Is fully secularized science an intellectual dishonesty?

[JAL]

Is fully secularized science an intellectual dishonesty?

Consider the following two statements.
(1)Water boils at a certain temperature.
(2)Hundreds of thousands of years ago, I have an ape as an ancestor.

The first conclusion is very “scientific” in the sense of being very useful. The second conclusion doesn’t do me a whole lot of good on a daily basis. Now, please don’t lecture me on how valuable are the conclusions drawn by evolutionary scientists in related areas such as genetics because such fields can be studied regardless of whether I have an ancestor is an ape. (Evidence for a common ancestor is not conclusive because God may have creationally applied genetic templates in ways that SEEM evolutionary). Proposition #2 is thus a conclusion of dubious value, and yet some people go to extraordinary lengths to insure that this is the only theory of origins presented in the classroom – even to the extent of possible intellectual dishonesty, as I shall now argue. (I am not saying that the classroom has to dwell on intelligent design theory, but if we fail to give it at least honorable mention, we become guilty of intellectual dishonesty, as I plan to show here).


Because, if we are to be intellectually honest, we cannot exclude the supernatural from science. I will explain why in a moment, but the point is that if even a dummy like me figured this out, the pioneers of modern science surely realized it themselves BUT FAILED TO NOTIFY US IN THE TEXTBOOKS. That seems like intellectual dishonesty to me. That is to say, they abstained from mentioning that science involves the supernatural because such admission seemed potentially inhibiting to their scientific agenda.


Consider a geologist or archeologist who stumbles upon a painting or a work of pottery in the process of digging. What does he conclude? That the painting or pot “evolved”? No. He postulates a human hand as the possible Creator of the painting or pot, just as the creationist postulates the divine hand as the possible Creator of human beings. The one possibility is called “scientific”, the other is dismissed as “supernatural and thus outside the domain of science.”

I am now going to show why this distinction is biased, artificial, contrived, and thus intellectually dishonest. I am going to show, in other words, that the activity of a human hand forming a painting or a work of pottery is precisely as supernatural as would be the divine hand.


Basically, a supernatural force is one which (1) physically moves matter (2) is unpredictable by mathematical methods and (3) is unidentified in the physics textbooks.

Since free will is such a force, it is therefore in this category. I am now going to demonstrate that free will is the force that physically moves the human hand. In other words, what moves the human hand, ultimately, is NOT the “natural forces” identified in the physics textbooks but rather a mechanistically unpredictable physical force known as free will. (This is the same force that God uses to move matter, that is, He moves it by a sheer exertion of His free will). How convenient that the physics books never mentioned that free will is a physical force.

To see why, pretend for the moment that your body is in an elevated, suspended position slightly above my head. I therefore must move my hand upwards to strike you. To do this, therefore, my hand has to push upwards against the force of gravity. A physical force sufficiently counteractive to the force of gravity, therefore, must be exerted to move my hand upwards to strike you. Now when I have done this, what would you blame?

Suppose that the only force moving my hand upward were the muscular energy resulting from the metabolism of food. In this case you could only blame my last meal, you could not rightly blame me or be angry with ME. See the point? Stated briefly and succinctly, if all ordinary matter – including the human hand – is bound by the rigid, predictable, inflexible laws of ordinary physics, no one could be blamed or held accountable for their behavior. You cannot rightly indict someone for the way that his food metabolizes since that is merely ordinary physics at work. Another example would be this. Suppose you and I are standing on a cliff. A wind blows which bumps me into you, and thus causes you to be thrown off the cliff. Who is to blame? Me? No. That’s just the law of physics at work. No one is to be BLAMED when the laws of physics are at work. But if I, as an act of free will, extended my hand to push you off the cliff, I would be guilty, which means this is NOT the laws of physics (i.e. textbook physics) at work. Because when textbook physics is at work, no one is to be blamed.

(This is also a good argument for the existence of a soul. That is to say, since most ordinary matter involves predictable forces, the fact that the human hand is moved by an unpredictable force – free will – suggests that it has a soul as the source of this force).

Now please don’t reply, “It’s the brain that moves the human hand.” Not good enough. Because I would only retort, “If ordinary forces activate the brain, we could not blame someone for murder. Free will must be involved in so activating the brain, if we are to justifiably blame someone for murder.”

 

[theFijian]

Is fully secularized science an intellectual dishonesty?

Yes, but not for the reasons you give. A naturalistic methodology does not deny the existence of God, it only acknowledges that we cannot test it. And free will is not a supernatural force.

