More on ID Research

When the Discovery Institute's Wedgie document was leaked some years ago it outlined a multi-decade plan to overthrow "materialistic" science and replace it with something else. Change the world was the goal. The Wedgie went on to mark several milestones along the way which were actually quite reasonable; small steps. Establish some research programs, publish some works, get support from a couple of universities, get some political support, etc. Just like a wedgie, small increments of pain.

So, a decade later perhaps the Patrons of the DI are looking for a dividend and what do they find? Halfway into the program the DI hasn't hit any milestone. Not a single one. Even the easy ones.

Failure on all fronts. No research. No publications. No university support. Unreliable political support. No acceptance. Losses in all legal engagements. No support in the media. Failure, failure, failure.

If I had a stock in a company with a record like that, that dog would be gone! Out of the portfolio.

However, for all it's failures pushing the "intelligent design" agenda the DI has been remarkably successful on an unexpected front.

The DI's antics have raised the awareness of the need for solid science education. In Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, California and other states, regular people are getting a sense that they're being taken for a ride by the whole "intelligent design" scam. In Dover, that was an expensive E-Ticket ride. Citizens for Science Education organizations are springing up every week. Scientists are getting involved, getting organized and speaking out. Science produces results.

The Discovery Institute's patrons are business people and "intelligent design" is bad for business. While "Darwinian" scientists are churning out research, publications and commercially viable products (and winning Nobel Prizes) the fruits of the DI are a few embarrassing tracts, vanity press books and a boatload of excuses, oh, and Kitzmiller which has sort of killed the whole deal.

So, what did the Patrons get for their $4 million investment with the Discovery Institute? Nothing. Nothing at all. No progress. Oh, they got a boatload of excuses but I don't know what that would go for on eBay. And, they got Kitzmiller.

If the Patrons had invested their $4 milliion in Genetech Inc. ten years ago, they would have a cool $40 million and the world would be, well, exactly as it is today.

ID Research is the same for science as air guitar playing is for music.
Both may be helpful during adolescent crises but it's disturbing to see adult people with such habits.

Innovation detection is the search for evidence of ID-input subsequent to the origin of a preexisting designed object or event. This sub-field can become a big player in commercial and technological applications of intelligent design. A conceptually related detection method is already being used by Genetic ID Incorporated

Eh, I've discussed the claims about Genetic ID before. Yes, the "ID" means identification, they have no connection with the ID movement and probably no knowledge of its existence. They certainly don't use Dembski's design detection methodology as I explain in my post. It's really quite dishonest of the IDists to pretend as if what this company does has anything to do with intelligent design.

they have ... probably no knowledge of its existence.

As far as I can see from Genetic ID web pages their methodology relies on current, scientifically proven molecular biology techniques to identify GMOs. Thus, the ID in the company's name seems to refer rather to "identity" then to "Intelligent Design".

The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence.

The main point that seems to be missed in these critiques of the crank claims of doing secret research and spending 4 million dollars on Intelligent design research by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists is that the research should have been done before they tried to sell the scam to the public and teach ID in the public schools.

Even the most incompetent rube that has been scammed by ID should be able to realize the fact that if they are claiming to do the research now, and are admitting that they can't release it until it is done, that they obviously didn't have anything to sell 10 years ago. It means that the bait and switch scam that they ran on the Ohio State board, when they substituted "teach the controversy" for the nonexistent scientific theory of ID, was planned and a dishonest political scam. They tried to run the same bait and switch on the Dover board, but the Dover rubes wouldn't take the switch.

If any business claimed to be selling microwave ovens, but when people tried to buy them all they got was a flimsy plastic grill and were told that the rubes had to provide the cans of Sterno and matches to make it heat anything, those businesses would be in big trouble. I say plastic grill because they are selling a replacement that isn't what the creationists really want to teach, and if they used the desired Sterno the plastic grill wouldn't work. They are making the rubes that buy into the replacement scam produce the product and take the fall for blowing it. Just look what happened in Ohio where creationist web links got into the initial drafts of the "model lesson plan" and junk arguments strait out of Wells' book Icons of evolution got into the lesson plan. It is sort of suspect that sites like ARN and ISCID were created after and by the ID scam artists that came up with the ID replacement scam (Meyer is still on the board of directors of ARN as far as I know) and that ARN got listed as one of the web links for teachers to use. It looks like all those sites turned out to be was smoke to make the replacement scam look legit. The initial draft of the Ohio lesson plan would kill any reasonable doubt that the lesson was supposed to be about science education. The Discovery Institute never took any of that 4 million dollars and produced a viable lesson plan for either ID or their replacement scam. They only claim that they have something worth teaching. In both Ohio and Dover that has been shown to be a false claim, and seems to be the main reason why they never produced any public school lesson plans. Their obvious problem is that if they did produce a lesson plan it would either be dishonest, or it wouldn't teach what their supporters want to teach.

So, a decade later perhaps the Patrons of the DI are looking for a dividend and what do they find? Halfway into the program the DI hasn't hit any milestone. Not a single one. Even the easy ones.

So, ID has failed to perform any original research or even even propose any testable hypotheses even though they have had decades to do the work. They have their own faith-based "universities", their own "research institutions", at leaast four million dollars in funding and at least fifty "scientists" working on the project, their own "journals" and still nothing. No peer-reviewed journal articles in the scientific literature, no progress in infiltrating public school curriculula and no progress at overturning the constitution of the United States that protects us from such nonsense and provides them the freedom to induldge in such foolishness. And of course it is all because of persecution and some big conspiracy against them. Well I have a suggestion. Perhaps the editor of some major scientific journal should send out a call for papers with evidence supporting ID. State ahead of time that the reviewers will be Behe, Dembski and Wells so no cries of prejudice need be heard. Then actually publish the results of the last decade of work and the four million dollars that were spent. The only stipulation being that the article cannot be just a criticism of evolutionary theory but original research testing, and presumably supporting, the "theory" of ID. Then of course the article would be subjected to exactly the same sort of public scrutiny that every other scientific article is subjected to, including rebuttal articles, response articles, letters to the editor, etc. I know it "gives legitimacy" to the ID people. I know it gives them the chance to say they have a real article published in a real journal so it must be science. But at least it would put the lie to all this conspiracy nonsense. At least then everyone will be able to see the exact state of ID "research". At least then court cases should be a lot easier since it will be much easier to prove that this is all they have got, anywhere. No more talk of secret labs, mass conspiracies and persecution. Let the whole world see exactly what they got for their four million. Compare it to the output from a single real lab with a four million dollar grant. After all, they can't just say that the "theory" is not ready yet. Not after already blowing two million on the Dover trial. If no submissions are forthcoming, publicize it for all the world to see. I know it isn't the way real science works. I know we would be giving them special treatment. I know some will disagree with this strategy. But think of all the mustard we'll save.

