be wrong. The definition is quite right, it is just that the fundamentalists supporting the ID belief have publicly (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178) (under oath in a court case) admitted that they would have to change the definition of what is science to allow their belief to be classified as science.

I think you missed my point. I was using the above point of naturalism's exclusion of the supernatural and focus on the natural as the source of knowledge and contrasting it with ID's approach, that of allowing for the supernatural as a cause, but not assuming it in every case, to point out that ID is the more careful approach. I was not, however, using the point to show that naturalism was wrong, only not as careful, since it includes a bigger assumption than ID.
Sure, I was using big 'if's' in each case to address different scenarios, not to argue that ID must be right and naturalism must be wrong. I did point out that currently we cannot use science to prove one right and the other one wrong. We can only argue for the most likely scenario.
The ID belief requires the bigger assumption, unless you have proof that God exists (I'm not going to beat around the bush any longer ID belief is creationism redressed). But as Ockham (the guy was a very devout monk who applied parsimony so ruthlessly we called the razor after him) managed to prove using logic that you cannot prove the existence of God, only believe in him. This logical proof has survived for several hundred years now.
So on the one side you have a hypothesis that requires you to believe that an omnipotent being exists to explain everything we don't know yet (we might just as well tell all those poor scientists that their work is rubbish so they can find a more useful job).
On the other hand we have a theory that has survived every possible test thrown at it and gives out predictions that have been verified.

Not sure if you are going to accept the following but even the Vatican agrees (http://today.reuters.com/sponsoredby/amex/article.aspx?type=innovationNews&storyID=2006-01-19T155619Z_01_L19111788_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CATHOLIC-EVOLUTION.xml) with the scientists that 'intelligent design' is not science.

why not teach all beliefs in schools and not pick and chose "who's" is right or wrong

Because there are billions of them and children have only a limited attention span ? Schools need to choose what seem to be the best theory or theories, based on evidence presented. Evolution sofar is the only theory that has decent credentials. Supporters of ID may *claim* their theory is just as good - but sofar have nothing to actually substantiate that claim. If and when they can actually show something - THEN they will have a legitimate reason to demand classtime.

Personally I wouldn't stay up waiting. But who knows...

I'm not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying that ID has determined multiple causes for the phenomenon of life (via biological information systems) and sets as its target the task of deliberately pointing out the differences between them?

That is one of the major tasks that ID sets for itself. Obviously, it needs to distinguish between the effects of nature and and the phenomenon that is best explained by the interference of a designer. The causes of nature can be divided into those causes that are described as laws of nature (given the same starting point, the end result will always be the same), and those that are considered random (or too complicated to predict).


So then, HOW they determined these multiple causes, this is the thing. For the one cause, the "designer hypothesis", I continually read "it is indicated in the data blah blah information systems," but the best example offered for how it is indicated (the watch on the beach analogy) is entirely unworkable. Sadly, I have yet to hear anything convincing about it, or scientifically understandable at my simple level.


I suppose that is one of the problems with trying to explain a complicated process using simple analogies, e.g., the watch on the beach. Recently, I've been reading through a book on the process, and it is about as long as the Bible. While it is beginning to make sense to me, I feel my knowledge is inadequate to explain it in general terms just yet. Even then, my understanding is limited to a book. Perhaps if you are patient......

One of the favourite examples that ID uses is in embryo development, since having the right information already in place is critical, while alterations (evolution) are almost never helpful, particularly in the earlier stagest of development. Mutations in the earlier states generally cause a greater catastrophe, the earlier they are, the greater the effects. This makes it rather difficult for one to hold on to the assumption that all of life is derived from a single ancestor. Thus it is a favourite with IDers because everyone knows that popular evolutionary theory is inadequate (currently) to explain the observations. But I don't expect you to take my word for it.


And, all truth-seeking aside, do you still claim that this method you've described here is scientific? It would seem to me that in "seeking the truth" (the goal of science that you propose earlier), ID holds that each of these explanations is truthful (as opposed to potentially truthful), and that can lead to seeing what they want to see in the data, in the natural world. However much scientists might do the same thing, is this really "science"?


I don't see why ID would hold a suggestion to be 'truth'. No scientist does this, to my knowledge. In seeking the truth, an IDer, like any scientist, would try to determine whether the data can be interpreted in terms of a hypothesis. A hypothesis cannot become truth unless it can be demonstrated as true. I cannot see where ID says that a hypothesis is truth. Perhaps you are referring to the concept of a supernatural being able to interfere with the natural world. But this is the assumption upon which ID is based, just as naturalism is based on the assumption that all things can be explain in terms of natural causes. I suppose that is the 'truth' of naturalism that is potentially truthful, but still an assumption, and just as impossible to demonstrate.



The philosophy of naturalism, out of which science grew, makes that argument.


If I could put my finger on the major differences between you and I, perhaps it would be this idea of yours that science grew out of naturalism. I don't believe it did. We humans were making progress in science before naturalism came about. Naturalism brought advantages and disadvantages to science, but it is NOT the parent of science.


Agreed! ...for the most part. (I think that science has a different goal in mind than uncovering truth, but that's a matter of opinion.)


Really? Science is not about searching for truth in the material world? How would you put it then?


Right! Naturalism cannot accept the existence of the supernatural, it is incompatible with ID, *and* it is the philosophy of science. Now we're on the same track.


Except that you still think that naturalism has rights over science, while I think otherwise. If naturalism died tomorrow, we would still have science. I see science as a persuit of truth in the material world, and naturalism sees science as the persuit of truth. In my mind, science belongs to the natural world, and cannot inquire into the spiritual world, while naturalism rules out the existence of a spiritual world, and believes that all questions are potentially answerable through scrutiny using our five senses. I just remember that my five senses are limited to observation of the material world, and I don't buy into any part of naturalism in my work as a scientist.


Perhaps that is the only significant debating point, then.


More and more, I am inclined to agree with you on that point.


I saw your point; was just, perhaps improperly, making another. Because the supernatural cannot be explained or known, it will always be a big "if", no? I would think that the bigger "if" would be the broader assumption, no? (the supernatural being the biggest..)