 

[busterdog]

Because, if we are to be intellectually honest, we cannot exclude the supernatural from science. I will explain why in a moment, but the point is that if even a dummy like me figured this out, the pioneers of modern science surely realized it themselves BUT FAILED TO NOTIFY US IN THE TEXTBOOKS. That seems like intellectual dishonesty to me. That is to say, they abstained from mentioning that science involves the supernatural because such admission seemed potentially inhibiting to their scientific agenda.

I like to play football. One thing that really helps my game is to say that the Pittsburgh Steelers are not a football team. Fully secularized science has probably realized that the supernatural is kicking their behinds and eating their lunch.

God tells us he has spoken to speak to us. And we assume that this is evidence of nothing and something that can't be measured. Pretty dishonest indeed.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[crawfish]

Thousands of years ago, people thought weather was supernatural, and was sent by God (or the gods) as reward or punishments. Science has shown that it is a natural phenomenon.

Where would science be if we assumed the supernatural because no natural explanation existed yet? The supernatural will be what it is, and will defy logical explanation - but does that mean we should not TRY to discern what phenomena is natural and what is not? That we should avoid fields of study because they might have supernatural causes? It has certainly been attempted, and the only reason science has progressed to where it has is because scientists refused to accept those restrictions.

TOE is not wish fulfillment. It is a solid theory, a puzzle with many missing pieces but enough pieces in place to give us a view of what the final answer should be. To deny it based on your private interpretation of scripture is to potentially deny a truth that God has set in place for us to discover.

 

[gluadys]

]Basically, a supernatural force is one which (1) physically moves matter (2) is unpredictable by mathematical methods and (3) is unidentified in the physics textbooks.

(2) and (3) are reasons why it is not included in science.

If you can't measure it, can't predict it or make predictions from it, and can't identify the force, how can it relate to science?

 

[JAL]

And free will is not a supernatural force.

Boy am I impressed when somone challenges my conclusion without addressing the underlying logic involved.

A naturalistic methodology does not deny the existence of God, it only acknowledges that we cannot test it.

Who said anything about denying the existence of God? Stop refuting a conclusion that I haven't stated, as a further pretense of refuting me. Instead, address yourself to the arguments and conclusions which I raised. Anyone can create a strawman and knock it down.

 

[JAL]

Thousands of years ago, people thought weather was supernatural, and was sent by God (or the gods) as reward or punishments. Science has shown that it is a natural phenomenon.

Where would science be if we assumed the supernatural because no natural explanation existed yet? The supernatural will be what it is, and will defy logical explanation - but does that mean we should not TRY to discern what phenomena is natural and what is not? That we should avoid fields of study because they might have supernatural causes? It has certainly been attempted, and the only reason science has progressed to where it has is because scientists refused to accept those restrictions.

TOE is not wish fulfillment. It is a solid theory, a puzzle with many missing pieces but enough pieces in place to give us a view of what the final answer should be. To deny it based on your private interpretation of scripture is to potentially deny a truth that God has set in place for us to discover.

Who said anything about presumption? No one opposes presumption more than I do - see my signature.

What I am interested in is the avoidance of excessive dogmatism in the interest of objectivity. Large-scale evolution is taught in the schools in a manner that is excessively dogmatic, in my opinion.

 

[JAL]

(2) and (3) are reasons why it is not included in science.

If you can't measure it, can't predict it or make predictions from it, and can't identify the force, how can it relate to science?

You're asking a question I've already answered. Let me repeat myself.

An archaeologist sees a pot. He is not deemed unscientific to postulate a human hand (regardless of whether the human is visible) as the intelligent designer of that pot, as the potter who forms the clay, as the Creator of the pot. The human hand that (arguablyj) formed this pot did so using a supernatural force called free will. Yet scientists find nothing "unscientific" about this postulation. Were they to be consistent, they should argue, "There must be a purely naturalistic - evolutionary - orgin of the pot. We should not be thinking intelligent design here."


The Creationists sees, what to him, appears to be a work of pottery (the human body as clay in the hands of God as the Potter). Yet he is told that this is not a scientific theory of origins, that it should not even be mentioned in the classroom. This is methodologically inconsistent.

Again, I am not insisting that the classroom has to dwell on the supernatural. But intellectual integrity demands a certain objectivity, and an objective thinker will admit that he cannot exclude the supernatural from science.

Someone may protest, "But God is invisible!" What has that got to do with it? Suppose we found a spaceship evidently not of human origin. We would postulate a Hand (alien life) as the intelligent designer REGARDLESS of whether we ever were able to actually see the alien.

If a Hand formed the human body, we would predict an intelligence so beyond that of human beings as to suspect that it is God. Only an exorbitant dogmatism would exclude this possibility.

