Of course! That must be the case since investigations of law are all about choice and intention of many observed and observable agents … just as science is about trying to identify how things naturally work!
I note that since you didn’t give answer my main points: that biology seems to be the only science tasked with finding a seat to reserve for God, and that its relegation to 2nd class status as a so-called ‘historical’ science doesn’t hold water either - that you’re conceding these points then?
Sorry if the above tones feel like an “attack dog” fervor - it isn’t really directed at you specifically, but at the forum wilds at large. You’re just one of the more articulate writers whose thoughtful responses provide a convenient ‘jumping off’ point for me. I’m just thinking aloud here too - even while expressing my thoughts ‘vehemently’!
Fair enough… I completely grant your point here. but I fear this only proves my point. It certainly seems striking to me that even theories such as panspermia are considered legitimate discussions within modern science (including such noteworthy scientists as Francis Crick were able to publish said theory).
So intelligent design can be legitimately considered a real option to explain, biological life and it’s features, only so long as one claims the intelligent designers are extraterrestrial alien beings? But somehow the endeavors of discovery institute are considered “pseudoscience”?
But yes, your main point is taken and granted, I will clarify, that once worldview limits them to only naturalistic explanations, Darwins theory of evolution being the most accepted of those options. But the point still stands, that one’s worldview will still indeed, preclude certain options from even being considered.
granted, and agreed. World views do indeed develop in such a complex way. Nonetheless, I will still maintain that once a person has established and committed themselves to certain world views, then how they view evidence moving forward will be through that lens. Once someone has become a committed atheist and have firmly grounded themselves in that view of the world, they will, for instance, examine the evidence about Jesus resurrection through a certain lens, and unless they are willing to allow their worldview to be changed, they must arrive at certain naturalistic conclusions.
Henry Ross would be the classic example of the opposite – if I understand right, he was an atheist when he began his historical study of the resurrection, planning to write a book to debunk it, but examining the evidence forced him to change his view – however, his acceptance of the supernatural resurrection, by definition, necessitated he change his worldview (which I understand he did).
I respect your thoughts, sincerely… however, I would still maintain the basic philosophical axioms. perhaps I was unclear, though… Richard Dawkins describes different categories of atheists, including those that are de facto atheists, because they see no evidence, but they do not claim certainty that there is no god or supernatural… i fully grant that an atheist in that category could indeed be open to seeing supernatural explanation. I was meaning to speak of his seventh category, those who are firmly Committed to a certainty that there is no God and nothing supernatural. They are those who are strict materialists and naturalists, actively affirming that there absolutely is no supernatural.
If you frequently consider the possibility of supernatural explanations, it does not seem that you would fit within Richard Dawkins’s category of “strong atheist” Which I was meaning to refer to. I apologize for being unclear, And I should correct my previous statement thus:
Even considering a supernatural explanation is strictly within the purview of those worldviews that acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural, by definition.
Mervin, you will please forgive me as I am not really sure what you’re speaking about in regard to a second class status…
But there simply are, indisputably and by definition, two different disciplines at work here: there is the observable phenomena, those that are testable, repeatable, and there are plenty of disciplines of science, which are inferences about the unobservable from those things we can directly observe. I personally would never call one first or second class, although granted, by definition, The one involves direct, observable evidence and is pretty indisputable, and the other involves inferences and interpretation.
Darwin’s work, On the origin of species, and its core proposal, was by definition inference about the past, based on the Voluminous research and direct observations he had been making. This in no way made it “second class science”. But It was not direct evidence of certain species evolving into others, it was an inference based on what he had observed.
But I cannot see how one would claim this is second class science. Even the theory of the Big Bang, or the development of our solar system, are in this category. They are Inferences about the past based on what we are able to actually observe or test or repeat about the present.
proponents of intelligent design, similarly, are making inferences about the past, based on what we can observe, test, or repeat, in the present. And I don’t consider that second class science: They examine the present evidence, the various features and complexities of biological life, and find the blind Darwinistic mechanism insufficient to explain certain features of life, and find reason to instead infer intentional, intelligent design of these features.
But I would not call their endeavour “second class science” Just because they are making inferences about the unobservable past based on present observable data, Any more then I would claim that Darwins theory is second class on the basis that it was an inference about the unobservable past, based on present observable data.