OK. Sorry to miss your point. Well that is another way of looking at it, and yes, it is logical. Of course one's own arguments may look more logical than another's, but that is just showing one's bias, perhaps.


Also, the limited approach of naturalism means that science is more careful in "doing science". Within the confines of that philosophy, the entire contingent universe can be known. I sincerely think science has a different goal than to uncover "the truth", which is something that can never be known.

Fair enough. But if we must get to the point of discussing truth, what it is, I think we shall be heading towards new territory. I am often reminded of Pontius Pilate's reply to Jesus, when Jesus mentioned that word. (What is truth?)

For a Christian, the ultimate source of truth is God. For a non-Christian thinker, truth either does not exist or has a different meaning. However, when I refer to the search for truth in the material world, I have in mind the sort of 'simple' truth by which antibiotics saves lives, condoms save unwanted pregnancies, genetic alterations improve food crops, and brain surgery can remove cancers. At that level, the 'truth' is knowledge that we can use relyably to make informed and useful decisions that involved low risk.

Because there are billions of them and children have only a limited attention span ? Schools need to choose what seem to be the best theory or theories, based on evidence presented. Evolution sofar is the only theory that has decent credentials. Supporters of ID may *claim* their theory is just as good - but sofar have nothing to actually substantiate that claim. If and when they can actually show something - THEN they will have a legitimate reason to demand classtime.

Personally I wouldn't stay up waiting. But who knows...
They can't substantiate their claim, which is why they concentrate on facile (and most of the time completely incorrect) attacks on the theory of evolution: the one that always kills me is the claims that there are no fossils of intermediate species anywhere. There's dozens of the things.

They can't substantiate their claim, which is why they concentrate on facile (and most of the time completely incorrect) attacks on the theory of evolution: the one that always kills me is the claims that there are no fossils of intermediate species anywhere. There's dozens of the things.

Depends on the definitions. And they are masters with that kind of sophistry. So for example what most people (at least I expect most) would call a fossil of an intermediate humaniod species they catogorize as ape or human. The funny thing is that they can't agree with each other on where to place this arbitrary line that seperates apes from humans.

The whole problem with this argument is that to be able to be able to find out if something supernatural may have interfered with the natural world you have to deduct how the supernatural would interfere.
You still have to get yourself a hypothesis on which you can base tests that show that the other established theories are wrong while your hypothesis can explain all that the previous theories explained and give an explanation for the result of the test.
And that is what ID does not have. It does not explain any of the current evidence except saying well it's magic so we can't explain it. ID does not allow for predictions that can be tested against because that would require the ability to explain this magic. All that ID has are attacks on the theory of evolution that exploit the very basics of science (it's only a theory, it does not explain everything, etc, etc,etc).


The IDer may have to look at the purpose of a design, to see if it 'fits' with the idea that it was designed, but it is completely unnecessary to understand the forces involved in putting that design in place.

ID does point to the holes in evolutionary theory, and consequently gets accused of being based on holes. It gets labelled as the theory of criticisms, and as lacking any other fair arguments for its case. I don't think you can say that is not trying to establish that evolutionary theory is wrong, or has some major flaws.

When it comes to providing arguments for its own case, why would it be necessary to understand the 'magic' by which design was put in place. That is a common mistake made by naturalists who think that every question can be answered if only we know enough about the natural forces in the material world. ID does not claim this. It is seeking a way to argue that design is more likely to be explained by an intelligent designer, rather than randomness. It simply is not necessary to investigate the 'magical' process the designer used, anymore than it is necessary to find the great purpose of existence for naturalism.




No. The argument is that the moment we allow magic as a valid explanation of things we would not have progressed beyond the point where we had to steal fire from the gods.


In that one statement you have discounted all of the scientific progress that we have made before the rise of naturalism. If you think scientific progress is not possible, so long as we believe in God and his power to do miracles, you have to be mistaken. Science cannot investigate miracles, but it can investigate the material world, without the help of naturalism.


Good now lets leave the supernatural and God where it belongs to. That is with people who ask the why questions (philosophers, theologians, etc).
If only the believers in ID would do that instead of trying to force, by hook or by crook, their view of how the world should work on everyone.


You still don't see it. ID is not investigating the supernatural. It simply allows that the information present in life may have come from a designer. It does not even have any experiments that determine whether the designer was part of the natural world or the supernatural.

Neither naturalism or ID forces their world view on anyone. It is only people who do this sort of ugly thing, and it cannot be used to argue that either world view is wrong.


Science also excludes the supernatural. The definition of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) does not change because you believe it to be wrong. The definition is quite right, it is just that the fundamentalists supporting the ID belief have publicly (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178) (under oath in a court case) admitted that they would have to change the definition of what is science to allow their belief to be classified as science.


I didn't find anything in your wikipedia definition of science that states that there is no supernatural, or that there was no designer. Just that it is based on physical evidence, which is what ID does. It looks at the material world, and draws conclusions that it believes are most consistent with the physical evidence.

If the definition of science is commonly confused with naturalism, that would be because of the dominance of science by naturalistic thinkers. Thus it would not surprise me that the IDers feel that they would need to redefine 'science'.


The ID belief requires the bigger assumption, unless you have proof that God exists (I'm not going to beat around the bush any longer ID belief is creationism redressed). But as Ockham (the guy was a very devout monk who applied parsimony so ruthlessly we called the razor after him) managed to prove using logic that you cannot prove the existence of God, only believe in him. This logical proof has survived for several hundred years now.
So on the one side you have a hypothesis that requires you to believe that an omnipotent being exists to explain everything we don't know yet (we might just as well tell all those poor scientists that their work is rubbish so they can find a more useful job).
On the other hand we have a theory that has survived every possible test thrown at it and gives out predictions that have been verified.


ID and naturalism require opposite assumptions. One is not bigger than the other. The difference is that when making observations, naturalism assumes the absence of anything other than the natural, while ID allows for both the natural forces and the supernatural.

Ockham's razor is only applicable when it leads to an adequate explanation of phenomena. When it leaves one with an inadequate explanation, it is no longer useful. The fact that evolutionary theory is currently inadequate for many explanations means applying Ockham's razor to remove God is not wise.