 

[Mallon]

It seems to me that your whole argument is just a rephrasing of Paley's "watchmaker" analogy.
Here's why it fails:
When an archaeologist comes across a piece of pottery in the earth, they do not assume that it evolved from other pottery because we know from first-hand experience that humans make pottery. The same analogy does not carry over to the creation of life because:
(a) Unlike pottery, life is dynamic. It breeds, it undergoes mutation, it competes for resources. Pottery, of which we know its origins, is nothing like biological life.
(b) We have never seen a supernatural being poof life into existence. So what is it about science that would ever lead us to believe that this is a viable option?

 

[busterdog]

What I am interested in is the avoidance of excessive dogmatism in the interest of objectivity. Large-scale evolution is taught in the schools in a manner that is excessively dogmatic, in my opinion.

If God speaks, how do we blow that off as something merely dogmatic? If God speaks, how do we not assume there is something measureable and objective about God speaking?
Are we saying that God isn't that good at speaking or that he prefers to play games? I mean, he is God. When he creates or saves or judges, He seems to do a good job. Why not speaking?

To me, that is the genius of the OP, to put that point squarely before us.

 

[busterdog]

It seems to me that your whole argument is just a rephrasing of Paley's "watchmaker" analogy.
Here's why it fails:
When an archaeologist comes across a piece of pottery in the earth, they do not assume that it evolved from other pottery because we know from first-hand experience that humans make pottery. The same analogy does not carry over to the creation of life because:
(a) Unlike pottery, life is dynamic. It breeds, it undergoes mutation, it competes for resources. Pottery, of which we know its origins, is nothing like biological life.
(b) We have never seen a supernatural being poof life into existence. So what is it about science that would ever lead us to believe that this is a viable option?

I think you can reasonably question the watchmaker argument as to its strength. Arguably, it is over-emphasized. I don't think so, but I see your point to an extent.

However, since no one can produce the real watchmaker on a number of major issues (abiogensis is one), the argument hasn't exactly been "debunked." How would that even be possible?

 

[Dannager]

A creationist decrying the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the evolution camp is hilarious. If I were a creationist, I wouldn't even mention the words "intellectually dishonest" for fear of having it justifiably thrown back at me.

 

[JAL]

It seems to me that your whole argument is just a rephrasing of Paley's "watchmaker" analogy.
Here's why it fails:
When an archaeologist comes across a piece of pottery in the earth, they do not assume that it evolved from other pottery because we know from first-hand experience that humans make pottery. The same analogy does not carry over to the creation of life because:
(a) Unlike pottery, life is dynamic. It breeds, it undergoes mutation, it competes for resources. Pottery, of which we know its origins, is nothing like biological life.
(b) We have never seen a supernatural being poof life into existence. So what is it about science that would ever lead us to believe that this is a viable option?

You have never seen a supernatural being? For one thing, I have just shown you that a human being IS a supernatural being. Secondly, I also mentioned the example of an alien. Even though you have never seen one, you would postulate his existence if you found suggestive evidence.

Again, you are trying to create artificial dichotomies as to exclude the Hand of God as a scientific theory.

You argue that there are differences between pottery and biological life. Well duh - but those differences are not probative for your point, that is to say, those differences don't exclude a Creator as a possible theory of origins. The main difference is that a human body is a far more sophisticated piece of machinery than any pot, which gives me all the MORE reason to believe that it involves the hand of a Creator.

Further, the argument I gave supports a creator because it suggests a soul. Why would a human body have such capability - free will as an unpredictable physical force - unknown to other inanimate objects? Apart from a soul? Then we have to ask, HOW did this soul get into the human body, if not by some intelligent Hand?

Edit - I reread your statement, "We have never see a supernatural being poof life into existence" (sorry I misread that). I am not talking about creation ex nihilo. I am talking about the possibilility of divine intervention in speciation, as well as in original creations formed "from the dust" (as Genesis says) as opposed to creation ex nihilo.

 

[holdon]

A creationist decrying the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the evolution camp is hilarious. If I were a creationist, I wouldn't even mention the words "intellectually dishonest" for fear of having it justifiably thrown back at me.

Justifiably??? It depends. I agree that a lot of creationists are not very good scientists or no scientists at all. But not all evolutionists are good scientists either. But most creationists know that the foundation for their science, be it ever so weak, is belief. They are pretty honest about that I'd say.
Most evolutionists seem to want science as foundation and put some belief on top of it for good measure, or good feeling, like a cherry on the cake.....

 

[JAL]

A creationist decrying the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the evolution camp is hilarious. If I were a creationist, I wouldn't even mention the words "intellectually dishonest" for fear of having it justifiably thrown back at me.

