Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
If science is the self-correcting exploration of knowlege of our natural universe, then the employment of naturalism certainly seems appropriate. After all, I don't want a "scientist" telling me that swine flu is God's smite upon our planet and that natural resistance is futile.
But when it comes to explaining our existence, we are no longer exploring knowlege of our natural universe or how it works. Rather, we want to know what caused our existence. We are trying to explore our history. In this instance, naturalism seems to lose its utility. A creator is distinct from its creation. Why should a cause outside our phisical universe be ruled out? Why should intelligent causes be ruled out? If, when we try to explain what caused our existence (either as a universe, a life form, or the human race), we don't allow for explanations outside of the natural universe, then we unnecessarily limit ourselves.
Regarding the field of origins, if we call it a science, we should not continue to employ naturalism. Alternatively, if naturalism is indispensible form science in any instance, then "science" should stay away from offering theories of origins -- exploration of origins should fall under some other category, e.g., history or philosophy.
Why should a cause outside our phisical universe be ruled out?
Science doesn't rule out non-physical causes. It can't because it doesn't have access to such causes. Non-physical causes cannot be tested because they are non-physical. So science ignores them. It is agnostic. Science is not atheistic.
Furthermore, origins hypotheses that make use of natural explanations CAN be tested, and so very much do belong within the realm of science.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Okay. I guess we agree. You say science does not consider causes outside the natural universe and is useful to the extent it does. But what I'm getting at is whether that is an unnecessary limitation in the field of origins? Or is orgins better addressed under the category of philosphy? I mean, if you limit your self to naturalistism, aren't you inevitably lead to less potential conclusions (especially in the field of origins)? Are you fine with saying: Science can only suggest a common ancestry but reality may be something other than that because science does not comprehensively address hypotheses of origins?
Okay. I guess we agree. You say science does not consider causes outside the natural universe and is useful to the extent it does. But what I'm getting at is whether that is an unnecessary limitation in the field of origins? Or is orgins better addressed under the category of philosphy? I mean, if you limit your self to naturalistism, aren't you inevitably lead to less potential conclusions (especially in the field of origins)? Are you fine with saying: Science can only suggest a common ancestry but reality may be something other than that because science does not comprehensively address hypotheses of origins?
Setting on ourselves the limitations of methodological naturalism certainly does lead to less potential conclusions. But that's the point of science. If we allow all non-natural explanations for the origins of the world, we gain nothing because we have no way of distinguishing between the veracity of any one of them. We've lost the ability to falsify.
Regardless, if the natural explanation posited by scientists for the origins of biodiversity were utterly wrong, then the predictions made by such a working hypothesis would be falsified at every turn. And yet they are not. This suggests there is something to the scientific explanation.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Setting on ourselves the limitations of methodological naturalism certainly does lead to less potential conclusions. But that's the point of science. If we allow all non-natural explanations for the origins of the world, we gain nothing because we have no way of distinguishing between the veracity of any one of them. We've lost the ability to falsify.
Do we agree that something unnatural caused the natural universe to come into being? If so, science is inadequate to fully explain the origin of the universe.
I'm suggesting that origins is different fundamentally than other things that science addresses. With origins, a non-natural explanation can be the more reasonable one. How about the first, self-replicating cell? If Darwin's idea of a cell is likened to a Chevy, what is today's idea likened to? Is it more reasonable to conclude that something so intricate and sophisticated as a cell generated by chance or by design? If any non-natural explanation is ruled out before you start, then you may never entertain the most reasonable explanation, i.e., special creation.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Regardless, if the natural explanation posited by scientists for the origins of biodiversity were utterly wrong, then the predictions made by such a working hypothesis would be falsified at every turn. And yet they are not. This suggests there is something to the scientific explanation.
Oh, I don't know they would be falsified at every turn. I think maybe the TEO has been fine-tuned over time to accomodate evidence to the point where it's a good working theory given the limitation of naturalism. Open up the field, and what evidence do you observe today inconsistent with special creation? If you were as invested in special creation as you are the TEO, I'd bet you would view the evidence much differently.
Let me ask you this: If you were asked to scientifically discern how Stonehenge came to be, what would be your methodology? If you limited yourself to unintelligent, natural causes, you would not happen upon the most reasonable conclusion. Because theories of origins, by their nature, cannot have this restriction.
Do we agree that something unnatural caused the natural universe to come into being? If so, science is inadequate to fully explain the origin of the universe.
I agree. Ultimately, there must exist some non-natural cause of all time, space, matter, and energy.
I'm suggesting that origins is different fundamentally than other things that science addresses.
