Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Which came first, the brain or the mind?
Neutral? I think not!
"Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral,"
What does "neutral" really mean? Science is not "neutral" about the supernatural. It simply disregards it as "non-science". Irrelevant.
"... rendering its findings objective."
Yes. Science explains natural effects with natural causes. If many scientists can replicate the explanation, then it is considered objective. It is considered to properly reflect some aspect of reality.
"I like the original meaning, "knowledge"."
Meaningless. Science is the process of explaining natural effects using natural causes. The explanation is considered "knowledge". But science is the process of arriving at the explanation.
"Which assertion, God, or God allows? If you don't accept the first I am powerless to change your denial."
Both. Of course you cannot change my denial. Your "god" is supernatural and disregarded.
"Science HAS processes"
Ok. And I define "science" to be the sum of all of its "processes". So what? None of the "processes" attempt to address the "supernatural" by definition. If there were a natural process to address the supernatural, then the supernatural would become natural.
So, "intelligent design" wishes to become "science" by trying to use some "processes". But scientists say "no", your processes do not use a natural cause and can never be science.
"This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make."
No. A "naturalist" always disregards the supernatural. That's the proper definition, so it is not a mistake. The definition of "scientific evidence" means the supernatural is disregarded. So there can never be scientific evidence of the supernatural.
"Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology"
Ok. Fine. When has "naturalism gone beyond its methodology" if I define "naturalism" to be the "methodology" used so that natural causes producing natural effects are properly explained?
So. Is "intelligent design" trying to "cheat" by introducing a supernatural element into science? Or is it simply vacuous by saying "I know design when I see it and I see it?"
- onein6billion
October 1, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who owns science
Onein6billion, You are missing most of what I am saying. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself well.
>>sologos"Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral,"
>>>oi6b"What does "neutral" really mean? Science is not "neutral" about the supernatural. It simply disregards it as "non-science". Irrelevant."
>>sologos: By neutral, I don't mean merely neutral as regards supernatural considerations. The progressive tendency for science to rid itself of religious input after Galileo gave its practitioners the mis-perceived notion that they would thus achieve objectivity. The truth is that no endeavor of mankind can ever be neutral in that they carry into every investigation, a worldview that biases not only their conclusion, but even their data. The very questions they ask are biased by this worldview. Bias is carried right through with the use of their level of technology which itself limits this worldview to its limited applications. Most significantly, the paradigm in which they think leads them circuitously to results that merely confirm the premises. I don't mean by this that the universe isn't yielding aspects consistent with a reality, but reality, we are finding, is so multidimensional as to evade our tidy explanations and sweeping generalizations like some of the pronouncements expressed in this discussion. They are thoughtful, but basically they are just another way of stating the party line.
As to objectivity, it is not that their experiments cannot be replicated, but that the same elemental limitations are repeated by those who share this worldview. Same data collected. Same technology appreciating the data, Same limited questions asked of the data. Same acceptable construction of the answers.
A very basic tenet of naturalistic methodology, as it is presently practiced (and focused) is that it sees reality in a dualistic manner. There is what is generally regarded and relegated to the physical, and what is meta-physical. Much of what is now considered to be "physical" rather than metaphysical (like waves in the ulta-violet range) would never have been discovered were it not for some degree of paradigm shift.
Today's "science" cannot see intelligence because it is trying to fit it into a force or energy or matter or other physical category. It doesn't fit because it is more like information. Not that it is not implicated by forces or energy or matter in the laws that govern them, but to extraxt the intelligence requires a refinement of the NM.
It is a major paradigm shift whose emergence can only come about when its time is ready. Like every other paraigm shift, the new technology, the perception of the limitations of the former paradigm, and the conceptual basis for the new paradigm, all have to be in place before it can emerge
- sologos
October 5, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
more on who owns science
>>>oi6b:"Yes. Science explains natural effects with natural causes. If many scientists can replicate the explanation, then it is considered objective. It is considered to properly reflect some aspect of reality.
>>sologos:"Yes, I know. There is no denying that that "aspect" of reality is there. What you see is what you get. Science sees what science views.
oi6b:"Meaningless. Science is the process of explaining natural effects using natural causes. The explanation is considered "knowledge". But science is the process of arriving at the explanation"
sologos: No and yes. No, if by "natural" you mean only what we now agree to be natural. Yes, science is the process of arriving at explanation, not reality.
oi6b:" Of course you cannot change my denial."
sologos: Denial is not a good posture for a scientist. Why not rather go wherever the evidence leads?
sologos:"Science HAS processes"
oi6b:" None of the "processes" attempt to address the "supernatural" by definition. If there were a natural process to address the supernatural, then the supernatural would become natural."
sologos: No, just His fingerprints are natural. But His fingerprints tell us of His nature, VIZ Intelligence.
>>>oi6B:"So, "intelligent design" wishes to become "science" by trying to use some "processes". But scientists say "no", your processes do not use a natural cause and can never be science."