I am sympathetic to intelligent design because I find their inferences to the past more convincing than those inferences of Darwin and his modern followers, not because I consider the endeavour of making inferences to the past some kind of second class science.
Oh, and to address your other observation: I do not believe that science has any place for determining, allowing, or concluding, God’s involvement in absolutely anything. absolutely not.
I am only claiming that science should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it goes, including if that evidence suggests intelligence agency. That is within the realm of science to be able to identify.
And I don’t think this is controversial. Science is perfectly capable of recognizing intelligent agency in astrophysics (SETI), archaeology, forensics, and even in Modern biology (genetically modified foods), and even the modern ability to encode information in DNA.
I mean, if a scientist was examining a pigeon, and sequenced its DNA, and happens to find a section of the pigeon’s DNA that included top secret classified information About nuclear weapons when decrypted… Is this scientist not allowed to determine or conclude that there was intelligent agency involved behind that DNA?
But then this is begging the question. Is forensics not a scientific endeavour? Would you demand that same approach to SETI scientists? That all the Electromagnetic or radio waves they are receiving from the universe, they must Limit their Endeavor to identifying how the radio waves “naturally” work? That they would never be allowed to ever recognize intelligent patterns in those radio waves?
Or are you claiming that SETI is not “science” as it is seeking to identify things that are not occurring “naturally”?
That’s false. Scientists have data. They want to know why the data is as it is. Scientists construct theories to explain the data. The theory of evolution is accepted because it explains the data, and it explains it in a falsifiable manner.
The reason that scientists don’t invoke the supernatural is because there is no way to falsify the supernatural. Falsification is the foundation of the scientific method, and we can’t use that method once we invoke the supernatural.
The reflexive answer I often hear is “Common Design”. However, this only demonstrates that the person invoking Common Design either doesn’t understand design or doesn’t understand what a nested hierarchy is (or perhaps both). There is absolutely no reason why we would expect Common Design to produce a nested hierarchy, and we would be much more expectant of a lack of a nested hierarchy because designers are allowed to mix and match modules of design with no concern for a nested hierarchy.
I’m not seeing any explanations for the data, though. It seems you prefer intelligent design because it comports with your beliefs, not necessarily with the data. If you could show us an empirical method for measuring precisions and perfection, as well as a way to test for intelligent design, then maybe we would have a path forward.
That could be said about every single scientific theory, couldn’t it?
What I am trying to get across is that there isn’t anything scientific to consider within intelligent design. Intelligent design is rhetoric, not science. It doesn’t explain even one of the most basic observations in biology, the nested hierarchy among complex eukaryotes. There is a very, very long list of observations that intelligent design doesn’t even begin to address.
That is not the definition of random. random means of no discernable pattern
Weather systems are caused by inbalance of air pressure and/or temperature. That is probably simplistic as there are other factors such as humidity but in general the weather is a response to the climactic conditions.
That is pure Judaism.
The idea that God is that hands on is not the accepted one in modern times. Chance and true random also exist. God does not decide how a coin will fall or which ball will be chosen by the lottery machine.
I think you need to reassess your understanding of Scripture.
Codswallop. That makes humanity a cosmic fluke.
If you believe God created us then you will include Him in our makeup and design. ToE does not. Claiming God replaces random makes God evil or predjudice in what creatures survive or do not. (It also negates Natural selection) IOW you are not accepting scientific evolution.
Please make up your mind whether God created us or not. if He did then ToE fails. There is no room in it for God to design us in His image. Our image is governed by Natural forces not God if ToE is in force. We could be a lizzard, or whale for all the control ToE has.
And what is that data if it is not natural? and observable?
And what are the processes if they are not Natural?
The DI aren’t considered to be doing pseudoscience because of their views, but because of their methods.
Modifying one of your paragraphs:
“proponents of intelligent design, similarly, are making inferences about the past, based on what we can observe, test, or repeat, in the present. And I don’t consider that second class science: They examine the present evidence, the various features and complexities of biological life, and”…
…and then they tell lies about it.
That ‘unless’ applies to just about every atheist I know.
Though I’ve yet to see an apologetics argument that holds water, and most could have an ocean liner sailed through them. Nor is the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection remotely strong enough to overcome the alternative explanations.
He’s not the only apologist to have made that claim. ‘I was an atheist until…’ is a common opening, and often dubious.