I am aware that one cannot prove the existence of God, and if you have followed my arguments, you would see that I have said that ID cannot do this. Faith will always be necessary. ID, at best, can only provide good arguments for the existence of a designer. That is a long way from proof, and again, it has nothing in it's experiments to show that the designer is a supernatural one, i.e. God.



Not sure if you are going to accept the following but even the Vatican agrees (http://today.reuters.com/sponsoredby/amex/article.aspx?type=innovationNews&storyID=2006-01-19T155619Z_01_L19111788_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CATHOLIC-EVOLUTION.xml) with the scientists that 'intelligent design' is not science.

I suggest that the Vatican had best leave such decisions to science. It is a simple case of 'taking one's word for it', in the case of the Vatican.

Depends on the definitions. And they are masters with that kind of sophistry. So for example what most people (at least I expect most) would call a fossil of an intermediate humaniod species they catogorize as ape or human. The funny thing is that they can't agree with each other on where to place this arbitrary line that seperates apes from humans.
That's one of the harder cases to distinguish, as it's hard to say when something actually qualifies as human (if it's just a tool using creature, that's most of the other great apes as well). There doesn't seem to be any doubt that archeoptrex is a small dinosaur with wings and feathers rather than a primitive bird with teeth, though, and the arguments I've seen to try to gainsay that beggar belief.

why not teach all beliefs in schools and not pick and chose "who's" is right or wrong and there is no true science in any of the theories on how we got here and from where . ID is only one way that some believe, then there will be on establishment of religion, plus there is no law against teaching it any where in the constitution.

Wallace
Teehee! Wallace the irate gnome.

Do you really want to be in grade school learning religions for the rest of your life? There are more "beliefs" than can be taught in a lifetime.

If I could put my finger on the major differences between you and I, perhaps it would be this idea of yours that science grew out of naturalism. I don't believe it did. We humans were making progress in science before naturalism came about. Naturalism brought advantages and disadvantages to science, but it is NOT the parent of science.
Well, when you define science so broadly as "the search for the truth," I am not surprised that this is your belief. :)

Naturalism is dated to the 4th Century BC, and you yourself said in an earlier post (where I entered this discussion) that is the philosophy of science. I would certainly agree that it is not the philosophy of truth-seekers.

Really? Science is not about searching for truth in the material world? How would you put it then?
Science is about defining the physical world. This, of course, implies an agent of defining, someone for whom the physical world is defined --that be us. It also implies a reason to be defining the physical world --that be its application, for us.

Except that you still think that naturalism has rights over science, while I think otherwise. If naturalism died tomorrow, we would still have science. I see science as a persuit of truth in the material world, and naturalism sees science as the persuit of truth. In my mind, science belongs to the natural world, and cannot inquire into the spiritual world, while naturalism rules out the existence of a spiritual world, and believes that all questions are potentially answerable through scrutiny using our five senses. I just remember that my five senses are limited to observation of the material world, and I don't buy into any part of naturalism in my work as a scientist.
Ack. Now you've personified naturalism, so once again I'm not sure what you mean.

Science, as you state, pursues "truth" *in* the material world, and naturalism limits any pursuits to the material world. I don't see how they are incompatible.

More later...

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.

I don't think they are trying to get you to beleive it like that. I think they just want you to think about how interesting it is...and it is based on mathematics...how do you think they got the probability. They didn't just pull it out of their colective asses.

If I remember correctly, String Theory is testable. The energy required for such a test is just so immense that it would take a much more advanced civilization to test it. String theory might just end up being a theory that gets worked on for a while longer and then set off to the side until physicists can find a way to test it a lower energy levels or develop a way to produce enough energy.

The IDer may have to look at the purpose of a design, to see if it 'fits' with the idea that it was designed, but it is completely unnecessary to understand the forces involved in putting that design in place.
That doesn't sound very conducive to "truth seeking". How/what does the ID scientist proclaim "truth" in this instance?

That doesn't sound very conducive to "truth seeking". How/what does the ID scientist proclaim "truth" in this instance?
The Bible is true and everything else is false, however much evidence there might be for it, because God is testing our faith/the Devil is trying to lead people astray.

The Bible is true and everything else is false, however much evidence there might be for it, because God is testing our faith/the Devil is trying to lead people astray.

Which of course begs the question.. how can they be so sure the Bible was not written by the Devil ?
IDers generally are very careful not to use the "G-word" though.

Which of course begs the question.. how can they be so sure the Bible was not written by the Devil ?
IDers generally are very careful not to use the "G-word" though.
That's because they're desperately trying to pass off creationist drivel as a science, and they can't do that if they name the intelligent designer.
A good question, though. I think that's what the Manichean Heresy was about, and there's the war between Ahriman and Ormuzd(?) in the Assyrian mythology as well, where one of them constructs the world purely as a trap to imprison the other in the material realm where he can cause less harm.

Argh...finally I can post this....

I realize that you were dealing with naturalism v supernaturalism, but used the point about ID versus evolution as an example. My point was that finding apparent holes in the 'logic' of the supernatural does not amount to proof against the existence of the supernatural, particularly when the assumptions in our logic table are questionable.

Yes, those assumptions like A=A and 1+1=2...

Amaterialists seem to have an attitude that says "if given rules or observations contradict my 'faith' - scrap 'em!" Reality check: (NPI lol) Logic is what defines our world. Everything you see around you, every problem you solve, every accurate, coherent, predictive explanation of events and phenomena - logic. This claim that a supernatural being or creator is somehow 'outside' logic and thus can be anything and everything you want, and thus be the ultimate argument-winner - it's a fool's argument. Take away logic and what's left could literally be anything, everything, and nothing, and is a completely undefined, speculative, and inherently baseless line of "reason"ing. If you have to invoke the argumentative form of deus ex machina, (again NPI lol) claiming "my belief is outside any and all rules you come up with and doesn't have to make sense, therefore I win" to justify your position, that position is in a very sorry state indeed.