All the more reason to examine whether the sword cuts both ways - the whole point of the OP.

 

[busterdog]

Edit - I reread your statement, "We have never see a supernatural being poof life into existence" (sorry I misread that). I am not talking about creation ex nihilo. I am talking about the possibilility of divine intervention in speciation, as well as in original creations formed "from the dust" (as Genesis says) as opposed to creation ex nihilo.

There are reams of evidence proving beyond a doubt that there are 1. enormous supernatural forces at work; and 2. enormous areas of "science" that are virtually unmeasureable.

I don't see how any reasonable scientist could be so dismissive of such things.

Do I hear whistling in the graveyard?

 

[shernren]

Is fully secularized science an intellectual dishonesty?

Consider the following two statements.
(1)Water boils at a certain temperature.
(2)Hundreds of thousands of years ago, I have an ape as an ancestor.

The first conclusion is very “scientific” in the sense of being very useful. The second conclusion doesn’t do me a whole lot of good on a daily basis. Now, please don’t lecture me on how valuable are the conclusions drawn by evolutionary scientists in related areas such as genetics because such fields can be studied regardless of whether I have an ancestor is an ape. (Evidence for a common ancestor is not conclusive because God may have creationally applied genetic templates in ways that SEEM evolutionary). Proposition #2 is thus a conclusion of dubious value, and yet some people go to extraordinary lengths to insure that this is the only theory of origins presented in the classroom – even to the extent of possible intellectual dishonesty, as I shall now argue. (I am not saying that the classroom has to dwell on intelligent design theory, but if we fail to give it at least honorable mention, we become guilty of intellectual dishonesty, as I plan to show here).


Because, if we are to be intellectually honest, we cannot exclude the supernatural from science. I will explain why in a moment, but the point is that if even a dummy like me figured this out, the pioneers of modern science surely realized it themselves BUT FAILED TO NOTIFY US IN THE TEXTBOOKS. That seems like intellectual dishonesty to me. That is to say, they abstained from mentioning that science involves the supernatural because such admission seemed potentially inhibiting to their scientific agenda.

First, we should note that the pioneering scientists were all theists; furthermore, none of them ever had to invoke a deus ex machina in their physical theory. One can hardly accuse Newton of having an antitheist "scientific agenda"!

Secondly, I think we should lecture you on how useful evolution is. For example:

Knowledge of evolutionary relationships or phylogeny allows for effective predictions about the unstudied characteristics of species. These include the presence and biological activity of an organism's venoms. To date, most venom bioprospecting has focused on snakes, resulting in six stroke and cancer treatment drugs that are nearing U.S. Food and Drug Administration review. Fishes, however, with thousands of venoms, represent an untapped resource of natural products. The first step involved in the efficient bioprospecting of these compounds is a phylogeny of venomous fishes. Here, we show the results of such an analysis and provide the first explicit suborder-level phylogeny for spiny-rayed fishes. The results, based on

1.1 million aligned base pairs, suggest that, in contrast to previous estimates of 200 venomous fishes, >1,200 fishes in 12 clades should be presumed venomous. This assertion was corroborated by a detailed anatomical study examining potentially venomous structures in >100 species. The results of these studies not only alter our view of the diversity of venomous fishes, now representing >50% of venomous vertebrates, but also provide the predictive phylogeny or "road map" for the efficient search for potential pharmacological agents or physiological tools from the unexplored fish venoms.
​

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/3/206 (emphases added)

I don't know about you, but a roadmap for finding potential drugs sounds pretty important to me.

I like how you tried to discount evolution, though, and it bears repeating:

Evidence for a common ancestor is not conclusive because God may have creationally applied genetic templates in ways that SEEM evolutionary.​

So, in other words, nature for all scientific intents and purposes looks evolutionary, even if it might not be?

Suppose you came to my house and saw a new chair. "Wow, that's a nice chair! When did you buy it?" you ask.

"I didn't buy it. I went to sleep last night and when I woke up, it appeared in my living room!"

"I don't believe you, shernren. Hey wait - there's a receipt on the table."

"Well, that magically appeared too."

"And I checked your accounts: there was a credit card transaction last night recorded at IKEA for $200."

"What - which scoundrel did that? It certainly wasn't me!"

Let's set out the evidence and theories:

E1. There is a new chair in my living room.
E2. There is a receipt for that chair on my table.
E3. There is a credit card transaction for the price of the chair from IKEA last night.
​

T1. I bought a chair from IKEA last night.
T2. A chair and receipt for it magically appeared in my living room, and a transaction happened involving my credit card occurred without my knowledge of it.
​

Now suppose a government agent comes knocking on my door. "I'm sorry, sir, but it is now illegal to buy furniture from IKEA. We'll have to arrest you and impound your chair."