Why? What specifically makes origins science different from any other kind of science? What about the scientific method is inapplicable to questions of origins? If I claim that some event in the past left some evidence of its occurrence today, I can examine that evidence to test the occurrence of that past event. That's science.
Is it more reasonable to conclude that something so intricate and sophisticated as a cell generated by chance or by design?
This is a strawman. Evolution does not equate to chance. It is the opposite of chance. And design is not in opposition of evolution, as you seem to think here. Design is entirely consistent with the process of evolution, just as it is consistent with the process of fetal development or climate. Simply because a structure looks intricate does not mean that it was brought about by miraculous means. Snowflakes are intricate.
If any non-natural explanation is ruled out before you start, then you may never entertain the most reasonable explanation, i.e., special creation.
To say that special creation is reasonable implies that it makes sense of the world. What makes special creation reasonable? Does it account for the nested hierarchical pattern of life? Does it account for the distribution of life across the earth? Does it account for the distribution of the fossil record?
It doesn't.
Open up the field, and what evidence do you observe today inconsistent with special creation?
Every pattern I just mentioned. Particularly the patterned nested hierarchy of life. Only descent with modification accounts for this pattern.
Let me ask you this: If you were asked to scientifically discern how Stonehenge came to be, what would be your methodology? If you limited yourself to unintelligent, natural causes, you would not happen upon the most reasonable conclusion. Because theories of origins, by their nature, cannot have this restriction.
Humans are natural, so it's entirely consistent with science to posit that humans made Stonehenge. Science doesn't rule out intelligent causes. It rules out supernatural ones.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I agree. Ultimately, there must exist some non-natural cause of all time, space, matter, and energy.
While I agree with what you are trying to say, I think we've run into an issue with semantics. If the multi-verse hypothesis is correct, then this universe was created by matter and energy. This matter and energy is not a part of our universe, so if your definition of "natural" is only inclusive of our universe then the origins of our universe would still be considered supernatural. However, if all potential states of universes could be part of a larger system that we exist within, then we could define the larger system as the nature of reality and we have a natural cause.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Humans are natural, so it's entirely consistent with science to posit that humans made Stonehenge. Science doesn't rule out intelligent causes. It rules out supernatural ones.
I don't think science intends on ruling out supernatural causes. For example, if God were to consistently heal broken bones that were prayed for, and the laws of physics and biology were breached each time it happened, then there would be empirical evidence that something outside our universe is influencing it. The best scientific evidence for these healing would be a supernatural cause. This is a very condensed explanation, I hope it makes sense.
p.s. I'm just brainstormin in this post so I'm willing to be corrected.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
While I agree with what you are trying to say, I think we've run into an issue with semantics. If the multi-verse hypothesis is correct, then this universe was created by matter and energy.
That's a pretty big if. I don't pretend to know much about the multiverse hypothesis, but my understanding is that it's unfalsifiable. Perhaps you could comment on that further?
I don't think science intends on ruling out supernatural causes. For example, if God were to consistently heal broken bones that were prayed for, and the laws of physics and biology were breached each time it happened, then there would be empirical evidence that something outside our universe is influencing it. The best scientific evidence for these healing would be a supernatural cause. This is a very condensed explanation, I hope it makes sense.
I'm not so sure science would allow for miraculous cause in this case. Typically, when science runs into something it cannot explain, it simply defers to further research. Maybe there's some other natural factor that quickly heals bones that we just haven't accounted for.
Not saying that concluding God intervened miraculously is wrong. But if science is to work, it can never settle on such an answer.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I'm suggesting that origins is different fundamentally than other things that science addresses.
Don't we have to ask what sort of origin we are speaking of? One cannot just lump all origins in the same basket and say they all have characteristics science cannot address.
It seems to me that one must look at each instance of novelty and ask about its origin case-by-case with no a priori judgments on the ability of science to explain it.
With origins, a non-natural explanation can be the more reasonable one. How about the first, self-replicating cell?
How about the first self-replicating molecule? Replication probably began before there were cells. One doesn't have to suppose the first cell in all its intricacy popped into being in an instant.
Abiogenesis is the field of biology that studies possible chemical pathways to self-replicating RNA and from there to replicating forms that preceded the cell.
I think the real question here is whether "natural" to you means "without God"? Would finding that there is a natural chemical pathway to the earliest cells shake your faith in God as Creator?
If not, why worry over whether scientists succeed in finding a natural pathway from chemicals to living cells?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
That's a pretty big if. I don't pretend to know much about the multiverse hypothesis, but my understanding is that it's unfalsifiable. Perhaps you could comment on that further?
Here's a good playlist. Part 7 is where it get's to M-theory. It's worth watching it to achieve a layperson's understanding as I have.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
