Science and Naturalism: The Nick Challenge.

Morat · Sep 6, 2002

  Yes, that's right folks! It's another challenge thread for Nick!.

  Nick said something very interesting in this post. Nick said:

Actually, methodological naturalism stems from people desperately wanting something to be false, and some so-called scientists even admit it. (Recall the "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" quote?)

What you fail to admit (I can't imagine that you don't see this, so I'm not saying you fail to see it) is that it is not science I object to at all. I object to calling evolution science. When someone goes into a lab with chemicals, subjects them to natural environmental conditions and comes out with a kangaroo, then evolution will be science. So the problem with evolution is not only that it attempts to explain things from an a-priori position of naturalism, but that evolution is built ONLY on these a-priori assumptions. You cannot apply the scientific method to evolution because you can't reproduce your results. Therefore evolution is purely metaphysics, not science

   What an interesting statement. I can read it one of three ways, depending on how charitable I am being towards Nick.

1) Evolution isn't a science because it doesn't obey the scientific method in regards to observations being repeatable.

2) Evolution isn't a science because there is no evidence.

3) Evolution isn't a science because it's based only on naturalism.

 

  So, Nick, which one is it?

seebs · Sep 6, 2002

I invite anyone who thinks that these observations are not repeatable to come over and look at my cat's bone structure, which is just as suspiciously similar to human bone structure today as it was five years ago.

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 6, 2002

Good point seebs. It reminds me of something I said to my wife the other day while watching our two boys at play "Anyone who does not believe that we evolved from apes never had boys!".

 

Now, I realize that we did not exactly "evolve  from apes", but you get the jist of it.

Morat · Sep 6, 2002

*bumpty bump*

 

Chris†opher Paul · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by seebs
I invite anyone who thinks that these observations are not repeatable to come over and look at my cat's bone structure, which is just as suspiciously similar to human bone structure today as it was five years ago.

Which could just be indicative of a common design, but you will simply say, "it is a bad design", which may indicate there is no design, but if not, why are you a Christian exactly?   Do you think God created everything but just let it run wild?  Just curious?

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 6, 2002

I can't speak for Seebs, but why must one see design in nature to be a christian? Are there rules on how one may or maynot think about the nature of our physical reality inorder to call themselves a christian?

IMO, there may be order in the universe, but that does not imply design. WHat it implies is that there is a very simple set of prinicples that form the basis universe, and all structure and complexity is a result of those principles.

Chris†opher Paul · Sep 6, 2002

why must one see design in nature to be a christian?

If there is no design, then everything just happened, and there is no Designer.

Cantuar · Sep 6, 2002

Well, Nick's objection covers a lot more than evolution. I guess that's the end of all the sciences related to geology, cosmology, and astrophysics as well.

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 6, 2002

If there is no design, then everything just happened, and there is no Designer [quote/]

I think we are looking at it from different perspecitves. Correct my if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you see God in the complexity of nature? I take a different approach. I don't see any design in biochemistry, for example, even though it is horrendously complex. I just don't think that we will find any evidence of engineering in nature. In fact, I think the more we probe, the less designed it will appear. What I am getting at is that thw whole universe, including life with all of it's complexity, is all based on a simple set of "rules" - which makes complexity inevitable. To use the cliche "It's so simple it's brilliant" - at least that is how I see God's creation.

Received · Sep 6, 2002

Well, in a way it's a bit unfair (lack of a better term). But Chrisitans do not claim God because they look at the universe from a scientific perspective and claim theism, but because their creator is personal and they have their lives changed, and then turn and say theism with faith upon what the scientific world has not yet discovered. In short, the scientists are looking out, and the creationists are looking in; speaking of course on the median of the study of the natural.

Evolution and naturalism find their roots in inductive reasoning; Christianity, in personal revelation from a personal creator. Interestingly enough, both need hope to increase the chance.

But if there is no creator, there is no design, but instead accident, as there were no intentions to bring about a cause.

blessings,

John

LewisWildermuth · Sep 7, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
If there is no design, then everything just happened, and there is no Designer.

Is God smart?

If God is smart, could He not come up with a simple set of rules and just start the universe and let it do the mundane work for him?

We do that every day in science, are we now smarter than God?

I don't thing so... It does not shake my faith to think of God being so smart that he could start something and leave it alone and still get what He wanted. Why does that shake your faith so much?

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 8, 2002

Besides, if God is not subject to the laws that govern his creation then he exitsts outside of spacetime. SO a few billion years here, and a few billion years there would be immaterial.

DialecticMaterialist · Sep 8, 2002

Science was called "natural philosophy" in the early days because the goal of science was to find a natural explanation for things. Hence the idea of "supernaturalist science" or creation science is an oxymoron in terms. Call that an a priori commitment if you want but that's what science is and has been.

npetreley · Sep 8, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  Yes, that's right folks! It's another challenge thread for Nick!.

I'm flattered! I'm getting almost as much attention as Kent Hovind. Does this mean I have to go out and get arrested now?

Originally posted by Morat
  Nick said something very interesting

I always do.

Originally posted by Morat
What an interesting statement. I can read it one of three ways, depending on how charitable I am being towards Nick.

