Jump to content


Photo

Should Id Be Included In Science?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
143 replies to this topic

#61 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 05:19 AM

Science is the only method that allows for testable theories. Supernatural explanations are not testable, they are simply articles of faith that depend on personal revelation.


http://www.answersin...i2/eldredge.asp

"In adhering to these radical-empiricist preconceptions, Eldredge completely ignores the fact that, while supernatural processes themselves cannot be tested, the consequences of supernatural events can be tested, and that is precisely what creationist scientists do."

I think religion should ALWAYS be the search for theological and philosophical truths. I don't understand how the two can mix.


Religion and Science are not necessarily mutually exclusive, thus something can be both "Religious" and "Scientific" at the same time.

If supernatural explanations were allowed into science then it would end all investigation.


http://www.answersin....asp#Naturalism

#62 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 05:36 AM

Regarding my question:

Do you think that creation by a supernatual being should be excluded from science even if it were known to be true?

If it were known to be true we wouldn't need science.


I didn't ask if we would then necessarily "need science" (a past historical flood such as in China may be "know to be true", yet it is not excluded from science).

So I ask you again (word in bracket added for clarification):

"Do you think that [a past] creation by a supernatual being should be excluded from science even if it were known to be true?

#63 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2005 - 07:40 AM

How would you prove something spiritual using scientific methods? Science can only work with what they can see and comprehehend, even though they constantly make guesses about the unknown.

Which makes me wonder if this unknown they don't want to know. :blink:

#64 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 01:56 PM

How would you prove something spiritual using scientific methods? Science can only work with what they can see and comprehehend, even though they constantly make guesses about the unknown.


While supernatural processes themselves may not always be subject be directly seen, the consequences of supernatural events can potentailly be seen. An example of this would be a global flood. Even though it may have had been initially caused by a spiritual act, its consequnces (ie: massive amounts of catastrophic sedimentary activity all over the earth) can potentailly be seen and studied.

Likewise, the complexity of even the simplest life on earth can be used (with sciences such as mathematics and chemistry) to demonstrate to a high degree of confidence that (in the absence of intelligent direction) that its formation is implausible.

The scientific method http://www.hyperdict...ientific method
(as opposed to some versions of "naturalism"), does not initself require that origins be naturalistic, however it can to a high degree of confidence falsify naturalistic hypothesis (such as abiogenesis).

#65 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 21 May 2005 - 02:31 PM

"Methodological Naturalism" on the other hand is a ". . . philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use natural explanations." http://en.wikipedia....ical_naturalism

Thus, even though a proper scientific investigation (such as using mathematics, chemistry, and the above scientific method) can essentially falsify abiogenesis, proponets of the "philosophical tenet" of "methodological naturalism" will still refuse accept such a falsification, but instead cling to abiogenesis due to a "naturalistic" philosophy of origins.

In fact I have had evolutionists state that even if evolution were somehow falsifified that they still will not accept special creation as scientifically valid(due to their belief that science requires in "methodological naturalism").

One evolutionist here even seriously proposed basically a "naturalistic" version of "Last Tuesdayism" as a prefered alternative to creation in the event of falsification of evolution!

#66 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 May 2005 - 03:43 PM

Thus, even though a proper scientific investigation (such as using mathematics, chemistry, and the above scientific method)  can essentially falsify abiogenesis

View Post


I need to catch up on these posts, but I had to address this. Mathematics has not falsified abiogenesis, nor can it. I've seen the 'maths' you are referring to, but those that use it have frequently failed to address the important question "What environment does the maths assume the chemicals are in?". Obviously such things as temperature and pressure (as well as numerous other variables such as catalysts) have a huge influence on chemical reactions.

Chemistry has obviously not falsified abiogenesis. If it had you have to ask, why are so many chemists working on it? Are they universally ignorant of the work in their own field?

Anyway, I'll address the other points later. Take care!

#67 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:47 PM

Chemistry has obviously not falsified abiogenesis. If it had you have to ask, why are so many chemists working on it? Are they universally ignorant of the work in their own field?


They are just keeping the faith. Plus, its makes good dissertation fodder....

Terry

#68 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:59 PM

They are just keeping the faith.  Plus, its makes good dissertation fodder....

Terry

View Post


I figured on that response. Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just wild speculation or opinion?

#69 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 May 2005 - 04:17 AM

To address the general theme here: Should science ignore the supernatural even if that is the only alternative, we must consider what options there are.

1. There is a supernatural entity out there that is responsible for everything/some things. However, it has decided to leave no evidence for its existance and it created the universe/life using the natural laws it created.