They have their own faith-based "universities", their own "research institutions", at leaast four million dollars in funding and at least fifty "scientists" working on the project, their own "journals" and still nothing.

Great post, Steve. A very enjoyable read. It pains me to think how much better that money could have been spent. I wonder what the price tag for the original nobel-prize-winning RNAi experiments were. I'm betting it's less than 1 million.

If I had to summarize ID in one word, it would be "over".

Dover's body is cooling in the morgue.
UncommonlyDense.com has been boring lately.
Even Dave Heddle's turned against the ID movement.
ISCID Brainstorms has petered out, and their Journal hasn't come out in over a year, as you mention.
Their new blog OverwhelmingEvidence.com is going nowhere.

Intelligent Design has the Stink of Death.

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but who is Dave Heddle?

David Heddle's blog:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_helives_archive.html

He used to post here, but I think he got banned.

I don't recall him getting banned --- just running away.

Evidence against an Intelligent designer...men's nipples.
Think about it.

Perhaps the editor of some major scientific journal should send out a call for papers with evidence supporting ID.

I quite like the sound of the title of this entry, Steve R.

Just say it out loud to yourself, and it all makes sense.

Evidence against an Intelligent designer...men's nipples. Think about it.

Evidence against an Intelligent designer...men's nipples. Think about it.

I love how Wells posted that "Darwin is doomed" two weeks ago. Then we get the shenanigans about top-secret research in underground fortresses concealed from those nasty evolutionists and their gestapo who want to "strangle the baby." Then.."WE'VE WASTED $4 MILLION ON A LOT OF NON-RESEARCH WE'RE CALLING SCIENCE!!!!"
Can we get a consistent message? Victor. Victim. Victor. Victim. Victor. Victim. Ridiculous.

I just read a bunch of Heddle's stuff. He has considerably more brains than a lot of the IDiots and I enjoyed his parting with Dembski.

I have read on various pro-evolution sites that non-natural explanations are not scientific. Accordingly, these same sites claim they do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural. However, evolutionary science offers theory which excludes the Creator and account of creation in the bible. Such a conclusion cannot be avoided by a scientific method which exludes what some call supernatural.

If science is to be fair and objective as pro-evolutionary scientists claim, then science must limit itself to investigations which do not attempt to answer origins. Since the majority of Americans observe force, laws, and design in nature, to exclude this phenomena would bias any investigation which employs natrualistic science. This is why so many still accept biblical creation or ID in spite of evolutions best efforts to exclude it.

On another note; I find it fascinating that intelligence and reason are employed philosophically before concluding that science cannot offer non-naturalistic explanations. Aren't philosophical observations excluded from scientific investigation? If so, the cart is pulling the horse.

I have read on various pro-evolution sites that non-natural explanations are not scientific. Accordingly, these same sites claim they do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural. However, evolutionary science offers theory which excludes the Creator and account of creation in the bible. Such a conclusion cannot be avoided by a scientific method which exludes what some call supernatural

"Evolutionary science offers theories which avoid dealing with the issue of a Creator. In other words, evolution does not exclude the Creator more or less than any other science. The reason science excludes the supernatural is because it cannot address it, one way or the other. Once you come to realize this, science is hardly that problematic from a religious standpoint.
Until then, you are merely arguing a position which is at odds with the scientific position."

Are you saying that Evolutionary science does not exlude the possiblility that God created according to the biblical account?

If you read my post again, you'll see I did accept the fact that science excludes the supernatural. That is how I reached the conclusions I posted in my second paragraph.

Are you saying that Evolutionary science does not exlude the possiblility that God created according to the biblical account? If you read my post again, you'll see I did accept the fact that science excludes the supernatural. That is how I reached the conclusions I posted in my second paragraph.

Science doesn't require a supernatural explanation, and to be a little stronger about it science won't consider the supernatural.

Now, many supernatural (paranormal) claims have been investigated scientifically, but all have been found to lack substance, so to speak. But, investigating the supernatural and invoking it are two different things.

"Intelligent design" creationism does require the supernatural. Hence, the "intelligent" agent or deity as the case may be.

However, all cockfloppery aside, "intelligent design" is a political scam in the first place, so all this talk about it being science is a complete waste of time. Thanks to the Discovery Institute and their efforts the details of the scam are being documented, by them, every day.

Although like pyramid power and energy vortexes and ghost sightings and flood "theory" I have no illusions that "ID", like all the other side shows, will go away any time soon.

I have read on various pro-evolution sites that non-natural explanations are not scientific. Accordingly, these same sites claim they do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural. However, evolutionary science offers theory which excludes the Creator and account of creation in the bible.

— HG

Science excludes the supernatural as a scientific explanation. Does science exclude the possibility that God created according to the biblical account? Not at all, only when one insists that this is somehow a scientific position/explanation. Science's position is that it cannot say much of anything about the supernatural.

"Does science exclude the possibility that God created according to the biblical account? Not at all, only when one insists that this is somehow a scientific position/explanation."

How can both be true? If evolution is true then it is exclusively so. If the biblical Creator and creation account is true then it is exclusively so.

I have read on various pro-evolution sites that non-natural explanations are not scientific.

— HG

Accordingly, these same sites claim they do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural.

— HG

However, evolutionary science offers theory which excludes the Creator and account of creation in the bible.

— HG

Such a conclusion cannot be avoided by a scientific method which exludes what some call supernatural.

— HG

If science is to be fair and objective as pro-evolutionary scientists claim, then science must limit itself to investigations which do not attempt to answer origins.

— HG

Since the majority of Americans observe force, laws, and design in nature, to exclude this phenomena would bias any investigation which employs natrualistic science.

— HG

This is why so many still accept biblical creation or ID in spite of evolutions best efforts to exclude it.

— HG

On another note; I find it fascinating that intelligence and reason are employed philosophically before concluding that science cannot offer non-naturalistic explanations. Aren't philosophical observations excluded from scientific investigation? If so, the cart is pulling the horse.

— HG

"in order to take Genesis as a literal account, one has to reject science as a valid method of exploring and learning about the physical world."