>>sologos: The relativity of time could "never" be science according to the operatives of Newtonian physics
sologos:"This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make."
>>>oi6B:"No. A "naturalist" always disregards the supernatural. That's the proper definition, so it is not a mistake. The definition of "scientific evidence" means the supernatural is disregarded. So there can never be scientific evidence of the supernatural."
>Sologos: If by disregarding you mean that God has no locus in the experimental method, then you are correct, by present definition. Nevertheless, science has much to gain from listening to theologians, and vice versa.
sologos:"Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology"
>>oi6b:"Ok. Fine. When has "naturalism gone beyond its methodology" if I define "naturalism" to be the "methodology" used so that natural causes producing natural effects are properly explained?"
>>sologos:Essentially when its practitioners say that the universe and all its workings can be fully explained without God.
>>>oi6b:"So. Is "intelligent design" trying to "cheat" by introducing a supernatural element into science? Or is it simply vacuous by saying "I know design when I see it and I see it?"
>>sologos: To try to demonstrate logically that nature reflects both intelligence and design is not cheating even if it could legitimately demonstrate the Designer. As far as I can see, however, the attempt to fit into science rather entails showing the Designer's characteristics in nature.To simply state "I know design whenIse it, and I see it" is indeed scientifically vacuous
- sologos
October 5, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Round and round we go - but now I'm done
"a worldview that biases not only their conclusion, but even their data."
Riiiiight. The "biased worldview" canard. Well, you have your reality and I have mine and I prefer my biased reality to yours. Because mine has cellphones and doctors and medicine and cars and ... and yours has churches and miracles and the power of prayer and life after death.
"but reality is so multidimensional as to evade our tidy explanations"
Well, please explain it to us with a proper scientific theory and go collect your Nobel Prize.
"A very basic tenet of naturalistic methodology, as it is presently practiced is that it sees reality in a dualistic manner." ... "would never have been discovered" ... "Today's "science" cannot see intelligence" ... "because it is more like information" ... "but to extract the intelligence requires a refinement of the NM"
Riiight. I will now disregard your opinions the same way science disregards the supernatural - as non-scientific nonsense. "Refinement of the NM" - that's hilarious.
"It is a major paradigm shift whose emergence can only come about when its time is ready"
ROTFLOL Where's that link to "how to recognize a kook"? Not quite right, but close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_ (person)
"No, if by "natural" you mean only what we now agree to be natural."
Weird. "Natural" does or does not mean "what we now agree to be natural"? One of us is playing games and it's not me!
"Yes, science is the process of arriving at explanation, not reality."
You wish to have other explanations besides the ones that describe reality? Silly.
"Why not rather go wherever the evidence leads?"
You failed to use the word "scientific" in front of the word "evidence". By definition, there can never be any scientific evidence that leads to supernatural intelligence or design. It's a contradiction by definition.
"Nevertheless, science has much to gain from listening to theologians, and vice versa."
I don't care if theologians listen to science as long as they don't try to interfere with the proper teaching of biology to 9th grade public high school students the way the creationist dentist is trying to do here in Texas.
I don't think scientists should waste their time listening to theologians. What could a theologian possibly say that could be of interest to science? Exact specifications for recognizing miracles?
"Essentially when its practitioners say that the universe and all its workings can be fully explained without God."
Round and round we go. I say science always disregards the supernatural. So how would scientists use "God" to help "fully explain" the universe? That's silly nonsense. When a scientist finds something that cannot be fully explained (yet), he says "I don't know (yet)", not "I need a supernatural agent to explain this." One answer leads to further research - the other leads to "I give up."
"To try to demonstrate logically that nature reflects both intelligence and design is not cheating"
Well, there is no such logical demonstration and it seems clear to anyone with half a brain that "nature" does not "reflect" either "intelligence" or "design" (as if those words actually meant anything in this context). So, if it's not cheating, it's just a massive failure. The problem with your logic is that you continue to try to mix "nature" with supernatural "intelligence and design". This is a contradiction. And this is the fundamental reason why all of the attempts by the "intelligent design" propagandists to make a positive case for design have failed.
"showing the Designer's characteristics in nature"
Meaningless. This is a description which might or might not reflect reality. Take your personal choice. "I see the designer's characteristics" or "I don't see any characteristics that might indicate a designer". There's only one Earth and only one universe. And I do not see any characteristics of a designer in the nature of either.
But there's no explanation, so there's no science here. Why did this designer do this instead of that? When and how did this designer do this or that? Perhaps you prefer "theistic evolution"? The designer created this universe 14 billion years ago and set the clockwork mechanism (physical laws) in motion and everything happened naturally after that. Well, that's not science and it's probably not satisfying to the billions of religious believers around this natural world.
I certainly hope I'm dead and gone before your "paradigm shift" fries my brain as it has yours.
- onein6billion
October 6, 2008 7:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.