"W - what? I didn't buy furniture from IKEA! This chair appeared in my living room!"

"I'm sorry, sir, but we have evidence: there is a receipt for the chair on your table, and your credit card was recorded in a transaction at IKEA last night. You'll have to come with us, sir."

At this point, there is no evidence by which I can distinguish between T1 (I bought the chair) and T2 (the chair poofed into existence); so obviously I cannot defend myself beyond simply my word against evidence. If, on the other hand, I blurt out:

"B - but I didn't leave my house all of yesterday! The neighbors can witness to that!"

suddenly, there is evidence that distinguishes between those theories:

E1. There is a new chair in my living room.
E2. There is a receipt for that chair on my table.
E3. There is a credit card transaction for the price of the chair from IKEA last night.
E4. I did not leave the house all of yesterday.
​

I hope the point is clear. Science is about falsifiable theories. Now for every scientifically falsifiable theory, we can invent a "Loki hypothesis". (Loki, as people should know, was the Norse god of deception and tricks - the use of the name should also remind people that there is nothing inherently and uniquely Christian about proper "intelligent design".)

Theory A: A scientific phenomenon explains the evidence we have.
Theory L: Loki left all the evidence supernaturally.
​

Now, falsifiable theories make predictions.

Theory A: Evidence X should exist.
​

Are we then justified to pursue those predictions and see if they are actually true? Certainly. In real life, nobody lives on Loki hypotheses. I might believe, for example, that my cell phone's batteries aren't actually dead: Loki is just causing the current from my battery to be not enough to power my phone, and thus it's not working. Nobody actually believes that in real life, hence the popularity of cellphone chargers. I might believe, for example, that there isn't actually something wrong with my car: when I turn the key, Loki prevents my engines from starting. Nobody actually believes that in real life, hence mechanics still earn a living. And so on and so forth. Really, nobody lives their lives without naturalism. Isn't it hypocritical to pay your naturalist mechanics for espousing naturalism in what they do, and then turn and lambast your naturalist scientists for espousing naturalism in what they do?

Now, JAL, you yourself acknowledge that evolutionary patterns permeate life. Is it not then proper for us to tell children what these patterns are, and how evolution explains them? Furthermore, if intelligent design makes falsifiable predictions that are distinct from evolution, it is de facto scientific and can be scientifically upheld or debunked (and has been); if intelligent design does not make falsifiable predictions that are distinct from evolution, what scientific good does it do anybody?

 

[shernren]

There are reams of evidence proving beyond a doubt that there are 1. enormous supernatural forces at work; and 2. enormous areas of "science" that are virtually unmeasureable.

I don't see how any reasonable scientist could be so dismissive of such things.

Do I hear whistling in the graveyard?

I notice you're taking a very long time to respond to Willtor, and doing a lot of talking with everyone else besides him:

all of the points that you are arguing are matters of sense and reason. If the physical matters you are using to undermine discussions of the age of the universe are real, they have been learned through sense and reason. If they really demonstrate that we have been entirely mistaken about the age of the universe or whatever else, _that_ will have been an inference from sense and reason.

http://foru.ms/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=39725663

Your evidence has been brought here and debunked before. You've had offers (the fourth or fifth time now from me) to be taught as much math as you need to understand exactly what is wrong with Setterfield's ideas and to formulate effective counter-criticisms of your own. You've been shown elementary arithmetical errors, statistical pickiness, plenty more unexplained evidence, a comprehensive scientific framework that does explain plenty of data, and scientists' honest admission that there's still much they can't explain - as well as their ongoing efforts to explain it.

I don't see how any reasonable scientist - even a message board scientist - could be dismissive of such things.

 

[Melethiel]

Again, you are trying to create artificial dichotomies as to exclude the Hand of God as a scientific theory.

Is God now to be reduced to a scientific theory?

 

[busterdog]

Is God now to be reduced to a scientific theory?

Everyone understand that science pretends to eschew religion and the supernatural, since it has a certain stylized preference or discipline to avoid the possibility of cranks and fakes.

However, that does nothing to resolve the issue of whether or not God presumes to be an objectively manifest presence. The record of the Bible is prophecy of knowing what will be as a testament to God's reputation. One cannot, without rejecting Scripture outright, come to any conclusion but that God presumes to have a reputation based objectively upon foresight and supernatural provision. There is only one reasonable position: scripture presumes to represent tangible proof of the supernatural.

Luk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luk 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;