I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. It would seem that the scientific method would only be rejected when investigating origins.

How can both be true? If evolution is true then it is exclusively so. If the biblical Creator and creation account is true then it is exclusively so.

— HG

"I remain unconvinced that "non-natural explanation" even has any rational meaning. Is God unnatural?"

Michael Suttkus,

This exact term is used on Talkorigins.org. I use it in an attempt to communicate clearly.

I am not contending for science to include God. Science cannot explain how God created because it was and is not observable.

As far as origins go, I am speaking within the context of this site and others like it.

How can both be true? If evolution is true then it is exclusively so. If the biblical Creator and creation account is true then it is exclusively so.

"in order to take Genesis as a literal account, one has to reject science as a valid method of exploring and learning about the physical world." I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. It would seem that the scientific method would only be rejected when investigating origins.

Let's cut to the chase, HG.

The Genesis account isn't true literally. If you are interested you can learn about all the mythology that went into the Genesis story. The Genesis story has a history and it's quite interesting.

So, there you have it. You can't prove the stories in Genesis are true with science because Genesis is not based on scientific facts. That's the long and the short of it.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or so, life arose on its own after billions of years and here we are today having these fascinating discussions.

Personally, it fills me with joy to recognize that I exist over phenomenal odds at the end of my particular evolutionary branch, knowing that all my ancestors, all of them, survived vast planetary calamities, incredible extinction events, plagues, famines, predators and strife of all kinds too many to mention to produce me.

Me.

At the end of it all. I value that story. It's my story, and I revel in the knowledge about how I came about in the work of the thousands of scientists who are working daily, passionately to explain it to me. The true Genesis story is only now being told and I am humbled by the privilege of living in these times.

The phrase "cargo-cult science" springs to mind.

Yup:). Right on guys.

Oh, as far as ID being over....did it ever begin?

I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. It would seem that the scientific method would only be rejected when investigating origins.

Wow the earth is 4.5 billion years old? This is news to me. I coulda swore I heard something about 10,000 years maximum.

So Doc Bill, where'd you get your PHD from?

I coulda swore I heard something about 10,000 years maximum.

Hey, just give me a piece of information...one solitary piece of evidential support for it being older.

If I'm so crazy, you should easily be able to refute my proposition. Come on Toejam, it can't be that hard, can it?

At any rate, while we're waiting for Toejam to use his Googling skills, I'd like to mention some of the flaws within the Intelligent Design arguments. For one, the age of the earth is wrong :). And of course, their lack of a literal interpretation of the Bible is false. And, well....here's a nice little critique of the ID movement if we will :). http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2895

This is not to say that Dembski is a totally idiot, just a bit Dumbski when it comes to God and some aspects regarding Science.

Dr Henry Morris, the founder of the modern YEC movement, recently wrote a review of The Design Revolution, by the scientific leader of the IDM, Dr William Dembski. Morris pointed out, with ample justification, how YECs developed many of the insights now claimed by the IDM, long before the IDM was even thought of. For example, the late Dr Richard Bliss long ago used the electric motor of the bacterial flagellum as an example of design, now a favourite of the IDM (the IDM doesn't seem to have caught up with YECs on the ATP synthase motor); Morris himself has long differentiated horizontal and vertical changes, equivalent to noninformation-gaining and information-gaining; triple doctorate A.E. Wilder-Smith influenced many IDM people, such as Drs Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon, about the whole information concept. Also, in 1991, CMI (then called Creation Science Foundation) was using the information concept to elucidate the boundaries of the created kinds, years before Johnson and Dembski came on the scene. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2895

Behind the times are we not ID?

It seems the big tent is leaking.

Good to see.

HG, science cannot rule out the supernatural, but it can rule out certain specific supernatural claims.

For instance, it cannot rule out the possibility that god exists or that he created the Universe in some fasion. But science can tell you how he would have had to create that Universe and when he would have had to have done it.

It can be proven for instance, that the events in Genesis could not have occured as described. Sorry if that idea makes you uncomfortable, but I can assure you science will not stop on account of your feelings. I suggest seeking some way to modify your faith to fit the facts.

Any time creationists have tried to change the facts, present their own made up facts, or suppress the teaching of the facts, they have failed. It should be clear to people like you that the facts supporting the truth of evolution beyond all reasonable doubt aren't going to go away any time soon. It really is time you begin to deal with these facts.

Hey, just give me a piece of information...one solitary piece of evidential support for it being older.

Dr. M. M.

Imperial College, London. Analytical Chemistry. Masters in the same from Purdue. Minor in biology. Followed the creationist movement for 35 years as a "hobby."

Science education is a personal interest and I've been involved with education, science fairs and science mentoring for decades.

It's really the dishonesty of the creationist movement that has bugged me the most, but, you know, the early guys in the 80's were out there with scientific creationism in a straightforward manner (and lost) but this new group out of Seattle is far more dangerous because they are totally dishonest. And that's a difficult thing for scientists to deal with.

"Why? What reasons do you have to reject that the scientific method should be rejected only when investigating origins?"

PvM,

Wow! I really stirred up a hornets nest here.

I can't possibly address all of the posts. I'll stick with yours.

The reason is that the exclusion of phenomena from scientific investigation can only produce naturalistic explanations. So scientific investigation into origins is biased if phenomena is present.

Look, I am here because I am attempting to look at naturalistic science objectively. My belief (faith) is not dependant upon science so my belief is not destroyed by science. I don't have a problem with limiting science to naturalistic evidence and explanations. I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer. Such is the case when investigating origins.

This exact term is used on Talkorigins.org. I use it in an attempt to communicate clearly.

— HG

I am not contending for science to include God. Science cannot explain how God created because it was and is not observable.

— HG

Personally, it fills me with joy to recognize that I exist over phenomenal odds at the end of my particular evolutionary branch, knowing that all my ancestors, all of them, survived vast planetary calamities, incredible extinction events, plagues, famines, predators and strife of all kinds too many to mention to produce me. Me.

— Doc Bill

Dr Henry Morris, the founder of the modern YEC movement, recently wrote a review of The Design Revolution

— Dr. Michael Martin

The reason is that the exclusion of phenomena from scientific investigation can only produce naturalistic explanations. So scientific investigation into origins is biased if phenomena is present.

— HG

I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer.

— HG

Uh, I was being selfish as my cat, Sandy, informed me.