It is not stupid to allow that the spirit world may indeed exist. It certainly explains some things that the material world does not, or at least not yet. The question of spirits and the spirit world is not an answer that science can provide, mostly because it does not try to. Thus science cannot tell us whether yet-to-be discoveries in the material world will explain everything (thus making a spirit world unnecessary), or if other discoveries will make the spirit world more apparent.

That would be a paragraph worth thinking about if the phrase "spiritual world" meant anything. No, I don't mean what it "means to you", but actual meaning and definition. The claim that the planet is on the back of a giant turtle has more precedence than the claim of a spirit. At least the turtle assertion is at some level of thinking a defined, concrete claim. The use of the concept of "spirit" is totally empty - forget having a basis, it doesn't have anything that could have a base - it isn't even a concept. It isn't saying anything. What exactly is a "spirit world" or a "spirit"? What is your definition of "spiritual existence"? (In terms of reality, existence, the universe, etc.)

Spiritual may have no meaning in the world view of a materialist, but most people in the world are not materialists, and do find a lot of meaning in the spirit world. I think you would find that the materialists are the minority, even among intellectuals.

Irrelevant - both the world view bit and the minority bit. The minority have an intelligence above 100. Your world view, my world view - it doesn't matter. The common element between worldviews and independent of worldviews is objective logic and definition. Again: What meaning or definition does the word 'spiritual' have in context of either existence/reality or a real 'thing' relating to a human person?

I could give you definitions of the spirit of a human, but my definitions would not be independent (obviously) of my world view. The concept of a spirit may be pointless to you, but that is a long way from making it pointless to me.

This subjectivism is starting to give me a headache. But whatever, I don't care - just give me a definition of whatever you think a 'spirit' is, and I'll try to turn it into something that tries to make a real claim.

If the spirit world exists, it is real, but not material. Apparently, it is your world view that has no room for the concept of a spirit. (not meant as an insult, but an observation that you are welcome to refute.) You simply cannot prove the non-existance of the spiritual world on the basis of what appears to be your own world view, since your own world view is based on assumptions. That would be using an assumption to prove the nonexistence of the spirit world.

What exactly is this "assumption"? Amaterialists love this subjective viewpoint stuff, but really, your position doesn't even have a claim to make. There's no substance or definition to what you're saying - it's like trying to argue with smoke, or a shadow. Which is why I can't even begin to tackle disproving this so-called "spirit world", because there's nothing to disprove - you have yet to provide me with anything beyond an empty pair of words!

Belief, even a false belief is real, wouldn't you agree? For example, if I believe in unicorns, unicorns may not be real, but my belief in them is. Myth, even if not based on a factual event, contains meaning that is real, and perhaps more meaningful and more important than a factual event. How, then, can you say that a myth is not real?

So you take belief, deliberately separate it from the myth it is in, correctly assert that the belief exists, (the person exists, they definitely believe, therefore the information of the belief is real) - but then you blend the myth and the belief back together and try to claim that therefore, the original myth must have reality. Sorry, not how it works. A person may falsely believe in something, but all that that means is that the information of the belief is real, not that whatever myth the belief is in is real. They're two very separate concepts. Giving meaning to one does not transfer meaning to other through semantic relationship.

More importantly, how can you know that the spirit world does not exist? Because you assume it does not exist?

a) I have to have a reason to think it exists. Prove the affirmative.
b) I have to have something to believe or not believe in. The "spirit world" is a big empty meaningless nothing. It'd be like believing in the variable x, where x is taken to never be defined.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Which of course begs the question.. how can they be so sure the Bible was not written by the Devil ?
IDers generally are very careful not to use the "G-word" though.

Not really. Behe said the designer was God and Dembski though he won't say it directly. He mentions God over and over......

For people who are still following this, this guy is a laugh. Just scroll down and read what he said about the wikipedia article.