I fully agree. There are many branches of science that do invoke intelligent agency. The problem is that no one has found a way to explain the data in biology based on a theory of intelligent agency. Until they construct this theory and it is found to be superior to the theory we already have, we will continue to use the theory we already have.
Within science, the actions of intelligent agents like humans are considered natural. Chancing the formation of linguistic singularity, the difference between natural and artificial is itself artificial. We don’t use the supernatural to send out radio waves, as one example.
I am a bit baffled at this requirement to “explain” the data.
SETI Would be required to explain the data in a radio signal that they receive that clearly showed signs of intelligent agency? It would not simply be enough for them to recognize or identify that there was intelligent agency behind it? They also have to explain it?
And until they are able to explain it, you would insist that we could not recognize intelligent agency?
It’s not a requirement. It’s an obvious next step.
The DI claim to have evidence of intelligent design, but they show no interest whatsoever in taking the next step of working out how, when or where that design was done, or by who/what.
If SETI ever found an intelligently composed signal they’d be clamouring to search that part of the sky and send probes etc.
The DI just shrugs and says ‘Wow, intelligent design. Must have been God a designer.’ Pseudoscience.
It’s what scientists do. It’s the entire purpose of doing science.
The data would be a narrowband signal that is probably modulating in amplitude and/or frequency (i.e. AM and FM signals). They would explain that by invoking a radio transmitter. This is what SETI is looking for. They aren’t looking for data within the transmission itself like we would in our radio transmissions. At least initially, they are looking for a modulated narrowband radio signal.
How many radio signals coming from outer space do we already recognize as not being the product of intelligent agency?
That may be your definition of random, but that is not what any scientist means when they say that something is “random”. This is repeated instance of a failure to understand technical usage and an imposition of one’s own definition on everyone else, given that this has been explained over, and over, and over, and over again. What a scientist means when they say that something is “random” or “stochastic” is one of the following:
The outcome is best-described by a probability distribution (e.g., dice rolls or QM).
The outcome is deterministic from impossible perfect measurements of starting conditions (e.g., weather or long-term behavior of gravitationally interacting systems with more than two bodies). This type may alternatively be termed “chaotic”.
The outcome is not humanly predictable for other reasons (e.g., long-term human or life history).
None of those deny discernable patterns.
Just because you’re a Pelagian and an open theist does not mean that Thomists, Scotists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Jews, or anyone else who believes in divine sovereignty don’t still believe in divine sovereignty or still exist. Also, being “accepted in modern times” seems like one of the worst ways to assess theological ideas.
Like by paying attention to Proverbs 16:33? “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.” or any of the passages about determining responsibility or best course of action using the casting of lots?
How? All it says is that we can’t physically measure anything that would tell us that we aren’t. Whether we are or are not is a metaphysical or philosophical question, not a scientific one.
I do. But no one can measure God’s involvement in a way that would make it identifiable.
Nor does it exclude Him.
I am not claiming that God replaces random, but that He governs it. Atomic decays are still random under a scientific definition of random whether or not God controls them.
How so in any way beyond which creatures survive or do not today? If God provides lions with food (as endorsed by Job 38 and Psalm 104), then how would governing extinctions be any different?
How?
He did. He can use natural means to accomplish things, however.
How? The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about God’s involvement or lack thereof, beyond that we can’t measure it. The same is true of every other scientific field.
This is a false dichotomy. God using natural forces is another option.
It appears even Darwin viewed his theory in the same way scientists do now. We accept it because of how well it explains the data.
“[…] I believe in Natural Selection, not because I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups and explains well (as it seems to me) a host of
facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession and distribution.”
― Charles Darwin, [The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 25, 1877]
They’re only very generally predictable. If they were predictable, meteorologists would be able to forecast when and where a new thundercloud would form, e.g. “At two p.m. a thundercloud will begin forming over the Owens’ farm out on Latimer Lane…” As it is, they can’t even say for sure whether or not the air current in a forming thundercloud will be sufficient to punch through to the stratosphere or whether the familiar anvil shape will occur.
And because there are no instruments for measuring design, nor are there likely to be anytime soon (if ever).