Do you realize, Mr. Catfood Provider, that I have been evolving exactly as long as you have and my ancestors survived just as many trials and tribulations as yours did?

Yes, Mr. Cat, I realize that and I am sorry for assuming the high road. You and Mr. Oak Tree and Mr. Cockroach, well, we're all here together. Perhaps we should have a party.

Mr. Cat (Sandy) was up with that so we went outside and had a couple of treats under the shade of Mr. Oak Tree. A good day by all accounts.

The reason is that the exclusion of phenomena from scientific investigation can only produce naturalistic explanations. So scientific investigation into origins is biased if phenomena is present.

— HG

Look, I am here because I am attempting to look at naturalistic science objectively. My belief (faith) is not dependant upon science so my belief is not destroyed by science. I don't have a problem with limiting science to naturalistic evidence and explanations. I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer. Such is the case when investigating origins.

It's really the dishonesty of the creationist movement that has bugged me the most, but, you know, the early guys in the 80's were out there with scientific creationism in a straightforward manner (and lost) but this new group out of Seattle is far more dangerous because they are totally dishonest. And that's a difficult thing for scientists to deal with.

Well I'd love to hear some of these "dishonest claims" that we are making. Be happy to debate you on some of those issues sometime Doc Bill :).

As far as the varve arguments, (oh no not again.......). I'll provide some info on that tomorrow after my conference with Russ Humphreys as the guest speaker.

Oh, and my PHD is from Yale, with a ThM from Talbot Seminary as well. I'd enjoy seeing your "views" of Creation Science in a formal debate perhaps at some point after around 5:00 tomorrow afternoon. Until then take care.

And HG, congratulations for having come to the realization that science is not necessarily anti-religion.
It's a first step, but an important one

And I really see no reason to not take the Genesis model seriously either. I have no reason in rejecting it at all.

Nothing new, varves: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4328/

Very comprehensive and seeks both sides there.

Ice caps: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3675

More blubbery.

Doc Bill has set up a strawman. Easy to burn aren't they?

Oh, and my PHD is from Yale

Strawman?

Did I miss my own point? It wouldn't be the first time!

That would mean I made a false statement which I then falsified, if that makes any sense.

PvM, Andrea, where did I go stupid and please, no need to elaborate TOO much.

"Why? What reasons do you have to reject that the scientific method should be rejected only when investigating origins?"

PvM,

HG writes...

Wow! I really stirred up a hornets nest here.

"I can't possibly address all of the posts. I'll stick with yours.

The reason is that the exclusion of phenomena from scientific investigation can only produce naturalistic explanations. So scientific investigation into origins is biased if phenomena is present."

What phenomena are present, that are being excluded in origins research?

"Look, I am here because I am attempting to look at naturalistic science objectively."

Unlikely.

"My belief (faith) is not dependant upon science so my belief is not destroyed by science. I don't have a problem with limiting science to naturalistic evidence and explanations. I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer. Such is the case when investigating origins."

I'm sorry, but that didn't make sense to me. First of all, perspective of the observer is not relevant. Certainly not in the long term. Again, what phenomena are you talking about, and if this phenomena can't be objectively evaluated, then the bias is on your part.

Let me ask you this,

Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence but released from prison? After all, nobody saw them commit their crimes.

"Why? What reasons do you have to reject that the scientific method should be rejected only when investigating origins?"

PvM,

HG writes...

Wow! I really stirred up a hornets nest here.

"I can't possibly address all of the posts. I'll stick with yours.

The reason is that the exclusion of phenomena from scientific investigation can only produce naturalistic explanations. So scientific investigation into origins is biased if phenomena is present."

What phenomena are present, that are being excluded in origins research?

"Look, I am here because I am attempting to look at naturalistic science objectively."

Unlikely.

"My belief (faith) is not dependant upon science so my belief is not destroyed by science. I don't have a problem with limiting science to naturalistic evidence and explanations. I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer. Such is the case when investigating origins."

I'm sorry, but that didn't make sense to me. First of all, perspective of the observer is not relevant. Certainly not in the long term. Again, what phenomena are you talking about, and if this phenomena can't be objectively evaluated, then the bias is on your part.

Let me ask you this,

Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence but released from prison? After all, nobody saw them commit their crimes.

Michael Suttkus,

I am not trying to convince you God exists or that he created. That is your choice, and obviosly you've made it already -- so be it.

Again whether or not my line is artificial depends on the perspective of the observer. Your flower analogy is not credible. I can respect your singular view of earths history. My faith is not in competition with naturalistic science. Judging from your reaction it appears you are the one trying to compete. I can understand your frustration when you present logic you believe to be based upon facts and it is not readily accepted. It seems ridiculous.

As for my perspective, I see laws, forces, and design as evidence of something more than evolutionary science can explain. I see naturalistic science as limited in scope by its exclusion of phenomena. I think naturalistic science has much to offer but it is handicapped when investigating origins. This is my view. You don't have to accept it, but you have to accept that the majority of Americans do.

Michael Suttkus, I am not trying to convince you God exists or that he created. That is your choice, and obviosly you've made it already --- so be it.

Again whether or not my line is artificial depends on the perspective of the observer. Your flower analogy is not credible.

I can respect your singular view of earths history. My faith is not in competition with naturalistic science.

Judging from your reaction it appears you are the one trying to compete.

As for my perspective, I see laws, forces, and design as evidence of something more than evolutionary science can explain.

I see naturalistic science as limited in scope by its exclusion of phenomena.

I think naturalistic science has much to offer but it is handicapped when investigating origins.

This is my view. You don't have to accept it, but you have to accept that the majority of Americans do.

I said: "As for my perspective, I see laws, forces, and design as evidence of something more than evolutionary science can explain."

You responded: "Yes, you have faith in something more than the material. This is a quite common belief and it is taught widely in temples, mosques, and churches around the world. What does this have to do with science or evolution?"

H. Humbert,

Boy you folks sure are contentious.

The majority of Americans observe this phenomena. It doesn't take faith to observe it. Again, the phenomena many of us observe is ignored by science. I am not here to demand science acknowledge this observed phenomena. I am simply saying that to many of us the fact that this phenomena is excluded from scientific investigation means that science cannot account for it and must return a naturalistic explanation. To us it means this science is bias. To you science is excluded from such investigation. However you slice it the phenomena is unaccounted for.

