I think you just proved my point for me, August. Dawkins is a competent scientist, when he doesn't let his fury against religion get the better of him. A great scientist, he isn't.Richard Dawkins:
As I said, you've proven my point for me. Religion hasn't been part of science for over 400 years.This, of course, implies that Dawkins is a great scientist.....
And you have proven mine, that no matter what evidence is put in front of you, you will continue to deny that science has philosophical implications.Yehren wrote:(Barbarian asks for the last great scientist to put religion into his theories)
The only offering?
I think you just proved my point for me, August. Dawkins is a competent scientist, when he doesn't let his fury against religion get the better of him. A great scientist, he isn't.Richard Dawkins:
As I said, you've proven my point for me. Religion hasn't been part of science for over 400 years.This, of course, implies that Dawkins is a great scientist.....
I don't mean to insult you, but it seems that you have little knowledge of the scientific process. How can you measure what someone uses for inspiration. Albert Einstien believed that he was investigation the mind of God. Other people have decided to investigate based on an understanding that the world was created.Yehren wrote:Hmmm... the last great scientist who included religious notions in his theories?The judge is simply wrong to think that the supernatural has been outside of science for centuries. IT hasn't even been two centuries yet.
Far as I know it was Kepler, about 1650. And his great work, Kepler's laws came about precisely because he realized his religious ideas about the heavens were wrong.
Anyone know someone more recent?
A great SCientists si one that adopts all the currently accepted knowledge and doesn't cause a stir by thinking independantly. I mean come on if anyone thought independantly the would have to first reject the currently accepted truth of something, and that is a big no no in academic circles.August wrote:And you have proven mine, that no matter what evidence is put in front of you, you will continue to deny that science has philosophical implications.Yehren wrote:(Barbarian asks for the last great scientist to put religion into his theories)
The only offering?
I think you just proved my point for me, August. Dawkins is a competent scientist, when he doesn't let his fury against religion get the better of him. A great scientist, he isn't.Richard Dawkins:
As I said, you've proven my point for me. Religion hasn't been part of science for over 400 years.This, of course, implies that Dawkins is a great scientist.....
And who gets to decide if a scientist is a great scientist?
In fact, all the great scientists have become regarded as great for doing exactly that. They stir up controversy, show flaws in existing theories, and modify or replace them.A great SCientists si one that adopts all the currently accepted knowledge and doesn't cause a stir by thinking independantly.
Two problems"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock))."
and 2) We are talking origins here-to require a naturalistic explanation is pure nonsense and close mindeness. This is nothing but materialistic philosophy, and rules out the possibility of God in this arena."But this (requiring direct observations, aka empirical evidence) is an utterly untenable position, for, says he, 'if they do this, they must renounce the important part of their own sciences know(n) by inferences depending for their validity on rational intuitions."
This is bogus. The reasoning isn't "we can't figure it out naturalistically, therefore God"-it's that 1) it cannot be explained naturalistically, and 2) it's an inference to the best explanation. It's not simply negative evidence, there's positive evidence. And the idea that this is a "science stopper" is utterly nonsensical. I'd say it'd be otherwise. One person makes the claim that A (whatever it is) requires an intelligent cause, and everyone else tries to find out a naturalistic explanation. If anything, it would motivate scienctists to prove someone else wrong."This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs' lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer."
This is pure hypocrisy. Wanting the possibility of ascribing something to a supernatural causation is not an inherently religious concept-it's a desire to allow the best explanation to be allowed in certain circumstances. On the other hand, though, requiring a natural cause for everything IS an inherently religious concept."It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).
Blind chance is not a good naturalistic cause-it looks more like hand waiving to me. And since we're talking origins here, instead of operational science, it is absurd to require only naturalistic explanations.Yehren wrote:Science is methodologically naturalistic, which means that it looks for natural causes for natural phenomena, without denying that supernatural causes might exist.
That's how it works. It can't handle magic or miracles: the system collapses if you try.
This is not to say that you can't teach about doctrines that advocate the supernatural; it just means that you can't teach them in science class. You could, for example, teach ID in a class on philosophy.
So you would think a concept such as "Directed Panspermia" (as advocated by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA structure), should also be taught in a philosophy class? Or that classes on archaeology, foresics, information detection and the like?Yehren wrote:This is not to say that you can't teach about doctrines that advocate the supernatural; it just means that you can't teach them in science class. You could, for example, teach ID in a class on philosophy.
Yes directed Panspermia and even panspermia are mere speculation at this point.Kurieuo wrote:So you would think a concept such as "Directed Panspermia" (as advocated by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA structure), should also be taught in a philosophy class? Or that classes on archaeology, foresics, information detection and the like?Yehren wrote:This is not to say that you can't teach about doctrines that advocate the supernatural; it just means that you can't teach them in science class. You could, for example, teach ID in a class on philosophy.
Kurieuo
Yep. See above. Pure speculation. No evidence.So you would think a concept such as "Directed Panspermia" (as advocated by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA structure), should also be taught in a philosophy class?
I have a little formal training in some aspects of forensics, mostly fire investigation, and I have a friend who is the forensics expert for a large police department. There is nothing speculative about forensics. I don't see any in archaeology, from my limited understanding of it.Or that classes on archaeology, foresics,
I do have some understanding of information theory, and there is nothing speculative about that, either. It's mostly mathematical.information detection and the like?
Me, too. Fortunately, evolutionary theory doesn't say blind chance is how it works.Blind chance is not a good naturalistic cause-it looks more like hand waiving to me.
That's how science does it. It might seem foolish to you, but hardly anything humans do works better. Granted, some things, like the supernatural, are completely beyond the reach of science. But that's O.K; we have other ways of understanding those things.And since we're talking origins here, instead of operational science, it is absurd to require only naturalistic explanations.
Actually, in many parts, yes that's all you got. When in comes to life coming about naturalistically, all you have is blind chance, when you have irreducibly complex systems forming, all you have to work on that is blind chance, and when you have an extra gene not in use because it was copied twice, you have blind chance working on the code to turn it into something useful.Me, too. Fortunately, evolutionary theory doesn't say blind chance is how it works.
That may be how it does work, but not how it ought work. Status quo is not always correct you know.That's how science does it. It might seem foolish to you, but hardly anything humans do works better. Granted, some things, like the supernatural, are completely beyond the reach of science. But that's O.K; we have other ways of understanding those things.
Nope.Actually, in many parts, yes that's all you got.
Two errors there:When in comes to life coming about naturalistically, all you have is blind chance,
The only actual evolution of irreducible complexity that was actually observed, came about by natural selection. The irreducibly complex enzyme/regulator system seen to evolve in Barry Hall's bacteria did so because it was a more efficient system, through natural selection.when you have irreducibly complex systems forming, all you have to work on that is blind chance,
Natural selection, which sorts our mutations, is the antithesis of chance. Random proceses plus nonrandom processes are nonrandom processes.and when you have an extra gene not in use because it was copied twice, you have blind chance working on the code to turn it into something useful.
You are able to make that assertion to me, only because science is methodologically naturalistic. Methodological naturalism tells us how to make computers out of dirt.That may be how it does work, but not how it ought work.
Scientists are intensely pragmatic. Find a better way, and they'll use it regardless of who objects. If a new way won't work, nothing can make them use it.Status quo is not always correct you know.
