Then a Miracle Occurs...

[Valkhorn]

Science is a means to determine how something happens through entirely naturalistic processes. Science cannot involve anything which is untestable or unfalsifiable - i.e. anything supernatural.

The above cartoon is a very good example why we cannot invoke the supernatural or miracles in a scientific explaination. It can basically stand for anything and link anything together. Say for example we wanted to show that Monkeys give birth to Pineapples. We all know this is not the case, but by invoking the supernatural we can clearly show that they do:

1. Monkeys exist and some give birth
2. A miracle or supernatural influence happens
3. Pineapples appear
4. Therefore monkeys must give birth to pineapples through supernatural or divine influence.

Of course you can show anything can happen this way, even the most impossible thing you can think of. Using the supernatural or divine influence can explain away anything and in doing so explains absolutely nothing.

You cannot test anything miraculous or supernatural. You cannot show it to exist or not exist. You cannot test it, or predict it, or use it to produce predictable results.

So, why is it that we have posters that think that science MUST include their particular interpretation of their religion? Why is it that we have posters who feel that science must somehow involve miracles occuring to explain things?

Do they not realize that putting in a miracle as a missing step will explain nothing and allow for a myriad of other explainations equally as plausible? It's a variable which can stand for anything, and can be used to explain anything unexplainable without explaining anything at all.

If you are a Creationist out there who feels that you must include the miraculous or supernatural in the steps of scientific inquiry, why? And how can you show that it is even needed if you cannot measure it tangibly or use it to predict anything?

​

 

[Valkhorn]

Bumping because it doesn't seem creationists want to even look at this.

 

[TheGnome]

It's obvious: they have a monopoly on the Truth.

 

[BoneVulture]

I must admit, the last paragraph of the OP makes me yearn for answers from creationists as well.

... Would receiving a rational reply from a creationist be considered.. a miracle?

 

[Abongil]

Hmm... bump.

 

[Valkhorn]

I must admit, the last paragraph of the OP makes me yearn for answers from creationists as well.

I admit, I seeded it that way

... Would receiving a rational reply from a creationist be considered.. a miracle?

Since most creationists arrived at their conclusions irrationally, rational argument seldom works - but it's worth a shot.

 

[fromdownunder]

I have no problems with Creationists who simply say that God did it - it was a miracle, and leave it at that.

It is when pseudo-scientific explanations such as "flood science" (notably Woodmarappe, Morris, Hovind and many others) get put on the table, but still require a God of the Gaps, and use miracles to fill those gaps, I begin to see issues.

Why attempt to use science for the parts that "agree" (for want of a better word) with science, and then invoke "miracles", for the bits that cannot be scientifically explained?

I have seen attempted scientific explanations for the Egypt plagues, the entire Exodus story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gommoragh, the "eclipse" the day Jesus was crucified...dozens of others, and none of them stand up. Attempts to do this create more problems than they solve.

Stick to miracles.

Norm

 

[Dr.GH]

The Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has refered to 1 Timothy 1.7}

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Indeed- if you're going to use miracvles, why bother with any science at all? Why not just say "God solved all the problems"?

I must admit, I didn't previously appreciate a problem - but if you allow for a factory that can mean anything, then nothing has any meaning anymore.

In a supernatural world there is no more or less probable, or even any logic.
Creation science...

 

[Hydra009]

Indeed- if you're going to use miracles, why bother with any science at all?

Indeed.

It strikes me as odd that creationists attempt to denigrate science and scientists, then present the Bible and say that it is true because it is science.

 

[shernren]

Indeed- if you're going to use miracvles, why bother with any science at all? Why not just say "God solved all the problems"?

I must admit, I didn't previously appreciate a problem - but if you allow for a factory that can mean anything, then nothing has any meaning anymore.

In a supernatural world there is no more or less probable, or even any logic.
Creation science...

Agreed. And why on earth is "It's a miracle, your naturalistic presuppositions cannot deal with the evidence" often only trotted out after those "naturalistic presuppositions" have clearly shown the evidence to be inadequate?

For this reason, I often get the feeling that "miracles" (or its more technocratic name, "rejection of purely methodologically naturalistic presuppositions") are more of an "I can't win, but neither can you!" last-gasp measure thrown out more for the sake of winning an argument, than anything creationists really understand.

 

[JohnR7]

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics

Isn't the "nonsense" they were talking was that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around?

we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation

 

[Nathan Poe]

Isn't the "nonsense" they were talking was that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around?

Source?

 

[combatant]

Scientific method is a process of testing and observing the natural world. It is a process that is only able to be performed with static laws of the world; laws which are indicative of intelligence.

Detecting intelligent design within creatures is perfectly in line with science. No one is saying a miracle occurs today in order to explain anything. However, where intelligent design is the most likely answer, then we mustn't be afraid to admit that.

Evolutionism has innumerable things that are unexplained. There are massive gaps in the fossils, there are unexplained answers as to what exact mechanism evolutionism used, etc. BUT, they can fill in all their problems with specualtive conjecture, and "it-must-be's" because "we know evolutiondidit." Fanciful stories are not replacements for scientic facts. Thus, even though intelligent design is more feasible and logical, God can't exist (or create) to good scientific evolutionists, so evolutiondidit is the best possible answer, even though one really doesn't plausibly exist.