My faith tells me who the Creator is -- something science cannot answer. I guess your used to people coming here and arguing for you to convert or something of the sort. I am not here to convert you or be converted. I simply acknowledge the fact that for the most part science is naturalistic as practiced today and that there are appearant contradictions in the logic of this science. Just as you and others here point out appearant contradictions in the Genesis account of creation.

You said: "Come up with a way to objectively test "

H. Humbert,

I don't believe naturalistic science is completely objective in every case. The argument of whether or not science is objective is based upon one's philosophical perspective. No scientific method can prove objectivity in science; so the conclusion that only naturalistic science is objective is itself objectionable.

I don't believe naturalistic science is completely objective in every case. The argument of whether or not science is objective is based upon one's philosophical perspective. No scientific method can prove objectivity in science; so the conclusion that only naturalistic science is objective is itself objectionable.

— HG

I said: "I do think this naturalistic science is biased when investigating origins where, whether or not phenomena is present depends on the perspective of the observer. Such is the case when investigating origins."

You responded: "Why is it biased? Because it cannot address, one way or another, that some unknown supernatural entity(ies) were responsible at some time and some place using some unknown method(s) for something?"

PvM,

Science is biased because it cannot address phenomena. The result of not addressing it would be the same as if science denied its existence. Only a naturalistic explanation can come from science. This is the bias.

As for your second question:
No. Science cannot explain what supernatural method(s) were responsible for origins. Not because the method(s) are supernatural, but because they were and are not observable.

If, hypothetically, a scientific investigation into origins were to include the phenomena of laws, force, and design observed in nature; a legitimate hypothesis might offer that a power and intelligence greater than the effect was necessary. Science does not have to, nor can it, answer who that cause is, but it can acknowledge such a cause exists.

"If something is objective, it remains the same, regardless of the observer."

demallien,

Of course "science" is understood to be objective. The context of my use of "science" deals with naturalistic science. I think you missed the context.

demallien,

Let me put it this way. Is it objective to conclude that only a scientific method which excludes phenomena from scientific explanation guarantees objectivity? If so, how can it be proven?

The answer to this question depends on one's philosophical perspective.

HG, and what "kind" of science is not naturalistic?

"HG, and what "kind" of science is not naturalistic?"

demallien,

Would you say that a scientific method which includes phenomena in its investigations and/or explanations is naturalistic? Some would. Most would not. I am speaking of naturalistic science within the context understood by those I am addressing. That is science which employs methodological naturalism.

Let me put it this way. Is it objective to conclude that only a scientific method which excludes phenomena from scientific explanation guarantees objectivity? If so, how can it be proven? The answer to this question depends on one's philosophical perspective.

— HG

A phenomenon (plural: phenomena) is an observable event, particularly something special.

Yeah, allright, explain how science accounts for the human species getting rid of the genes of its ape-like ancestor, whilst we humans can't get rid of the simplest, genetically transmissible characteristics. Explain thereby one of the necessary steps in proposed Darwinistic Evolution, and make all the experts smile. They are at a loss. We needn't be.

HG, tell me then a school of though inside science that do not use methodological naturalism.

And mr. PBH, tell me what characteristics are you talking about.

Ah, and do so utilizing only the results of objective observation and/or processes that can be reduced to a mathematical form of expression. The scientific method.

Genetically transmissible characteristics. Choose any you wish. Your great-grandaddy's bald patch, or your grandma's neat nose. Inherited characteristics - the eternal property of the species, unless you have found the way to eliminate inherited baldness?

The majority of Americans observe this phenomena. It doesn't take faith to observe it. Again, the phenomena many of us observe is ignored by science. I am not here to demand science acknowledge this observed phenomena. I am simply saying that to many of us the fact that this phenomena is excluded from scientific investigation means that science cannot account for it and must return a naturalistic explanation. To us it means this science is bias. To you science is excluded from such investigation. However you slice it the phenomena is unaccounted for.

— HG

The majority of Americans observe this phenomena. It doesn't take faith to observe it. Again, the phenomena many of us observe is ignored by science. I am not here to demand science acknowledge this observed phenomena. I am simply saying that to many of us the fact that this phenomena is excluded from scientific investigation means that science cannot account for it and must return a naturalistic explanation. To us it means this science is bias. To you science is excluded from such investigation. However you slice it the phenomena is unaccounted for.

— HG

Genetically transmissible characteristics. Choose any you wish. Your great-grandaddy's bald patch, or your grandma's neat nose. Inherited characteristics - the eternal property of the species, unless you have found the way to eliminate inherited baldness?

— RBH

PBH

"Yeah, allright, explain how science accounts for the human species getting rid of the genes of its ape-like ancestor, whilst we humans can't get rid of the simplest, genetically transmissible characteristics. "

Hey Heywood. Why do you think of human species 'getting rid' of ape genes? You're (genetically) 95% chimp!

I am not trying to convince you God exists or that he created.

— HG

That is your choice, and obviosly you've made it already --- so be it.

— HG

Again whether or not my line is artificial depends on the perspective of the observer.

— HG

Your flower analogy is not credible.

— HG

I can respect your singular view of earths history.

— HG

My faith is not in competition with naturalistic science.

— HG

Judging from your reaction it appears you are the one trying to compete.

— HG

I can understand your frustration when you present logic you believe to be based upon facts and it is not readily accepted.

— HG

As for my perspective, I see laws, forces, and design as evidence of something more than evolutionary science can explain.

— HG

I see naturalistic science as limited in scope by its exclusion of phenomena.

— HG

I think naturalistic science has much to offer but it is handicapped when investigating origins. This is my view. You don't have to accept it, but you have to accept that the majority of Americans do.

— HG

Boy you folks sure are contentious.

— HG

The majority of Americans observe this phenomena.

— HG

It doesn't take faith to observe it.

— HG

Again, the phenomena many of us observe is ignored by science.

— HG

I am not here to demand science acknowledge this observed phenomena. I am simply saying that to many of us the fact that this phenomena is excluded from scientific investigation means that science cannot account for it and must return a naturalistic explanation. To us it means this science is bias.

— HG

To you science is excluded from such investigation. However you slice it the phenomena is unaccounted for.

— HG

My faith tells me who the Creator is --- something science cannot answer.

— HG

I guess your used to people coming here and arguing for you to convert or something of the sort.

— HG

I simply acknowledge the fact that for the most part science is naturalistic as practiced today and that there are appearant contradictions in the logic of this science.

— HG

Just as you and others here point out appearant contradictions in the Genesis account of creation.

— HG

I don't believe naturalistic science is completely objective in every case.

