Reviewing #Creatorgate: Why a scientist shouldn't use the word "Creator" in their articles


(system) #1
The practice of limiting science to natural explanations is actually helpful for Christians to embrace.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/kathryn-applegate-endless-forms-most-beautiful/reviewing-creatorgate-why-a-scientist-shouldnt-use-the-word-creator-in-their-articles

(Kathryn Applegate) #2

What are your impressions of the #creatorgate controversy? Can you see both (or more) sides of the story?


(Dcscccc) #3

i doesnt see any different from claiming “evolution did it”. an article that discuss a computer cant claim that its a design product?


(George Brooks) #4

Great paragraph from the linked article !!!

So all we need is for a group of ID scientists to SHOW they they have solved “a lot of problems that many scientists are interested in…” !!!

[CLIP STARTS]
“But what if some group of scientists is able to show that by referring to the Creator or a Designer in their scientific papers, it solved a lot of problems that many scientists are interested in? Then they might legitimately have a claim to be treated as scientists, and we’d see the boundaries of what counts as science shift.”

"There have been times that the consensus of scientists has changed. Astrology used to be considered within the mainstream of scientific practice, but the study of the mind was not. Now most people think that situation is reversed. "

“Gravity was once considered by many scientists to be an occult force and not properly scientific because it didn’t conform to the mechanistic expectations they had for science. Now you’d be hard-pressed to find a scientist who doesn’t think the study of gravity is properly scientific.”
[CLIP ENDS]

See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/reviewing-creatorgate-how-science-is-like-soccer#sthash.05WOS6RU.dpuf


(Chris Falter) #5

Saying a natural process (like evolution) explains a natural phenomenon (fossils) is like saying gravity (a natural process) explains a natural phenomenon (planetary orbits). It is a scientific statement, because it discusses processes that can be studied by the scientific method.

Saying a supernatural individual (e.g., Creator) explains a natural phenomenon is like saying angels explain planetary orbits (by pushing the planets). It is a philosophical or religious statement, because you cannot use the scientific method to explain the Creator.

Have you studied the history of science, dcs? If you have you would know that even a scientist as eminent as Isaac Newton invoked angels to explain planetary orbits.

Now saying that a Creator explains the whole panoply of nature is a different sort of statement. It is a philosophical statement or religious statement. Philosophical and religious statements have an appropriate setting. A science journal is not such a setting.


(Dcscccc) #6

first- saying a motor evolve by a natural process (evolution) isnt a scinetific claim. secondly- saying a creator design a cat isnt a supernatural claim. because anything in nature is natural. so its not different from claiming that a computer made by a creator.


#7

I know nothing about the Chinese word or idiom which led to the English translation using the word “Creator”. However, I’d be curious to learn whether the original wording might be similar to that of a phrase which was quite common in nature documentaries just a few decades ago: Mother Nature.

I remember plenty of books and documentaries using wording like these:

“This is just another of Mother Nature’s incredibly beautiful and so very practical designs.”
“Mother Nature never ceases to amaze us as we learn more about her ingenious designs.”

I wonder how nature documentaries of the 1960’s were translated into other languages. Was “Mother Nature” ever translated into other tongues using reasonable analogues for the target cultures which were roughly akin to “The Goddess of Nature” or “Mother Gaia” or even “The Great Father” or “Omnipotent Builder”. If we tended to see “Mother Nature” as an innocent personification of “the appearance of design in nature” which even Richard Dawkins concedes, would we extend that graciousness to the idioms found in other languages-cultures?

Personifying the “design of nature” has a long history in western thought. I wonder if the Chinese authors of the paper were using similar language, such that the underlying Chinese term provokes far less controversy among Chinese readers than English-speakers experience with “the Creator”.


#8

If the creator you are talking about is defined as a supernatural entity, such as a deity, you have left the realm of science. Why? Deities are not subject to the scientific method. Can you subject a deity to falsification testing? No. Thus, your research much be considered theological or philosophical, not scientific.

Notice that even you recognize the difference because when you wanted an example to try and bolster your position, you chose a machine we are all familiar with, a computer, which we all know was created by people. So you chose an example from the natural world to try and support your claims about the supernatural world.