It’s actually a feedback loop. Most people aren’t aware that they even have a worldview for the simple reason that they grew up absorbing a certain way of looking at the world and never had any reason to recognize that there is any other way to look at the world. YEC is a fantastic example; they don’t recognize that they are operating from a modern scientific worldview that they absorbed from a modern scientific culture, despite the fact that even their reading of scripture rests on that worldview. Then they twist everything to fit that worldview, including science, because the only tweak they’ve made is the notion that scripture read through that MSWV is determinative for everything else. So all the science in the world isn’t going to convince them.
I took an honors course that dealt with worldviews. Writing a paper delineating how I came to the worldview I held was the hardest paper I ever wrote! The toughest part may have been figuring out how I defined truth – it was a recursive process because at every answer the question had to be asked again.
YEC fails at this because they refuse to see that they have defined truth as something that is 100% scientifically and historically accurate. Their claim is to let the Bible form their worldview, but that’s just a step along the path because clearly they hold scientific accuracy above the Bible by insisting that every detail in the Bible has to be an accurate, objective report with no scientific or historical errors.
For that matter, many people – myself included – operate with more than one worldview! This is essentially the problem Richard keeps banging his head against: he thinks that scientists who are Christians are functioning with disparate worldviews, one scientific and one religious, while setting the scientific one first; others see him as operating with a split worldview because he sees ToE as distinctly different from all other branches of science, and then holding his personal religio-philosophical worldview above both (it’s somewhat more complex than that, of course).
Heh. A truism give up front in that honors course was that it takes an outsider to really figure out what someone’s worldview is. A second was that it requires being able to grasp at least two different worldviews to manage to see your own. That’s where my complaint about the hijacking of the term “intelligent design” comes in: when I was attending university, the term was a conclusion from science that admitted no further science but instead pointed to a search for the Designer; the way it is used these days it assumes a specific intelligent Designer and searches for apparent evidence – failing to see that it is mushing together two disparate worldviews.
Back to the need for a Divinometer!
… low pressure centers generate hurricanes.
I remember in an anthropology course reading about how hard it was for many to accept that a certain type of rock piece was the result of human tool-making – some stubbornly insisted their entire careers that there was a natural explanation for what everyone else had realized were arrowheads.
Or, somewhat less fancifully, set out the first fourteen digits of pi.
Can’t measure it, can’t falsify it. Yes, Virginia, there still could be invisible faeries in the garden!
Why? Why do you not consider that God could have set up the initial conditions so that an intelligent, tool-using, bipedal, upright mammal would be inevitable? I’ve read a pair of articles from atheists who argued that given the initial starting conditions of the universe, humanoid, warm-blooded, intelligent creatures were inevitable – and if a pair of atheists can argue that, why can’t it fit into a Christian worldview?
Nope – that’s just a proposal resulting from insufficient imagination, or perhaps (as my older brother would say) a failure to appreciate the depth of the mathematics involved.
No, we couldn’t – neither lizards nor whales are upright bipedal humanoids.
Indeed from one philosophical perspective (indulging in a bit of metaphysics) that God created the universe means that there would inevitably emerge a creature suitable to serve as His image.
Oh, yes. I have one as a neighbor.
And a friend who fits the category, though she believes in ghosts – she just maintains that they are due to energy resonances in a field scientists have yet to discover.
Especially considering that at one point most of the bishops in the ancient world were Arians.
This brought to mind an analogy offered by a liturgics and church history professor who played the organ (well enough to give concerts): for the most part the “notes” of the universe fit a preset harmony and patter, but every now and then the Organist tosses in a unique note, seemingly improvised.
In both cases, it is the Organist Who is providing the music.
Yes. In what contet is the Psalm written? For whose use?
Is that God’s words or the Psalmist?
If you are going to claim ANE for Genesis you cannot complain at being told that Judaism has certain precepts not shared by all Christians
Well I guess that depends on your definition of Random.
Not according to ToE. ToE claims how we were made and it has nothing to do with God or his image for us.
Fine, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept all of the scientific view. You know as well as I do that God is not a factor in science, so science will try and find answers without Him
???
Where is God in ToE?
such basics.
natural Selection can only work on the choices it is given. and only then if allowed to. If God chooses a life form it will not be competing, it ill be.
Over ruled!
You still do not get it, do you?
Sceince over rules God. if it happens as ToE says we are a product of random deviations., not God.
How many times are you going to repeat the same fallacy?
I have answered this, more than once!
HOW? How does God over ride Natural Selection? Why can’t you see?