— HG

Science is biased because it cannot address phenomena.

— HG

The result of not addressing it would be the same as if science denied its existence.

— HG

Only a naturalistic explanation can come from science.

— HG

As for your second question: No. Science cannot explain what supernatural method(s) were responsible for origins. Not because the method(s) are supernatural, but because they were and are not observable.

— HG

Yeah, allright, explain how science accounts for the human species getting rid of the genes of its ape-like ancestor, whilst we humans can't get rid of the simplest, genetically transmissible characteristics. Explain thereby one of the necessary steps in proposed Darwinistic Evolution, and make all the experts smile. They are at a loss. We needn't be.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

My impression is that the ID people were initially sincere in their 5-year-plan. In their minds, their particular god is real. Yes, they actually believe this! For whatever reason, be it inability to leave childhood behind, parental brainwashing, organic dysfunction, or you-name-it, they actually believe that their particular god exists and does stuff.

That's important, because it means that science can either investigate their god, or science itself must be flawed and in need of more careful focusing. And that shouldn't be very difficult, either, since the god they actually believe in is omnipresent and dicking with reality on a continuing basis. And this should mean that those scientists with a "genuine, personal relationship" with this god should know exactly where to look to find it, and should be competent to construct research accordingly.

The way I see it, the Genesis accounts represent a bit of a problem. Clearly, these accounts are scientifically unsupportable; however their god "did it", that wasn't it. But unfortunately, the ID folks' power (and funding) base insists that these accounts be followed faithfully (and the fact that they are mutually exclusive shouldn't be an issue either!) But this is just a tactical issue. The optimal ID approach is simply not to address Genesis, so that these tales can be sidestepped without actually denying them and losing nearly all the necessary backing.

If my understanding is correct, most of these DI folks aren't totally dishonest; faith is a deep-seated delusion. They have, after 15 years or so of dedicated meditation, come to the realization that if ID could be scientifically testable in any way whatsoever, it wouldn't be ID. This is a conceptual AHA! phenomenon: if you could use science to investigate magic, it wouldn't be magic anymore. For their god to be "real", He must have no aspects of reality! The distinction between having no aspects of reality, and not existing in the first place, has been very very carefully (and very permanently) compartmentalized away.

And all of this notwithstanding, there is still a powerful lot of folks out there daily reading their bibles, praying in all directions, and (above all) sending money. And there is still the goal of getting government to endorse their faith and bless it as "real science". If enough Believers can be trained, maybe they still can't find what isn't there, but their political power can be used to prevent investigating what IS there when the results are uncomfortable. Yeah, some of us might realize this would be just pretending, but hey. Just pretending is what Believers DO all their lives. What else is new?

Your faith ALSO seems to tell you how it happened, which science CAN answer. Sorry if that upsets you, but too bad. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no global flood, we are not descended from two people.

— Michael Suttkus, II

And I really see no reason to not take the Genesis model seriously either. I have no reason in rejecting it at all.

— Michael Martin

Grey Wolf:

I generally think producing an avalanche of questions works to the advantage of the occasional creationist, since he gets to pick which question he can misinterpret or rephrase to fit AiG's Official Truth, and ignore all the rest. Accordingly, one single good question would probably be more discouraging, or at least require more creativity.

I think just encountering people who don't take their lifelong "so obviously true I never gave it a second thought" presumpsions for granted, is a shock - except for the experienced creationists, of course, who operate by the Snoopy Principle, that there's no question so difficult it can't be run away from. Lying works!

Michael Suttkus,

My line has been stated over and over again throughout this thread. Funny thing is I get so many differing responses even to the point that one of you contradicts the other. Wolf keeps asking me what phenomena I'm talking about; you claim evolutionary science has rejected the phenomena I mentioned.

First of all whether you or anyone else here wants to admit it or not there exists a philosophy of science. Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method. This leads most of the scientific community to dismiss the phenomena I mentioned as either non-existent or outside the bounds of science. Once excluded from scientific investigation and explanation the conclusion is reached that the phenomena never existed in the first place. And you seem put out that I and many other Americans see a logical flaw in this practice.

( I am not mentioning "many Americans" to bolster my argument. I am simply pointing out that this science has a lot of explaining to do if it is to prevail among Americans.)

Is it objective to conclude that only a scientific method which excludes the phenomena I have mentioned from scientific investigation and explanation, guarantees objectivity? If so, how can this methodological naturalism be objectively proven?

The answer to this question depends on one's philosophical perspective.

By the way I don't believe in UFO's, fairies, alternative medicines, or am I an organic nut. Ad hominem attacks seem the status quo around here. That and gross generalizations. These too are logical fallacies.

I find it strange that you and others here are chomping at the bit, even baiting me to bring religion into this discussion that all here admit is out of the bounds of science and therefore has no place in this discussion.

You know it sure would be nice if this could be discussed openly, honestly and with some degree of respect for one another. I disagree with you, but I don't recall attacking you personally. If you think everyone in America is stupid because they disagree with you then enlighten them.
And feel free to start with me. I'm still here trying to get answers after all the stereotyping and personal attacks.
(By the way this isn't how you educate.) If I am as stupid as you think I am, then why not help me to see your logic. (Another by the way: a lot of well educated people disagree with you, not just the uneducated or moderately educated Americans.)

I am not here to demand science acknowledge this observed phenomena. I am simply saying that to many of us the fact that this phenomena is excluded from scientific investigation means that science cannot account for it and must return a naturalistic explanation. To us it means this science is bias.

I guess I'll take a stab at this.

The problem is that you're arguing in really vague terms. I think it would help if we focussed on a specific.

Suppose lightning strikes a church and it burns down. That's an objective fact, and all the observers can agree what happened. But they wouldn't agree on the root cause.

X might say, "That lightning strike was the work of Satan himself! He's trying to keep our message from getting out!"

Y might say, "No, the lightning strike was God's judgement! Everyone in town knows that the church organist is an adulteress, but their leadership did nothing!"

Z might say, "It's not that easy! It was obviously part of God's Plan that the church burn down, but it's arrogant to say that we can understand that Plan! We'll only know the real reason after we get to Heaven!"

Traditionally, X, Y, and Z wouldn't be able to come to an agreement and it would likely end in a fist-fight.

Scientists don't like getting into arguments like that. They'll simply note that the data shows that tall wooden buildings without lightning rods are likely to catch fire in thunderstorms. X, Y, and Z can all look at the data and agree that it's correct.