There is no evidence for this. That is a matter of faith or philosophical musing

2. There is a supernatural entity out there that is responsible for everything/some things. There is evidence for it that can be investigated.

There is no evidence that a supernatural entity created the earth/universe/life other than various tidbits of written folklore from early civilizations

3. There is a supernatural entity out there that is responsible for everything/some things. There is no evidence for it, however it created things in a supernatural manner, and there is no possible way those things could have been created using natural means.

A possibility, but so far it has not be demonstrated to be true...as far as the evidence goes, it is still feasable for life to have arisen naturally.

4. The universe was created by some event, life on earth was created by an intelligence that is perfectly natural to the universe. It did it in a perfectly natural way, leaving no evidence for it.

Once again, with no evidence it becomes a philosophical musing, an X-files episode or faith

5. The universe was created by some event, life on earth was created by an intelligence that is perfectly natural to the universe. It did it in a perfectly natural way, leaving some evidence for it.

So far no evidence has been found to make this suggestion.

6. The universe was created by some event, life on earth was created by an intelligence that is perfectly natural to the universe. It made us in a way that is impossible for nature to do on its own, it may or may not have left additional evidence for us.

It has not been shown that life as we know it cannot arise naturally.

7. The universe was created by some event, life on earth was created by the same natural laws.

Every year advances in our knowledge take us a step closer to possibility of life arising through natural phenomena. No insurmountable barrier has yet been discovered.

There maybe a few more. Science takes us where the evidence leads.

#70 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 06:12 AM

3. There is a supernatural entity out there that is responsible for everything/some things. There is no evidence for it, however it created things in a supernatural manner, and there is no possible way those things could have been created using natural means.

A possibility, but so far it has not be demonstrated to be true...as far as the evidence goes, it is still feasable for life to have arisen naturally.


Of course, if you engage the hyper-improbablitiy impulse drive(the only funny part of the "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy"), anything is possible..... :blink:

Every year advances in our knowledge take us a step closer to possibility of life arising through natural phenomena. No insurmountable barrier has yet been discovered.

There maybe a few more.  Science takes us where the evidence leads.

View Post


Scientivic evidence may be taking us where the evidence leads, but naturalists/matierialists are kicking and screaming along the way.

Every day the evidence is mounting against llife having evolved by naturalistic means, and as mentioned before, the evidence is so overwhelming that even staunch defenders of atheism like Antony Flew are recognizing just that.

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.


Antony Flew and scientific evidence

Terry

#71 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 06:20 AM

I figured on that response.  Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just wild speculation or opinion?


For the time being, I would say the lack of a response to an expected response is more or less "deafening silence"....

Terry

#72 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 May 2005 - 09:00 AM

Of course, if you engage the hyper-improbablitiy impulse drive(the only funny part of the "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy"), anything is possible..... :blink:

View Post


Oh yeah, the first option is possible, but it doesn't lead anywhere scientifically...until someone has an accident involving tea that leads to an infinite improbability drive. I would have thought the Babel fish being so unlikely to have evolved that God must exist would have tickled your ribs a little, no?

Scientivic evidence may be taking us where the evidence leads, but naturalists/matierialists are kicking and screaming along the way.


Kicking and screaming? Is it not the creationists that are doing that? It would certainly seem so.

Every day the evidence is mounting against llife having evolved by naturalistic  means, and as mentioned before, the evidence is so overwhelming that even staunch defenders of atheism like Antony Flew are recognizing just that. 
Antony Flew and scientific evidence


You mention this one person time and time again, like it means something. Why is it that creationists frequently mention statistics that show that people abandon creationism in favour of evolution after years of education? Are you suggesting that if an athiest becomes a theist that means something? What about all the theists that become atheists? Is this an indicator of truth?

Anyway, the evidence is not mounting against abiogenesis as far as I have seen, perhaps we have been looking at different work in the bio-chemistry field?

#73 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 May 2005 - 09:08 AM

For the time being, I would say the lack of a response to an expected response is more or less "deafening silence"....

Terry

View Post


In short, you believe that chemists are 'keeping the faith' etc, but you have no evidence for it. When asked for such evidence a deafening silence ensues.

You posit a conspiracy of chemists deceiving the world for what? Research grants? Dissertation material? To keep the faith? You are making an accusation, not me. Either back it up or admit its an unfounded conspiracy theory. How many people would have to be in on this conspiracy theory? The people giving out the grants obviously know a thing or two about chemistry, they are in on it, the chemists, the chemists collegues in other related fields, lab techs, professors, lecturers. We're talking millions of people acting in concert here, with no evidence for it.

If I claim that all creationists are aliens intent on retarding science in readiness for the impending earth invasion (2056AD), you would ask for some evidence would you not? Could I turn that around and say "Your lack of a response is more or less a 'deafening silence"?

