Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
A.R. Wallace,
You have taught me quite a bit and I appreciate it. One comment for you and in fairness to G-man. Your last note says you do feel like science and God support each other.
You said:
I don't feel that science and god are incompatible — in fact, quite the opposite. I feel that for those of religious faith who study science are understanding god's creation in wonderful ways.
A.R., I think most of us on this page agree with that statement so maybe you have alot more in common with us than you think. Either you agree with that statement you wrote or you are being condescending...if it's the latter, I can see G-man's frustration. If you sincerely believe that statement, then you aren't atheist.
I still say you and G-man should have a radio show named "Al-G, where'd it come from?"
You two would sure have a huge audience.
Kurieuo wrote:
I disagree. Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God. Specifically, scientific investigations conducted using methodological naturalism (MN) is neutral to God's existence. In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics). To do so would be to mix personal philosophical and/or theological conclusions with scientific inquiry.
Speaking of carving it up... I would say that Kurieuo has eloquently carved it up well here. The point being that science maybe conducted via naturalistic means (MN), but it (science) certainly can't exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system either. And when you do that, the explanation can turn into the theological/philosophical explanations, especially around the topic of origins. The point being is that science can't technically explain it...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
IgoFan wrote:Kurieuo, I understand most of what you just posted, although the following puzzled me:
Kurieuo wrote:
In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).
How can ID avoid the implication of a Designer (the capital "D" means a supernatural Designer)?
At a minimum, ID requires an intelligent designer (lower case "d" means a natural designer). But then how does such a natural designer avoid owing its existence on a supernatural Designer?
ID, in theory, claims not to identify that designer. It simply indicates that the evidence would indicate a pattern of intelligence at work, not the source.
I think you misunderstood my questions. I know ID doesn't claim to identify the designer. I'm asking how ID's evidence of an intelligence doesn't imply a supernatural Designer. (Please re-read my questions above.)
IgoFan wrote:Kurieuo, I understand most of what you just posted, although the following puzzled me:
Kurieuo wrote:
In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).
How can ID avoid the implication of a Designer (the capital "D" means a supernatural Designer)?
At a minimum, ID requires an intelligent designer (lower case "d" means a natural designer). But then how does such a natural designer avoid owing its existence on a supernatural Designer?
ID, in theory, claims not to identify that designer. It simply indicates that the evidence would indicate a pattern of intelligence at work, not the source.
I think you misunderstood my questions. I know ID doesn't claim to identify the designer. I'm asking how ID's evidence of an intelligence doesn't imply a supernatural Designer. (Please re-read my questions above.)
I do not see how these questions are related to my statement/s.
What is this evidence of an intelligence you are speaking about? Implications are drawn by people.
Kurieuo wrote:
In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).
Kurieuo wrote:
What is this evidence of an intelligence you are speaking about?
ID itself claims that certain living features have an intelligent cause, and gives evidence for the claim. Correct?
While it may be reasonable to say that most proponents of ID infer a supernatural designer (i.e. God) that doesn't change the assertion of ID that the theory is simply that the patterns present demonstrate an intelligence gehind the design without asserting the identity of that designer.
That basic level is within the realm of science. Asserting it is a supernatural intelligence is a level above that and that would not fall purely within the realm of science.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Kurieuo wrote:
In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).
Kurieuo wrote:
What is this evidence of an intelligence you are speaking about?
ID itself claims that certain living features have an intelligent cause, and gives evidence for the claim. Correct?
Living features alone would not be the only basis of ID but, their being in general more complex they generally are the things that are most focused upon.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
IgoFan wrote:
ID itself claims that certain living features have an intelligent cause, and gives evidence for the claim. Correct?
Canuckster1127 wrote:
While it may be reasonable to say that most proponents of ID infer a supernatural designer (i.e. God) that doesn't change the assertion of ID that the theory is simply that the patterns present demonstrate an intelligence gehind the design [...]
Is that a "Yes"?
Canuckster1127 wrote:
[...] without asserting the identity of that designer.
Naming the designer is irrelevant. The issue here is whether ID explicitly claims the existence of an intelligent cause/designer, who is not necessarily supernatural. Correct?
I can't walk through my argument until we agree on this simple point.
As I understand it, the identity and whether the source of intelligence behind the design is supernatural are both irrelevant in theory to ID.
So, while I don't presume to be the spokesperson for ID (i'm not fully in the ID camp), I think what you're saying is accurate.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
From these quotes and from other ID websites, the conclusion seems inescapable, viz., if ID is correct, then an intelligent cause/designer exists. I'm not trying to trick you.