So science is in fact limited, in that it can't address the question of how God's Will was involved in the lightning strike. I wouldn't call that a "bias", though. It's just not the right tool for the job.

The good news is that there are lots of people conducting non-scientific research into God's Will. If you'd like to take part in the research, Iraq and Somalia are at the cutting-edge right now.

If, hypothetically, a scientific investigation into origins were to include the phenomena of laws, force, and design observed in nature; a legitimate hypothesis might offer that a power and intelligence greater than the effect was necessary. Science does not have to, nor can it, answer who that cause is, but it can acknowledge such a cause exists.

HG keeps referring to 'phenomena' (has he learnt yet that this is the plural?) but I really have no idea what he's talking about. His first mention of it (them?) is in a rather garbled couple of paragraphs where it is not clear whether the 'phenomena' is the exclusion of the supernatural from science, the exclusion of a creator and the bible from the theory of evolution or that "the majority of Americans observe force, laws, and design in nature". It could even be supernatural phenomena for all I know.

He goes so far as to write "Wolf keeps asking me what phenomena I'm talking about" but fails to explain. This is what is called a 'hint'. Please give a single clear sentence that tells us what you're talking about.

chaos_engineer,

"The problem is that you're arguing in really vague terms. I think it would help if we focussed on a specific."

See my previous post.

"Traditionally, X, Y, and Z wouldn't be able to come to an agreement and it would likely end in a fist-fight."

What are you talking about. Can you cite this occurance historically. Your example is absurd. Today many disagree about origins, and yet it is you who seem to be the hot-heads in the room. I don't see anyone in the origins debate in a physical fist-fight.

"The good news is that there are lots of people conducting non-scientific research into God's Will."

Yeah, its called religion. So what, your answer to my questions is go away? Come on you can do better than that, your highly educated and when your not employing ad hominem fallacies you communicate well.

HG intelligently writes thusly:

"This leads most of the scientific community to dismiss the phenomena I mentioned as either non-existent or outside the bounds of science."

Tell us then, HG, with your great grasp of logic - How would you propose that we go about analysing the supernatural without any prior detectable effects to observe?

"( I am not mentioning "many Americans" to bolster my argument."

Riiiiiiiight.

"I am simply pointing out that this science has a lot of explaining to do if it is to prevail among Americans.)"

Sod it, he's right. Let's go back to living in a cave and hunting with clubs. And forget the internet. We'll communicate via smoke signal.

HG, I have read and reread Michael Suttkus' response and cannot find any ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you need a refresher:

"You're a Christian idiot, therefore you are wrong" would be ad hominem.

"Your argument would also apply as well to the theory that flowers are opened by fairies" is not an ad hominem. It makes your position look foolish, and perhaps makes you feel that way as well, but it still isn't ad hominem.

In fact, you whining about ad hominems at this point is right on cue in a pattern I've noticed in many Christian debaters on evolution over the years:

1) Trot out your talking points you heard from your minister, your favorite ID book, or Faux News.

2) Ignore the numerous factual and philosophical refutations offered of those positions.

3) Claim you can't answer all the questions while answering none of them.

4) Claim that the multiple weaknesses pointed out for your position are actually contradictions in the positions of others.

4) Whine that the logical and factal dismantling of your arguments are really just personal attacks.

5) Take your ball and go home.

I've seen it over and over again. You are right on schedule. Thanks for playing.

Richard Simmons,

"Please give a single clear sentence that tells us what you're talking about."

The phenomena is the laws, forces and design observed in nature.

Yep, phenomena is plural, phenomenon in singular.

HG:

"Can you cite this occurance historically."

Yeah, because no-one's EVER fought wars because of any disagreements over the supernatural before.

Richard Simmons,

Now go ahead an tell me how stupid I am for saying "phenomena is" instead of "phenomena are". This way you win the argument, right?

HG:

"The phenomena is the laws, forces and design observed in nature."

Sure, science can observe laws and forces active in nature and can explain them with naturalistic explanations (though maybe not to the satisfactions of superstitious people). Any 'designs' that are observed are traced back to their naturalistic designers. Man made buildings. Birds made nests. Beavers made dams. As for the rest of the designs YOU see, well that's just your delusion.

The phenomena is the laws, forces and design observed in nature.

Re "That's fine if you don't think science is the answer to life, the universe, and everything."

42.

I belive what HG is trying to say is that science is unable to explain the laws, forces and design necessary to drive some sense into his head, which of course, would require a miracle, and thus can not be addressed by science. So in other words, only God knows why HG is such a wing-nut.

Science can only observe the inaccuracy put forth by HG, but not explain WHY he is so stupid. We can all postulate that he is blinded by his religion, but of course science can not explain WHY his God designed him to make such an ass of himself on this thread.

HG - It may help you to say a couple of prayers to your "Practical Joker God".
Or maybe beg for mercy from your "Wrath Of The Old Testament God", because you have totally fu**ed up on this thread, and I don't believe "He" takes too kindly to those that make "Him" look bad...

(see Genesis, or many of your favorite biblical myths.)

Glad I could help, have a nice day.

ps: - Is this what you mean by ad hominem?

Now go ahead an tell me how stupid I am for saying "phenomena is" instead of "phenomena are". This way you win the argument, right?

— HG

The phenomena is the laws, forces and design observed in nature.

Gentlemen,

Please read again the comment #138202.

Will you please provide me with your answer(s) to the questions I ask in that post? If possible, please try to do so patiently and logically so someone as stupid as me can follow. Remember the majority of Americans are just as stupid as I am and we are your target audience.

( I am not mentioning "many Americans" to bolster my argument. I am simply pointing out that this science has a lot of explaining to do if it is to prevail among Americans.)

The phenomena is the laws, forces and design observed in nature

The problem as I see it is that HG is asking the question about investigating "stuff" at the wrong forum. The people here, including myself, don't know diddly squat about researching "stuff."

I would suggest that HG contact Mike Behe at Lehigh University (he has a website and everything) and ask him the current status of "stuff" investigating.

I would suggest that HG contact the Alfred E. Newman of Information Theory, Bill Dembski, right there at his blog, UncommonDescent and ask him how the "stuff" investigating is going. (Warning: you will be banned for impertinance for asking such a question so couch it carefully.)

I would suggest that HG contact Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (he has a website and everything) and ask him about cosmological "stuff" investigation.

All your questions, HG, about laws, forces and design in nature should be answerable by the design gurus themselves who are perfectly free and unfettered to engage in such research.