The IDer may have to look at the purpose of a design, to see if it 'fits' with the idea that it was designed, but it is completely unnecessary to understand the forces involved in putting that design in place.
The ID believer starts of with the assumption that something is designed then uses that assumption to prove design. See the problem there? it's called circular reasoning. Which is a big no no in science. Again you prove that ID is not science. ID does point to the holes in evolutionary theory, and consequently gets accused of being based on holes. It gets labelled as the theory of criticisms, and as lacking any other fair arguments for its case. I don't think you can say that is not trying to establish that evolutionary theory is wrong, or has some major flaws.
Trying to prove any theory wrong does not make whatever you are using to prove it wrong a hypothesis. Unless you provide an explanation of all the existing evidence (that isn't bason on : we don't know so it's magic) and have a test on a prediction that your hypothesis makes but that the established theory doesn't.
When it comes to providing arguments for its own case, why would it be necessary to understand the 'magic' by which design was put in place. That is a common mistake made by naturalists who think that every question can be answered if only we know enough about the natural forces in the material world. ID does not claim this. It is seeking a way to argue that design is more likely to be explained by an intelligent designer, rather than randomness. It simply is not necessary to investigate the 'magical' process the designer used, anymore than it is necessary to find the great purpose of existence for naturalism. Wrong assumption on your side. Science does not answer everything. Only the things that can explained without having to use a supernatural cause. And that is why the ID belief is a belief.I meant that if ID contains the idea of "the supernatural" as cause, as designer, then that can never be tested for. If it is strawman to say that ID claims the supernatural as designer, I apologize, but I don't believe that to be the case.Your argument seems to be that the moment science recognises or allows the supernatural, it has to recogises its own limitations, and thus falls flat on its face. Not necessarily. I argue that it is simply a case of recognising the limitations, and getting on with the job. It would mean that science would have a humbler position than it is currently thought to have in the public eye, but I see that as a good thing.No. The argument is that the moment we allow magic as a valid explanation of things we would not have progressed beyond the point where we had to steal fire from the gods.
In that one statement you have discounted all of the scientific progress that we have made before the rise of naturalism. If you think scientific progress is not possible, so long as we believe in God and his power to do miracles, you have to be mistaken. Science cannot investigate miracles, but it can investigate the material world, without the help of naturalism.Stop trying to twist my words as if that is my position.
What you just wrote down is your position. You are the one trying to get the copout excuse of it's magic so we can't explain it accepted as a valid argument for science.You still don't see it. ID is not investigating the supernatural. It simply allows that the information present in life may have come from a designer. It does not even have any experiments that determine whether the designer was part of the natural world or the supernatural.See argument in first paragraph for first 1/2 of quote.
The ID belief does not have any predictions that can be tested against. Only attacks on the theory of evolution. And you show your ignorance of what science is by thinking it can test for the supernatural.
Good now lets leave the supernatural and God where it belongs to. That is with people who ask the why questions (philosophers, theologians, etc).
If only the believers in ID would do that instead of trying to force, by hook or by crook, their view of how the world should work on everyone.Neither naturalism or ID forces their world view on anyone. It is only people who do this sort of ugly thing, and it cannot be used to argue that either world view is wrong.Stop twisting my words. I specifically stated the believers in ID theory (as can be seen in the quote).I didn't find anything in your wikipedia definition of science that states that there is no supernatural, or that there was no designer. Just that it is based on physical evidence, which is what ID does. It looks at the material world, and draws conclusions that it believes are most consistent with the physical evidence.
I suggest going back to your primary education school and that you demand a refund. It seems they forgot to teach you reading comprehension.Scientific method as envisaged by one of its early exponents, Sir Isaac Newton, is fundamental to the investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiment are the basis for developing new technology.I'll quote the relevant section again:
Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.What where you thinking? That I don't know and/or read what I link to? That I'm just someone linking to cool sounding terms?
If the definition of science is commonly confused with naturalism, that would be because of the dominance of science by naturalistic thinkers. Thus it would not surprise me that the IDers feel that they would need to redefine 'science'.If anyone on the peanut gallery is still reading, this is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.
Thank you for your admission that the ID belief is not science.ID and naturalism require opposite assumptions. One is not bigger than the other. The difference is that when making observations, naturalism assumes the absence of anything other than the natural, while ID allows for both the natural forces and the supernatural.You are wrong but even then you are now backpedalling on your own argument which clearly stated that science required a greater assumption. You also might want to actually read that Wikipedia article about scienceOckham's razor is only applicable when it leads to an adequate explanation of phenomena. When it leaves one with an inadequate explanation, it is no longer useful. The fact that evolutionary theory is currently inadequate for many explanations means applying Ockham's razor to remove God is not wise.
Nice evasion. You haven't provided a single counter argument for him setting up a logical proof that God cannot be proven with science, that you have to believe in him.
The fact that the theory of evolution is not perfect does not require God to fill up the gaps. If we'd had used God as an explanation we would never had the laws of gravity, nor electricity, nor combustion engines.
That is your problem. The theory of evolution is based on exactly the same scientific foundation that all the other hard sciences are based on. To add God to the theory of evolution you have to add it to every science, thereby ending science as we know it because anything we don't know can be explained with God did it.I am aware that one cannot prove the existence of God, and if you have followed my arguments, you would see that I have said that ID cannot do this. Faith will always be necessary. ID, at best, can only provide good arguments for the existence of a designer. That is a long way from proof, and again, it has nothing in it's experiments to show that the designer is a supernatural one, i.e. God.Science is not based on arguments. It's requires observations and tests.
IDism doesn't have tests. It can't have them since it doesn't have an explanation besides God did it which does not allow for predictionsI suggest that the Vatican had best leave such decisions to science. It is a simple case of 'taking one's word for it', in the case of the Vatican.I don't think that they can stand idle while a bunch of fundamentalists Christians make the rest of Christianity look bad.
How about Dr. Behe (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm290). Nice huh, how one of the most prominent ID believers has to admit that IDism is not science.

The Bible is true and everything else is false, however much evidence there might be for it, because God is testing our faith/the Devil is trying to lead people astray.
No... I meant, how could one possibly know the purpose of the thing without determining the mechanism of its cause? Especially a purpose developed by an intelligent being...

No... I meant, how could one possibly know the purpose of the thing without determining its cause?

... by repeatedly observing it's effect...

I may not know what causes a NES to be, but I may glean valuable information as to its purpose by watching my niece squeal with delight when she uses it.

... by repeatedly observing it's effect...
Life has the repeated effects of happiness, death and excrement. Does that mean any of those is the purpose of life?

I may not know what causes a NES to be, but I may glean valuable information as to its purpose by watching my niece squeal with delight when she uses it.
Or is its purpose to make a sh*tload of money?

Ockham's razor is only applicable when it leads to an adequate explanation of phenomena. When it leaves one with an inadequate explanation, it is no longer useful. The fact that evolutionary theory is currently inadequate for many explanations means applying Ockham's razor to remove God is not wise.
Who determines adequacy?

Life has the repeated effects of happiness, death and excrement. Does that mean any of those is the purpose of life?


Excessive religious thinking causes terrorism, from the KKK to OBL. Does that mean terrorism is the purpose of religion?

Mind you... happiness might well be the purpose of life.

Continuing, from post #221...

...it doesn't do more with the supernatural than to assume that it does not exist, rather than proving that it doesn't exist. It assumes that the non-existence of the supernatural is a truth on which to base it's assumptions. I realize you know this already, but this leads me to a following point.

If the supernatural is true, and God did create the universe, naturalism is very wrong. What one might expect from such a situation is a theory that is strengthened by the data that can be explained consistently with this, but full of holes and gaps. That is precisely what we do have in the evolutionary theory.
Naturalism would not be "wrong" in this case, because naturalism is a philosophy, not an explanation of "the truth" (of reality). If a "one true reality" were suddenly revealed, no philosophy in the world would be invalidated by that. A philosophy is simply a way of looking at the world.

If naturalism is true, and there is no supernatural, then those who allowed for the possibility of the supernatural interfering with the natural are still closer to the truth, for they have not assumed a falsehood, only allowed for it. For me, this means naturalism is really the philosophy with the greater potential for falsehood. I would be interested if you have arguments against that.
Naturalism is not "true," it is a philosophy. All this speculation about "the truth" (of reality) is meaningless, as it is something we can never know, especially if it is supernatural. The significant thing is, if the supernatural created the world, how would we ever know? (We wouldn't, unless it was natural and not supernatural.)