Kurieuo wrote:
ID claims that biological systems exhibit patterns or hallmarks of intelligent design. Compare this with your statements. Subtle but very different.
Seems like hair splitting, but OK, please explain how hallmarks of intelligent design and the existence of a designer are very different. Or how can intelligent design exist without a designer?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
From these quotes and from other ID websites, the conclusion seems inescapable, viz., if ID is correct, then an intelligent cause/designer exists.
Discovery statement: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
My statement: "ID claims that biological systems exhibit patterns or hallmarks of intelligent design."
Seems to me that essentially the same thing is being said. Your further claim that ID says certain living features necessarily means an intelligent cause exists is not correct. Only that an intelligent cause is the more probable scenario. Science works with probabilities, not certainties.
IgoFan wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
ID claims that biological systems exhibit patterns or hallmarks of intelligent design. Compare this with your statements. Subtle but very different.
Seems like hair splitting, but OK, please explain how hallmarks of intelligent design and the existence of a designer are very different. Or how can intelligent design exist without a designer?
It is not hair splitting at all, but very important. In fact it is a core issue, if not the core issue, between ID and its critics.
Your statement that "ID itself claims that certain living features have an intelligent cause" makes ID out to be more concerned with asserting in certain or dogmatic terms that an intelligent cause exists for living features, rather than an interest in pursuing an examination of design-exhibiting living features.
Your statement incorporates an inference that creates a need to identify the designer (and as such lends itself to one's personal philosophical and theological views), while my statement that "ID claims that biological systems exhibit patterns or hallmarks of intelligent design" remains in the realm of scientific inquiry.
Kurieuo wrote:
Seems to me that essentially the same thing is being said. Your further claim that ID certain living features necessarily means an intelligent cause exists is not correct. Only that an intelligent cause is the more probable scenario.
Both Behe and Dembski, not me, have published calculations indicating that natural causes for IC have a vanishingly small probability, i.e., an intelligent cause is almost certain.
So your characterization of ID's intelligent cause merely being more probable spectacularly misrepresents the two leading ID theorists, whose probability results look more like 99.999...%.
Kurieuo wrote:
Science works with probabilities, not certainties.
Kurieuo wrote:
Seems to me that essentially the same thing is being said. Your further claim that ID certain living features necessarily means an intelligent cause exists is not correct. Only that an intelligent cause is the more probable scenario.
Both Behe and Dembski, not me, have published calculations indicating that natural causes for IC have a vanishingly small probability, i.e., an intelligent cause is almost certain.
So your characterization of ID's intelligent cause merely being more probable spectacularly misrepresents the two leading ID theorists, whose probability results look more like 99.999...%.
Do you agree that such probability is 99.999...%? Are they not entitled to their personal opinions and judgments as to where they see certain intricate features of life point; whether such features can be reasonably explained naturally by necessity or chance, or have an appearance of being designed? I do not see anything wrong with personal opinions, even preferences. To repeat essentially the same thing I said earlier:
Scientific investigations are neutral to both theism and philosophical naturalism (positive atheism). However, an atheist's philosophical naturalistic conclusions may be more easily smuggled into science clouding true scientific inquiry with atheistic personal opinion and bias. So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Both sides are wrong to mix their personal beliefs with scientific investigation and call it science.
IgoFan wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Science works with probabilities, not certainties.
Yes! Have you thought about a career in science?
No. I like many things. Doesn't mean I want to have a career in everything I like.
IgoFan wrote:
Both Behe and Dembski, not me, have published calculations indicating that natural causes for IC have a vanishingly small probability, i.e., an intelligent cause is almost certain.
So your characterization of ID's intelligent cause merely being more probable spectacularly misrepresents the two leading ID theorists, whose probability results look more like 99.999...%.
Kurieuo wrote:
Do you agree that such probability is 99.999...%?
Not me, that's what Behe and Dembski say.
Kurieuo wrote:
Are they not entitled to their personal opinions and judgments as to where they see certain intricate features of life point; whether such features can be reasonably explained naturally by necessity or chance, or have an appearance of being designed? I do not see anything wrong with personal opinions, even preferences.
I'm talking about Behe and Dembski's scientific calculations, not their personal opinions or preferences, and not what other scientists' unjustified opinions may be. Those probability calculations all but eliminate natural causes. So unless you're discrediting Behe and Dembski as ID representatives, the almost certain existence of an intelligent cause follows from their near 100% probability calculations that certain features of the natural world could have no natural causes. Correct?