Finally, if you want to know about "stuff" research programs on-going, contact the Discovery Institute. (they have a website, email addresses and everything) and ask them about the projects they have underway. They might even accept your assistance if you volunteer to help. I'd recommend it.

Then, come back and let us know what you found out.

HG,

OK, it's a fair criticism that I was using hyperbole. Debates about origins don't usually turn into fistfights in 21st Century America. (Of course, if you went to parts of Iraq or Somalia and started contradicting local beliefs about origins, things might get pretty ugly pretty fast.)

But don't you agree with the major premise? The rules of science say that you have to use objective data. If I have a theory, then I can run experiments. Maybe the earliest experiments will have vague results, but at the end of the day any fair-minded observer will agree with me about whether or not the data is consistent with the theory.

But if you allow subjective data (like personal communications with God), then we can't come to an agreement anymore. Fair-minded people can have different opinions about religion. And after trying for thousands of years, we still haven't found a way to reconcile them.

So my answer to your question isn't "Go away". It's "If you take science, and add your personal religious beliefs to it as axioms, then the result is no longer 'science'...Because it becomes impossible for people of other faiths to trust your results."

Will you please provide me with your answer(s) to the questions I ask in that post? If possible, please try to do so patiently and logically so someone as stupid as me can follow.

— HG

Is it objective to conclude that only a scientific method which excludes the phenomena I have mentioned from scientific investigation and explanation, guarantees objectivity? If so, how can this methodological naturalism be objectively proven?

— HG

Ad hominem attacks seem the status quo around here.

— HG

Jim Wynne,

"Do you think it's not important whether anyone knows whether you're referring to one phenomenon or several? If you don't care, why should anyone else?"

Phenomena is plural and three catagories were used to describe the phenomena. I thought that was clear. Sorry if I wasn't.

The context: laws, forces, and design in nature as they may be observed to be required to effect the universe.

I'm still trying to get to the foundation of methodological naturalism which is philosphical naturalism. This is the starting point of science and this is where I and others question the logic and objectivity of the resulting science.

Attacking the phenomena I site as not credible is based upon the same philosophical assumption I cited above, or a conclusion of the science based on that philosophical assumption. My questions lie prior to the conclusion of methodological science and any conclusions this science reaches.

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 9, 2006 01:29 PM (e) "...If I understand it properly, a law is the lowest ranking step in Science..." "*Just in case, although you haven't been so stupid as to use "just a theory" so far, the order goes more or less like this: observation -> law -> hypothesis -> tests -> theory. There is nothing better than theory, in science. Just don't confuse it with layman "theory" aka guess."

"But don't you agree with the major premise? The rules of science say that you have to use objective data. If I have a theory, then I can run experiments. Maybe the earliest experiments will have vague results, but at the end of the day any fair-minded observer will agree with me about whether or not the data is consistent with the theory."

chaos_engineer,

Yes. However, the rules of science are based upon methodological naturalism. Herein lies my trouble with this science. Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method. I question the objectivity and the logic of this assumption. I also question how methodolgical naturalism can be the foundation of science since methodolgical science cannot be objectively proven.

I'm still trying to get to the foundation of methodological naturalism which is philosphical naturalism.

— HG

laws, forces, and design in nature as they may be observed to be required to effect the universe.

— HG

I'm still trying to get to the foundation of methodological naturalism which is philosophical naturalism. This is the starting point of science and this is where I and others question the logic and objectivity of the resulting science.

— HG

Attacking the phenomena I site as not credible is based upon the same philosophical assumption I cited above, or a conclusion of the science based on that philosophical assumption. My questions lie prior to the conclusion of methodological science and any conclusions this science reaches.

— HG

"Well, there's your problem. By either ignorance or design, you're making a connection between MN and PN that, while convenient for creationists hoping to befuddle the very ignorant, doesn't reflect reality. I can practice methodological naturalism without any recourse to philosophical naturalism."

Jim Wynne,

Your the expert so I assume you know what your talking about. However, look up methodological naturalism. It is connected to PN. Either we are talking about two different things or the encyclopedias are wrong and your right. In either case I'm not to blame for the connection. Is it possible you are equating 'metaphysical naturalism' with 'philosophical naturalism'?

I'm still trying to get to the foundation of methodological naturalism which is philosphical naturalism. This is the starting point of science and this is where I and others question the logic and objectivity of the resulting science.

Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method.

By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher's search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk's erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320-82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."

— Wikipedia

What these people [nonbelievers] don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Jim is exactly right. As a scientist my "worldview," whatever that word means, has no bearing on my interpretation of data.

Now, two people can argue whether a glass is half empty or half full, but that's opinion. There is no argument as to whether the glass contains 499 or 500 ml of water because you can measure it.

Behe got tangled up in the same argument during his cross-examination at Kitzmiller where he stated that for "intelligent design" to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be loosened such that astrology would be considered "science," too.

The problem with creationism and its offspring "intelligent design" is that they're entirely based on opinion, thus all the arguments, but when it comes down to measurements the creationist notions are entirely without substance.

"Methodological naturalism is the presumption that natural phenomena have natural causes. This naturalism is inherent in the scientific method..."

Flint,

Can a presumption be objectively proven?

Jim Wynne, Your the expert so I assume you know what your talking about. However, look up methodological naturalism. It is connected to PN. Either we are talking about two different things or the encyclopedias are wrong and your right. In either case I'm not to blame for the connection. Is it possible you are equating 'metaphysical naturalism' with 'philosophical naturalism'?

Can a presumption be objectively proven?

Can a presumption be objectively proven?

"Philosophical naturalism is dependent upon methodological naturalism as a foundational tenet."

Jim Wynne,

"In contrast, methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is." Wikipedia

(source)http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html

Honest mistake, or are you mistaken?

I gotta get some work done. I'll come back later. Check out the link.

HG, science is what it is. In the beginning you said you have absolutely no problems with science. Now you seem to want question the very validity of science. So which is it?

Look, we all agree science is limited. (Not biased--limited.) It doesn't take into account notions of the supernatural the same way history does not. We teach students which armies fought a battle and the outcome of the battle--not which gods may have willed their chosen people onto victory.

So again I ask you--what do your objections have to do with science or the teaching of evolution? Your complaints thus far boil down to the fact that science doesn't answer theological questions. Well, duh. And this is relevant because...?

This has really gotten out of control. Thread closing shortly...