|
|
|
Typos: |
|
One more: |
|
Thanks Ned--I fixed 'em. |
|
I didn't see any typos. |
|
You rock! Great stuff. |
|
Science must be testable. It must make unique, positive predictions. By positive, we mean that if theory B is proposed as a superior alternative to theory A, then theory B must do more than say “theory A cannot explain this data or that data.” Theory B must state: if you do this experiment we predict you will get this result—and if you don’t, well, then I guess we’re wrong. (emphasis original) In other words it must be naturalistic; this is what you mean by 'testable.' I suppose you will explain to your class the epistemic category that non-naturalistic empirical events fit into, or will you be content to effectively falsify not only your own cosmological argument, but every other miracle and mental cause that has ever occurred? For any belief to be rational, it must rest upon rational grounds. Surely even you must realize this. We've been over this before: Methodological naturalism as a thoroughgoing epistemology of empirical knowledge is anathema to both miraculous and mental events. It doesn't define theism as metaphysically false, but it does render it irrational. So what's with this business of saying that science must be naturalistic? Where is there room for rational empirical support for theistic agency? Do you intend to teach your Sunday School class practical atheism? |
|
Crandaddy , |
|
Heddle, |
|
Crandaddy, Your claim is not simply that science is testable in the sense that testability implies naturalistic causation; it is that it must be. It is that science, by its very nature, cannot countenance non-naturalistic explanations. Yes, that is my claim. That is science, by definition. We are free to examine and free to imply supernatural causes. I do it all the time. But we can't hold our breath and stomp our feet until everyone agrees to change the definition of science--to a definition that would include astrology--just to accommodate us (and to wedge open the science-curriculum door.) Ever hear of an ad hominem fallacy? By the way, what, specifically, has Jonathan Wells done regarding his affiliation with Sun Myung Moon that the ought not to have done? Yes I have, and I didn't commit it. I did not say that Wells's ID was wrong because he was a follower of Moon. If so, that would be an ad hominem. I said and have said that if Christians are to engage in the culture war, it is wrong to do so in league with heretics. Can you adequately articulate the difference? I don't see that you've shown it in what you've written. Can you show me? I can remind them (and show you if you like): This is how Paul and the other apostles evangelized. And this is how The ID movement attempts to evangelize. Do you see any precedence in the former for the behavior of the latter? |
|
That is science, by definition. We are free to examine and free to imply supernatural causes. I do it all the time. But we can't hold our breath and stomp our feet until everyone agrees to change the definition of science--to a definition that would include astrology--just to accommodate us No, that's the definition of methodological naturalism. If you're saying that MN is science, you still have to explain why I must accept it. I don't; convince me. And I also happen to think that astrological claims are scientific in nature. One thing Ken Miller does that really irritates me is that he seems to make a point during his talks and presentations on ID to joke about Behe's reference to astrology as science and how it drew laughter from the court. I said and have said that if Christians are to engage in the culture war, it is wrong to do so in league with heretics. Why? If I believe that there is some particular aspect of society that is less than perfect and I meet someone who is not a Christian who believes the same thing, you say that we ought not work together to improve it? That doesn't look right. This is how Paul and the other apostles evangelized. And this is how The ID movement attempts to evangelize. Do you see any precedence in the former for the behavior of the latter? (emphasis original) The fact that you have not presented for analysis specific moral maxims that were violated aside, I'll repeat what I said in my last comment with emphasis on important parts: "ID leaders are people just like you and me, and just like you and me they will make moral mistakes--sometimes big and obvious moral mistakes that everyone can see. This does absolutely nothing, however, to detract from the strength of the arguments they propose [hence my reference to ad hominem fallacies]." As is the case with many in the ID community, my interest is in the arguments. |
|
Crandaddy, |
|
Heddle, I have no desire or obligation to convince you of anything. That is the way science has been defined and practiced. If you care to try and change the definition of science, go ahead and give it your best shot. Science has, indeed, been defined and practiced that way and very productively at that, but it does not follow that science is committed to a naturalistic methodology. If you insist that it must be, then you are obligated to support that claim, given that the claim is not prima facie obvious (which it's not). And to answer your question "why not join league with heretics with common culture-war goals?" I would use 2 John: Do non-Christians not have some concept of right and wrong, of justice and injustice? In the course of my morally obligatory endeavors, if I encounter someone who holds heretical views and who is committed out of moral duty to the same ends as I and if our activities in conjunction would be more conducive to the achievement of our goals than in separation, ought I not to work with him merely because he holds heretical beliefs? If I go to some third-world country to give aid to those suffering from disease and starvation should I refuse to work alongside a Buddhist because he believes in reincarnation and does not believe that Jesus is God's only begotten son? If you say that I should not, then you're wrong, and if this is the intended meaning of the verses then the author is wrong. The author is also not God, because God, by necessity, is morally perfect. |
|
Crandaddy will you hangt up the ID nonsense? ID is not science and never will be. Speaking of being rational, try accepting reality for once and get over it. Your little ID/creationism charade is obvious to everyone. ID is not science, quit whining about it and get a hold of yourself. |
|
believe what the ID proponents are saying with respect to its usefulness in directing scientific experiments: |
|
Just a couple of comments about this post. |
|
"Science has, indeed, been defined and practiced that way and very productively at that, but it does not follow that science is committed to a naturalistic methodology. If you insist that it must be, then you are obligated to support that claim, given that the claim is not prima facie obvious (which it's not)." |
|
It is clearly that one of the ID scientific claim is that there is an "edge of evolution". It is clearly testable, falsifiable and experimentally fruitful, as in the case of observing generations of E coli. It is also imaginative and has enormous implications, scientific and otherwise. |
Commenting by HaloScan |