#74 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 22 May 2005 - 11:51 AM

If you want science only to talk about what can be studied with the senses, then you shouldn't include ID in science. But if you want to allow science to tell the truth all the time, you should let ID be considered one of the possible scientific theories.

#75 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 12:01 PM

If you want science only to talk about what can be studied with the senses, then you shouldn't include ID in science. But if you want to allow science to tell the truth all the time, you should let ID be considered one of the possible scientific theories.

View Post

There is a process of logical inquiry already in place which is not limited to the empirically testable. It's called: Philosophy.

#76 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 05:32 PM

You mention this one person time and time again, like it means something. Why is it that creationists frequently mention statistics that show that people abandon creationism in favour of evolution after years of education? Are you suggesting that if an athiest becomes a theist that means something? What about all the theists that become atheists?  Is this an indicator of truth?


Each case has to be analyzed individually to establish what it means. In this case, for a world leading advocate of atheism to change his mind based on scientific evidence, it means that evidence is mounting against abiogenisis.

Terry

#77 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 08:21 PM

...for a world leading advocate of atheism to change his mind based on scientific evidence, it means that evidence is mounting against abiogenisis.

View Post

Acceptance of evolutionary theory is nearly universal among biologists. Would you agree that this indicates that the evidence is strong? If not, can you explain why the same standard should not apply?

#78 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 May 2005 - 11:50 PM

Each case has to be analyzed individually to establish what it means.  In this case, for a world leading advocate of atheism to change his mind based on scientific evidence, it means that evidence is mounting against abiogenisis.

Terry

View Post


I'd be more inclined to accept your conclusion if he were a world leading abiogenesist, chemist or biologist, rather than an old philosopher who has come to accept Deism.

#79 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:13 AM

Modulous said:

Why is it that creationists frequently mention statistics that show that people abandon creationism in favour of evolution after years of education? Are you suggesting that if an athiest becomes a theist that means something? What about all the theists that become atheists? Is this an indicator of truth?


Understanding things that are temporal are always more appealing, then things spritual. To understand spiritual things it takes a more disciplined mind. Someone who is willing to do what it takes to get to where understanding this is more apparent. Many give up, or while they are still in the learning stage, get led astray by things that are easier to understand.

The learning of how temporal things work, and only in this area. Is to block anything spiritual. So therefore what is not understood is made out to be a lie. I think that those who cross the line between one to the other, is showing not that it is a indicator of truth. But how willing some are to give up on what is harder to do. But for some to give up on what is easier to understand, would say something totally different.

I can take courses in science and have almost complete understanding in just a couple of years of just about everything there is to know about this. God's word, and the spirituality of it, is a life long journey that many will give up. Why? There's not enough people that are teaching this on a one on one bases that it would take to do the same as what science does. Unlike science, there is only so much that can be shown about the spiritual side of God. The rest has to be learned by the individual seeking God for themselves. For if God were completely teachable, there would not be such fustration. And if people would take more time, the fustration would not over come them to the point they would look for something much easier to understand.

#80 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:27 AM

In short, you believe that chemists are 'keeping the faith' etc, but you have no evidence for it. When asked for such evidence a deafening silence  ensues.

You posit a conspiracy of chemists deceiving the world for what? Research grants? Dissertation material? To keep the faith?  You are making an accusation, not me. Either back it up or admit its an unfounded  conspiracy theory. How many people would have to be in on this conspiracy theory? The people giving out the grants obviously know a thing or two about chemistry, they are in on it, the chemists, the chemists collegues in other related fields, lab techs, professors, lecturers. We're talking millions of people acting in concert here, with no evidence for it. 

If I claim that all creationists are aliens intent on retarding science in readiness for the impending earth invasion (2056AD), you would ask for some evidence would you not? Could I turn that around and say "Your lack of a response is more or less a 'deafening silence"?

View Post


Where would this evidence come from? It would come from science. How many scientific fields would just allow evidence of this nature to be known to the public?

Example: Science person A. has lied about a particular finding. Now to do damage control, and not to made a fool of. Plus losing job, ruining his reputation (which is one of the majors reasons that mistakes, and out right deception is often covered up). The science person says nothing, but comes up with more deception to try and keep things from being found out (such as what happened with Peltdown man).

People are always saying: Well it was another scientist that exposed this untruth. As if that makes a total deception ok. Just like evolutionists, OEC etc... will use these things that creationist have done to put them into one catagory. We will do the same. And make assumption that are the same based on the evidence of the past actions, just as you do. After all, is not that also a scientific method that helps us come to conclusions?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users