If the supernatural did create the universe, and science does not account for that, that's okay. Really. It doesn't mean science is inadequate or that science has to be redefined. Science was developed within the context of a certain way of looking at the world, one that allows for solutions to be found (and findable) to the question (amongst many), "What causes this?"

Science is developed by us, for us, to "find" the physical world. Otherwise, what you are really looking for is to find god --that's not science.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The world investigated by the scientist who holds the assumption that God created life is not doing his science based on that assumption, he is just a person with that assumption who is doing his science. Unless he includes that assumption in his hypotheses, it is not a part of the science, however strongly the scientist might hold to it.
However, the assumption that each researcher has will always influence his interpretation of the data. While both the religious scientist and the naturalist are both capable of discovering antibiotics and saving lives, the religious one will say that it is because e.g God created an ordered world which makes such progress possible, while the naturalist will say that the nature of the material world means that nature can be manipulated to make such progress possible. In each case, one needs his assumptions in order to make progress. It may be that, in many cases, the assumption is not obvious. But I argue that it is nonetheless, incredibly important, so that no scientist is ever free of assumptions when investigating the material world.
A person's assumptions should not influence the neutral data itself, though. There can be multiple interpretations, and one will be more generally accepted by the scientific community. On the other hand, if conflicting data is found, then that is a very good thing (however upsetting it might personally be) --a better explanation that fits all the data can be made.

One needs his personal assumptions (beliefs) in order to be motivated to make progress, and they can influence the outcome towards some particular application. This is what beliefs are for, and this is accounted for; and this is why we generally limit what the "science" is to the neutral data and the processes for gathering it.

I would argue that it isn't possible for the naturalist to ever discover the question of how life got here. He may find arguments and data that make his view point more likely, but that is not the same as proving it, and thus leaves him in a similar position as the IDer. For a religious person to be religious, I suggest that he will always be required to have faith. For a naturalist, he has to have a belief that is similar to faith in his assumption.
And I argue that, as a part of a contingent whole, it is discoverable, if not on this planet then on others. That's the beauty of science, it looks only at the physical universe.

Originally Posted by Willamena
With a supernatural explanation, the possibility of discovering the truth of that is effectively eliminated.
That cuts both ways, sister.
So you *can* know the nature of the supernatural? Or, can we only assume it?

You have really helped me develop my arguments, Willamena, with your critical and intelligent thinking. I am indebted. Though I cannot tell whether my arguments are true or right, at least they seem to me to be getting more developed.
Thanks. You seem to be very comfortable in your set of beliefs, and I think I've moved a bit closer to understanding them.

No... I meant, how could one possibly know the purpose of the thing without determining the mechanism of its cause? Especially a purpose developed by an intelligent being...
A lot of things don't actually serve any purpose, I'm afraid. The main thrust of religion has always been to argue otherwise.

A lot of things don't actually serve any purpose, I'm afraid. The main thrust of religion has always been to argue otherwise.
Well, that's because only things created by an intelligence have purpose, and God is seen (by many religious types) to be an intelligence. That doesn't really answer my question. ;)

Well, that's because only things created by an intelligence have purpose, and God is seen (by many religious types) to be an intelligence. That doesn't really answer my question. ;)
One can't possibly know the purpose of a thing without knowing its cause then.

One can't possibly know the purpose of a thing without knowing its cause then.


If you brandish a gun in my face, I may not know what caused you to do so, but I surely know your purpose is nothing to make me cheerful...

If you brandish a gun in my face, I may not know what caused you to do so, but I surely know your purpose is nothing to make me cheerful...
The purpose you perceive is that which relates to you, not to the "designer". Rightly so.

A good example of what Cahnt means, though, is, humans have two eyes which gives them vision that allows them depth perception, so they don't bump into things.

Now... was 'to not bump into things' the *purpose* of having two eyes? or... is it an *effect* of having two eyes that we took advantage of and as a result developed the *skill* 'not to bump into things'?

The purpose you perceive is that which relates to you, not to the "designer". Rightly so.

SNIP

BUH-LO-NEY.
Your purpose might be saying ECKY ECKY ECKY PTAH ZOO PONG.
You might be mad.
You might be trying to persuade me to hand you my cash.

To follow your track... I'd first have to know the purpose behind the designer of the designer. Diverging series, mon vieux.

Therefore, your line of inquiry is pointless. Folks who follow that tack must be ruthlessly expurged from the school system.

BUH-LO-NEY.
Your purpose might be saying ECKY ECKY ECKY PTAH ZOO PONG.
You might be mad.
You might be trying to persuade me to hand you my cash.

To follow your track... I'd first have to know the purpose behind the designer of the designer. Diverging series, mon vieux.

Therefore, your line of inquiry is pointless. Folks who follow that tack must be ruthlessly expurged from the school system.
Okay.... *backs away from the troll slowly*

Okay.... *backs away from the troll slowly*

Rightly so. If you try to ramrod ID into places where it doesn't belong ( ie. anywhere outside sunday school ) you must not be surprised if right thinking people decide to ramrod you out.

Rightly so. If you try to ramrod ID into places where it doesn't belong ( ie. anywhere outside sunday school ) you must not be surprised if right thinking people decide to ramrod you out.
I am actually arguing the side opposed to ID.


(...she says, hoping this is some gross misunderstanding and a conversation might actually be possible.)

I am actually arguing the side opposed to ID.

Sorry mate.

*edits*

Sorry, luv.

Having said sorry, I still maintain that ID is on the astrology level.
Unlikely to have positive effects.
Bound to increase general battiness.
And bad thinking for sure.

Sorry mate.

*edits*

Sorry, luv.

Having said sorry, I still maintain that ID is on the astrology level.
Unlikely to have positive effects.
Bound to increase general battiness.
And bad thinking for sure.
What I said was that "nothing to make me cheerful..." is a purpose that relates to you, and rightly so. That is the only 'purposes' we should be divining (funny you should mention astrology) about others "not-us".

It never ceases to amaze me that people still compare religion and science and try to replace one with the other.