So just because evolutionary stories (or "hypothesis") don't include God, and are guesses which conform to the comfortable naturalism embedded in your mind, does not mean they are any more scientific. And no miracles are being involved in order to utilize scientific practices in order to see the logic of intelligent design within creatures.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Scientific method is a process of testing and observing the natural world. It is a process that is only able to be performed with static laws of the world; laws which are indicative of intelligence.

Only to those who do not understand the philosophical implications of physical laws.

Detecting intelligent design within creatures is perfectly in line with science. No one is saying a miracle occurs today in order to explain anything. However, where intelligent design is the most likely answer, then we mustn't be afraid to admit that.

First, ID mustn't be reluctant to do the science that shows their thesis "most likely."

Evolutionism has innumerable things that are unexplained.

Like why certain detractors engage in baseless rhetoric, using meaningless terms like "evolutionism."

There are massive gaps in the fossils, there are unexplained answers as to what exact mechanism evolutionism used, etc. BUT, they can fill in all their problems with specualtive conjecture, and "it-must-be's" because "we know evolutiondidit." Fanciful stories are not replacements for scientic facts.

I think its peerless integration of all the millions of facts already in evidence has to count for something.

Thus, even though intelligent design is more feasible and logical, God can't exist (or create) to good scientific evolutionists, so evolutiondidit is the best possible answer, even though one really doesn't plausibly exist.

What. Ever.

So just because evolutionary stories (or "hypothesis") don't include God, and are guesses which conform to the comfortable naturalism embedded in your mind, does not mean they are any more scientific. And no miracles are being involved in order to utilize scientific practices in order to see the logic of intelligent design within creatures.

You'll have to provide the relevant syllogism before concluding that ID is logical, I'm afraid.

 

[birdan]

Evolutionism has innumerable things that are unexplained. There are massive gaps in the fossils, there are unexplained answers as to what exact mechanism evolutionism used, etc. BUT, they can fill in all their problems with specualtive conjecture, and "it-must-be's" because "we know evolutiondidit." Fanciful stories are not replacements for scientic facts. Thus, even though intelligent design is more feasible and logical, God can't exist (or create) to good scientific evolutionists, so evolutiondidit is the best possible answer, even though one really doesn't plausibly exist.

Why do you single out evolution for this argument?

Physicsism has innumerable things that are unexplained. There are massive gaps between quantum and relativistic physicsism, there are unexplained answers as to what exact mechanism gravity uses, etc. BUT, they can fill in all their problems with specualtive conjecture, and "it-must-be's" because "we know physicsdidit." Fanciful stories are not replacements for scientic facts. Thus, even though intelligent design is more feasible and logical, God can't exist (or create) to good scientific physicists, so physicsdidit is the best possible answer, even though one really doesn't plausibly exist.

Your argument can be applied to any other area of the physical sciences; I simply repeated it for physics. I hope you can see two things from this example:

1. Divorced from the theosophic emotionalism of the evolution("ism") debate, the argument looks rather inane.

2. In areas of physics, as in evolution or any other field of science, when conflicts, discrepancies, "gaps", etc. arise, people acknowledge them and then investigate them. They don't say "physicsdidit" and leave it at that. However, in your scenario, one can say "intelligent design did it", and that's the end of the discussion, isn't it? A conclusion is reached, and therefore there is no need for further investigation. Thus intelligent design is an intellectual deadend.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why do you single out evolution for this argument?
Your argument can be applied to any other area of the physical sciences; I simply repeated it for physics. I hope you can see two things from this example:

1. Divorced from the theosophic emotionalism of the evolution("ism") debate, the argument looks rather inane.

2. In areas of physics, as in evolution or any other field of science, when conflicts, discrepancies, "gaps", etc. arise, people acknowledge them and then investigate them. They don't say "physicsdidit" and leave it at that. However, in your scenario, one can say "intelligent design did it", and that's the end of the discussion, isn't it? A conclusion is reached, and therefore there is no need for further investigation. Thus intelligent design is an intellectual deadend.

Exactly!

Since creationists don't trust evolutionary science, where is their argument with any other branch of science?

Maybe Intelligent Falling will become fashionable one day...

 

[JohnR7]

Source?

In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers wrote works based on the geocentric model. These were Plato and his student Aristotle. According to Plato, the Earth was a sphere, at rest at the center of the universe. The stars and planets were carried around the Earth on spheres or circles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.( Augustine)

The "orbit" of the stars? Does Augustine mean the orbit of the stars around the earth?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The "orbit" of the stars? Does Augustine mean the orbit of the stars around the earth?

Hmmm... If Augustine had something specific in mind, he'd most likely have singled it out. Seems more like he's speaking of cosmology in general.

Good thing too -- he'd look pretty foolish using the Bible to support geocentricism.

 

[Biologist]

The "orbit" of the stars? Does Augustine mean the orbit of the stars around the earth?

Those were philosophers, they start with "logic" and assume what will happen in an observation. Science conforms logic to match the observations. Plus, you bringing examples from 24 centuries ago is a very good example of how poor your evidence is.