As many theists who happen to be scientists have stated: If you can show me your angel-detector, then the study of angels is a legitimate subject of scientific research. If you can show me a device or set of procedures which you can use to detect deities, then the study of gods and goddesses will be a legitimate scientific study of the natural world.

Just because something is part of the natural world doesn’t make everything believed to be associated with it also a part of the natural world. Indeed, if you believe claims about God as creator of the natural world are subject to scientific investigation, you are not only ignoring the definition of modern science (that which is based upon the scientific method.) You are also coming close to theological heresy–by claiming that God is part of the natural world he created. If God is part of the natural world, then he is not transcendent. Many would say that you are thereby reducing God to a lesser deity and therefore violating the Bible’s prohibition against idolatry and blaspheme. (If you make God part of the natural realm and thereby deny his transcendence, that is blaspheme against God’s majesty above and far beyond the natural world of his creation.)

@Dcscccc, I know that you struggle with English language proficiency—and I commend you for being willing to engage discussion in a language you are still learning. But to be proficient, you must use the standard definitions of words in that language. To deny those definitions, you not only create confusion. You produce sentences void of meaning.

I believe God the creator of all. For that reason, I deny that God is part of the natural realm and subject to scientific investigation. To say that I by definition am insulting God by denying the transcendence the Bible assigns to God as a fundamental attribute. God is NOT part of his creation. No matter how much you may personal believe or not believe that God intervenes in that creation, that “intervention” can’t be a scientific topic unless you can show us that you have scientific tools, procedures/methodologies by which you can study God’s interaction with the natural world. Can you show us any such tool, instrument, procedure, or methodological approach? No you can’t. You know it. We know it.

There’s nothing wrong with discussion the role of God in intervening and/or interacting with his creation. But you must learn the difference between philosophy/theology versus science or you will continue to post meaningless statements which make no sense in English and are even self-contradictory (and some would say, blasphemous.)

Gravity is a scientific topic because we have ways to detect and measure it. It is fully subject to observation. Is God subject to detection and measurement by a scientific instrument or methodology? No.

Please. Learn the difference between science and theology/philosophy. Once you understand that difference, you will find plenty of us here who are fine with discussing God’s interaction with his creation. (We just won’t call it science.)

P.S. Notice that even the Discovery Institute is very aware of the problem with pretending that theological assertions about God the Creator are scientific topics. That is why they prefer to talk about “intelligent design” and even pretend that “We never claim that we are talking about God.” (Of course, the evidence says otherwise. Look up the Wedge Document, the smoking gun of the duplicity and dishonesty of the Discovery Institute.)


(Dcscccc) #9

again- anything in nature is natural. so by definition- the creator is natural too.

why not?

remember that evolution cant be test under the scientific method.

we can show that narue need a design. therefore we can test the claim that nature made by designer.


#10

Words have meanings. Please consult an English lexicon for the definition of transcendent.

Nonsense. The Theory of Evolution has probably been falsification-tested more than any other theory in science. (Newsflash: It passed that testing. That’s why it appears in science textbooks and is considered one of the best attested theories in all of science.)

Yet, you have failed to show “that nature need[s] a design.”

As a born-again Christian, I would be delighted if philosophers could publish a compelling argument for “intelligent design” but efforts so far have been extremely disappointing. (Sadly, the term “ID” has probably been so horribly tainted by the unfortunate “Wedge Document” related propaganda of the Discovery Institute such that the term will probably have to be retired and replaced with something involving less baggage, if indeed progress and discoveries are actually made.)

@Dcscccc, I probably won’t be responding to any more of your posts. You seem to comment in defiance of the meanings of English words and you endlessly repeat science-denial mantras no matter how many times you are corrected. I do wish you well but I just don’t think that my responses are in any way beneficial to you.

Perhaps others can assist you more productively. I’m hoping that that is the case because you are certainly welcome here. I hope you find someone with whom to interact who is better equipped to stimulate your thinking and to provide mutual edification. Best regards and good day to you.


(Christy Hemphill) #12

@dcscccc

Please read Brad’s post on our new definitions of spam. This kind of post qualifies, because of points 3 and 4. You have repeated these questions on multiple threads and people have already invested hours and hours in addressing them and you bring up these questions no matter what the topic of the thread. I am going to delete it, because responding to it would just be a waste of time for anyone who chose to engage.