Just because a few things in the Bible are not so doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. The "scientific" bits are not necessarily wrong, because the Bible is heavily metaphorical. However, even if this were so, it was written by people who may have tried to "simplify" what was actually told to them, and that sort of thing. Also, note that many of the misconceptions bred by religion were actually bred by the followers.

What I said was that "nothing to make me cheerful..." is a purpose that relates to you, and rightly so. That is the only 'purposes' we should be divining (funny you should mention astrology) about others "not-us".


Er.. this is going to sound like MSN-messenger.

Gah... I disagree. The WHY something takes place isn't all that relevant. What matters is what you're going to do about it.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still compare religion and science and try to replace one with the other.
You mean, like the way science-types try to look at religion as if it was a science, or astrology as if it was a science --as if everything that provides explanation must *be* science? And religion types try to look at science as a religion --as if anything structure that supports beliefs must be religion?

That's what amazes me.

You mean, like the way science-types try to look at religion as if it was a science, or astrology as if it was a science --as if everything that provides explanation must *be* science? And religion types try to look at science as a religion --as if anything structure that supports beliefs must be religion?

*nods* I'm sure I would be less offended by ID had I not been a Christian.


What you refer to is what I would call Reverse Teleogy.

example 1]
A] My outlook is religious.
B] fact X supports my religious inclinations.
C] Therefore, fact X must be religious in nature.

example 2]
A] My outlook is empirical
B] fact Y nicely tucks into my empirical leanings
C] Therefore, fact Y must be empirical in nature.

X: 'we have 2 eyes etc'
Y: ' hey.. this or that holy book mentions the Big Bang!'

Er.. this is going to sound like MSN-messenger.

Gah... I disagree. The WHY something takes place isn't all that relevant. What matters is what you're going to do about it.
Well, it does matter to some ("mattering" too is relative).

What you do about it is also important.

Well, it does matter to some ("mattering" too is relative).

What you do about it is also important.


It is because the mattering is relative, and not objective, that I find the search into the why of it relatively unimportant.

We may so thoroughly not-understand the not-us, that all our efforts to grasp the motivation of not-us become totally ineffective.

( take a gander at the OBL thread - half the group seems to think that what OBL does is based on his political preferences as though he were an American! )

It is because the mattering is relative, and not objective, that I find the search into the why of it relatively unimportant.

We may so thoroughly not-understand the not-us, that all our efforts to grasp the motivation of not-us become totally ineffective.

( take a gander at the OBL thread - half the group seems to think that what OBL does is based on his political preferences as though he were an American! )
Now we're on the same track.

This has been an interesting debate. Let me jump and examine this excerpt:

But as for the logic you have used, others have already pointed out some areas of concern. I have not much to add except that one really needs to be careful when trying to put God into a box made of logic. For example, you have included the assertion that God is supernatural, or immaterial and inexplicable to nature. I take that to mean that you think of God as completely spirit, without a basis in the material world. However, a common view point, which is by no means restricted to Christianity, is that humans consist of a material body, and a spirit. Thus to say that humans belong to the material world is true. However, to say that humans do not belong to the spiritual world is false, according to that view point.

Perhaps that is where the clear distinctions between natural and supernatural begin to break down, depending of course, on the definitions of the terms and the accepted world view. Perhaps an interesting question would be if humans have spirits, do those spirits belong to the natural or the supernatural world? At any rate, that is not a question for science.

This discussion about spirit and material body is interesting, because the investigation into the "spirit" of a person CAN be investigated by science in the form of consciousness studies in neuroscience. We have learnt much about the nature of the human "spirit" from classic observations of split-brain patients, hippocampal removal surgery, and from electrode simulation of the brain during neurosurgery and others. Perhaps one can presuppose the existence of a supernatural spirit in people. However, one would then have to ponder this - why is this spirit affected so much by physical things like chemicals and trauma? Where does the spirit go when the person is unconscious (general anesthetic)?"

I guess it is too easy to underestimate the material world; people like to see a bag of atoms bouncing around randomly. The key in understanding the "spiritual" makeup of a human being lies firmly in systems science. As in all complex systems, human consciousness may be produced by simple material components, but I emphasize that it has many emergent properties that cannot be predicted from its humble make-up. The organization and interaction of components are of paramount importance. Perhaps you can consider this "supernatural".

This discussion about spirit and material body is interesting, because the investigation into the "spirit" of a person CAN be investigated by science in the form of consciousness studies in neuroscience. We have learnt much about the nature of the human "spirit" from classic observations of split-brain patients, hippocampal removal surgery, and from electrode simulation of the brain during neurosurgery and others. Perhaps one can presuppose the existence of a supernatural spirit in people. However, one would then have to ponder this - why is this spirit affected so much by physical things like chemicals and trauma? Where does the spirit go when the person is unconscious (general anesthetic)?"

I guess it is too easy to underestimate the material world; people like to see a bag of atoms bouncing around randomly. The key in understanding the "spiritual" makeup of a human being lies firmly in systems science. As in all complex systems, human consciousness may be produced by simple material components, but I emphasize that it has many emergent properties that cannot be predicted from its humble make-up. The organization and interaction of components are of paramount importance. Perhaps you can consider this "supernatural".
Well, science can examine it that way provided that consciousness is the spirit. However, if what is meant by spirit is the supernatural of people (as was indicated), then it is entirely divorced from the physical. It is not what is affected by the chemicals and trauma; legend has it only affected by circumstances. It does not "go" anywhere when a person is unconscious.

Well, science can examine it that way provided that consciousness is the spirit. However, if what is meant by spirit is the supernatural of people (as was indicated), then it is entirely divorced from the physical. It is not what is affected by the chemicals and trauma; legend has it only affected by circumstances. It does not "go" anywhere when a person is unconscious.

You mean what some people consider supernatural? I thought that spirits are closely aligned with consciousness.

Of course if the spirit is entirely divorced from physical reality, I definitely agree it is not within the realm of science. My emphasis was on illustrating the systems interpretation of the phenomenon. Just because a complex system is made of simple parts doesn't mean that it cannot do amazing things. Some of these amazing things can only be interpreted at its own organizational level - an emergent trait. Processes as a function of material components are not "material" per se. These emergent processes may even appear to be divorced from their physical makeup.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still compare religion and science and try to replace one with the other.