Given your propensity to criticize things like radio spots without actually listening to them, I feel lucky when you actually read something you are about to comment on, let alone treat it charitably.

Originally posted by Morat
1) Evolution isn't a science because it doesn't obey the scientific method in regards to observations being repeatable.

2) Evolution isn't a science because there is no evidence.

3) Evolution isn't a science because it's based only on naturalism.

 

  So, Nick, which one is it?

None of the above, although #1 comes closest. Evolution isn't science because you cannot apply the scientific method to it. You do not observe macroevolution, you cannot postulate that a single cell becomes a bandicoot and then reproduce those results in a lab, and then have others reproduce them independently to check your process and methodology. So it is not science, it is metaphysics.

So upon what is the evidence for macroevolution based if not science? Itself. One looks at evidence with the a-priori assumption that macroevolution is true. One then interprets the evidence in ways to explain how it fits into or modifies your notions about macroevolution. Then one concludes (duh) that the evidence supports macroevolution. But it isn't science to brainwash yourself into finding macroevolution wherever you look.

There's plenty of science in biology, for example, because you can observe and test your theories about biological processes. But as far as I can see, there isn't an ounce of science in macroevolution.

Morat · Sep 8, 2002

None of the above, although #1 comes closest. Evolution isn't science because you cannot apply the scientific method to it. You do not observe macroevolution, you cannot postulate that a single cell becomes a bandicoot and then reproduce those results in a lab, and then have others reproduce them independently to check your process and methodology. So it is not science, it is metaphysics.

  Then so is geology. No one has seen something like the Grand Canyon form, so geology must be metaphysics.

   And so is astronomy. No one has seen a star move from one stage to another, or seen the inside to know what's going on.

  Sadly, Nick, the problem here seems to be you don't understand science. As many people have pointed out to you, the observations need to be repeatable, not the event (or the process).

  You sadly can't seem to tell the difference. And you'd chunk most of science that way, too. I can't, offhand, think of a single field that would be even remotely whole under your 'version' of science.

 

 

npetreley · Sep 8, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  Then so is geology. No one has seen something like the Grand Canyon form, so geology must be metaphysics.

What a dim-witted set of straw men you've concocted. They're not even up to your own usual low standards.

Evolution is metaphysics not science, but the things that people say they use to study evolution are still science -- such as biology, etc. The same is true of geology and grandcanyonism (what would NOT be science if there was such a thing). Geology is science. But it doesn't mean you can use it to prove how the grand canyon formed. You can only imagine how it formed, since we were not there. That's why people still argue over whether or not the great flood had something to do with its formation and nobody can prove it either way.

Apply the same reasoning to the other straw men.

Morat · Sep 8, 2002

Evolution is metaphysics not science,

  My 6 year old repeats himself too. Doesn't make him correct, of course. And your only 'reasoning' for this has been shown to be fallacious. You don't understand the scientific method.

but the things that people say they use to study evolution are still science -- such as biology, etc. The same is true of geology and grandcanyonism (what would NOT be science if there was such a thing). Geology is science. But it doesn't mean you can use it to prove how the grand canyon formed.

 

   Note the word "prove" in Nick's statement. It's very amusing a usuage, since Nick well knows that science cannot prove anything. Proof is for logic and math.  

 You can only imagine how it formed, since we were not there. That's why people still argue over whether or not the great flood had something to do with its formation and nobody can prove it either way.

    *snort*. So in your world, 'science' is a bloody heap of data, and no models, right?

   Goodness, what a useless field that would be.

   "Well, Doctor, we know each of the patients who died had millions of these bacteria in their system. Maybe the bacteria killed them?

  "Don't be stupid, Jim! That's just imagination talking!"

  *Hehe*. You're truly serioius, aren't you Nick? You actually are stating that formulating hypothesis and theories, which are the core and goal of science, are unscientific.

   That's funny.

 

DialecticMaterialist · Sep 9, 2002

Geologists used to believe that North America was covered by forest, that there were lots of Bison on the great plains. That New York city was a forest. But since I cannot directly see those things, that must be speculation stemming from an' a priori' commitment to forrestism and bisonism. Metaphysics. All of it. New York used to be a forest? All I see is a city, who knows what it used to be, maybe it always was a city as is.

Notice that every observation made in geology quickly becomes a historical observation?

LewisWildermuth · Sep 9, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by s0uljah
If there is no design, then everything just happened, and there is no Designer.

Is God smart?

If God is smart, could He not come up with a simple set of rules and just start the universe and let it do the mundane work for him?

We do that every day in science, are we now smarter than God?

I don't thing so... It does not shake my faith to think of God being so smart that he could start something and leave it alone and still get what He wanted. Why does that shake your faith so much?

Still waiting an answer...

Finrod · Sep 10, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
Which could just be indicative of a common design, but you will simply say, "it is a bad design", which may indicate there is no design, but if not, why are you a Christian exactly?   Do you think God created everything but just let it run wild?  Just curious?

 

Rhetorics. Ockham's Razor knocks this down.

Science and Naturalism: The Nick Challenge.

Untitled One

God Made Me A Skeptic

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Based on a True Story

Forever England

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

True love waits in haunted attics

Senior Veteran

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Active Member

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Dubyah's Evil Twin

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g