Just because a few things in the Bible are not so doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. The "scientific" bits are not necessarily wrong, because the Bible is heavily metaphorical. However, even if this were so, it was written by people who may have tried to "simplify" what was actually told to them, and that sort of thing. Also, note that many of the misconceptions bred by religion were actually bred by the followers.
Unfortunately, so long as fundamentalists are pissing and moaning that Darwin's studies and the vast amounts of research proving these contradicts the Old testament, we're stuck with the situation. (Until such time as the fundamentalists can declare America a theocracy and round up and kill all of the evolutionists, at least.) These are people who are unable or unwilling to accept that any part of the bible is a metaphor, rather than a rigorous and precise description of the nature of things, after all.

No... I meant, how could one possibly know the purpose of the thing without determining the mechanism of its cause? Especially a purpose developed by an intelligent being...

In order to find the purpose of a design, one has to go about methodically removing the intricate parts of the design, until it is no longer functional. Scientists do this all the time. Simply keep knocking out genes until the organism is no longer viable. Then you are close to defining the purpose of the design. Not the greater purpose of 'why did God design it?', but the lesser purpose of 'if this was made by a designer, what is it's purpose in helping the organism survive?'
In that case, knowing how the designer did it, i.e., knowing the mechanism of the 'magic' is unnecessary.

Who determines adequacy?

Quite a valid question. I suppose it works a bit like evidence presented before a jury. There may be differences, depending on the evidence and the individual. Most people generally recognise that evolutionary theory has some major holes in it. Even the most hard core evolutionary scientists accept that. They would be the ones that are most optimistic about future discoveries revealing all.

Quite a valid question. I suppose it works a bit like evidence presented before a jury. There may be differences, depending on the evidence and the individual. Most people generally recognise that evolutionary theory has some major holes in it. Even the most hard core evolutionary scientists accept that. They would be the ones that are most optimistic about future discoveries revealing all.
How about this: People spent about a millenium trying to deduce universal truth from the bible to make people's lives better. That failed horrendously. Then they started measuring their natural world and made a concerted effort to deduce deduce truth from those measurements. The result is our world and every meaningful achivement of our species. Long life, clean abundant food, microchips, and Mars rovers. We know the age, size, mass of the universe, how it will die. We've sent objects out of our solar system, an infinitesimal unremarkable place now, but would have been considered beyond the universe to our ancestors.

Evolutionary theory has saved lives, and promises yet more. What's ID done? What tool has it forged and brought to market? What truth of the universe has it revealed? Nothing. It's the refuge of idiots and the ignorant. It's the mark of the people who will be forgotten by history, unless they manage to hold progress back for a time. They are the least of our species, and proof that the universe operates on a principle of trial and error. The support of ID is the promotion of poverty over wealth, and sickness over wellbeing. It is the petty wish to steal good years from the lives of others because one is possessed of too little faith and imagination to believe in a God that will not reveal Himself.

No one has an objection to creationist thought being taught in a philosophy class or a comparative religions class, provided all religions get teaching time.

What the hullibulou is about is that religious nutjobs are trying to get ID taught as science, as some sort of viable alternative to Evolution, which it is not and never will be. I have absolutely no objections to the idea being taught as philosophy or religion - just don't parade it as science.

As to String Theory, I don't know anything about it, so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

Basically the string theory is an attempt to bring together a grand unified theory for everything - the idea is, at the source of everything, there is a 'string' of pure energy that vibrates depending on what it makes up, and idea goes that if you can change the vibration, you can change the physical properties of something.

Thats the theory anyway, the problem has been, no one has come up with a mathematically equation to express the theory, in which in all cases it actually works - which has been the sticking point for this theory all along.

Quite a valid question. I suppose it works a bit like evidence presented before a jury. There may be differences, depending on the evidence and the individual. Most people generally recognise that evolutionary theory has some major holes in it. Even the most hard core evolutionary scientists accept that. They would be the ones that are most optimistic about future discoveries revealing all.

*Sigh* and the Evolution is Religion argument goes on.

A major "hole" would be able to invalidate the theory. You haven't provided one.

It's still better then ID which has YET to offer in proof rather then the ignorant stance of we can't explain it so there must be a designer.

So the challenge who are these "hard core" evolutionists that say the theory has major holes in it.

Also, why don't you show where you get this "most people" belive there are holes in the theory.

How about this: People spent about a millenium trying to deduce universal truth from the bible to make people's lives better. That failed horrendously. Then they started measuring their natural world and made a concerted effort to deduce deduce truth from those measurements. The result is our world and every meaningful achivement of our species. Long life, clean abundant food, microchips, and Mars rovers. We know the age, size, mass of the universe, how it will die. We've sent objects out of our solar system, an infinitesimal unremarkable place now, but would have been considered beyond the universe to our ancestors.

Evolutionary theory has saved lives, and promises yet more. What's ID done? What tool has it forged and brought to market? What truth of the universe has it revealed? Nothing. It's the refuge of idiots and the ignorant. It's the mark of the people who will be forgotten by history, unless they manage to hold progress back for a time. They are the least of our species, and proof that the universe operates on a principle of trial and error. The support of ID is the promotion of poverty over wealth, and sickness over wellbeing. It is the petty wish to steal good years from the lives of others because one is possessed of too little faith and imagination to believe in a God that will not reveal Himself.

Bravo!

In order to find the purpose of a design, one has to go about methodically removing the intricate parts of the design, until it is no longer functional. Scientists do this all the time. Simply keep knocking out genes until the organism is no longer viable. Then you are close to defining the purpose of the design. Not the greater purpose of 'why did God design it?', but the lesser purpose of 'if this was made by a designer, what is it's purpose in helping the organism survive?'
In that case, knowing how the designer did it, i.e., knowing the mechanism of the 'magic' is unnecessary.
But what you describe is function, not purpose.

But what you describe is function, not purpose.

In such a context, function is purpose.