Why does science rule out a Creator?

[oncelost]

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[oncelost]

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?

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[oncelost]

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.

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[gluadys]

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?

 

[philadiddle]

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.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[BrendanMark]

Science indicates the origin of the cosmos from a singularity, where all laws of science break down completely. So science itself cannot go beyond a certain "horizon" (Plank length has been the traditional marker) with any authority at all, let alone certainty.

The creator is the cause of physical existence, and cannot be tested scientifically. Science is indeed agnostic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science doesn't rule out a Creator. It just can't say anything about Him.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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.

Science does not rule out God. Instead, it assumes God is not the answer, because if it ever did except God (or anything supernatural for that matter) as the answer, it must end. That and the current track record for finding not supernatural explanations for issues.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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?

I think the difference is here.

Humans look for the origin of the Universe. Science looks for the natural origin of the universe. The way science works is like a recursively enumerable language. It can recognize all natural causes, but it just freezes up in an infinite loop on all non-natural clauses. It can never say something is not natural, in can only say something is natural.

The above may make a lot of sense if you really like computability theory and computational science.

 

[peace4ever]

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.

So why do scientists even look for alternatives to the biblical account of creation? In fact, since they have to make up stories that don't happen in reality and that no one in history has passed along, like claiming that monkeys turned into people, then why do it?

They also totally and completely ignore the accounts of over 200 ancient people fo a global flood along with the sedimentary rock layers all over the world that prove a global flood, along with new evidence of ancient sea animals on the tops of mountains, and again, make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has passed along. The evidence wreaks of a global flood yet they ignore that.

So as Jesus says; "He who is not with me is against me." He makes no distinction between atheists and agnostics. One either believes Jesus or he doesn't.

 

[Mallon]

So why do scientists even look for alternatives to the biblical account of creation? In fact, since they have to make up stories that don't happen in reality and that no one in history has passed along, like claiming that monkeys turned into people, then why do it?

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No scientist has ever claimed that humans are descendants of monkeys. The theory is that we share a common ancestor with monkeys.
Perhaps the reason why you think evolution doesn't happen in reality is because you have an unrealistic concept of evolution?

They also totally and completely ignore the accounts of over 200 ancient people fo a global flood

Did these ancient people happen to live along swollen river banks and flood plains?

along with the sedimentary rock layers all over the world that prove a global flood

Sediments are being deposited all around the world right now! Is your house under water?

along with new evidence of ancient sea animals on the tops of mountains

Ancient sea animals aren't just found on the tops of mountains, they are found in the mountains. How does a global flood explain that?

and again, make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has passed along.

Did you know that most creationist organizations, including AiG, accept ice ages? In fact, they try to work it into their global flood scenarios.

 

[Anna Scott]

I think Christians put far too much effort into trying to disprove certain scientific theories-especially evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design.

Since God is our Creator, He cannot be at odds with science, mathematics, geology or any other field of study. I believe God could have created us in a moment or by evolution.

If there is an apparent conflict between Science and the Bible, then either we are not interpreting the Bible correctly, or Science has made a false assumption.

We experience God in the Spiritual realm. Science deals with the physical realm. I don't believe Genesis was intended to be a book about science. I think Genesis tells us about the human relationship with God, mankind-and all of God's creation. It reveals the origin of sin and the need for reconciliation with God.

I read about 500 pages of court manuscripts regarding the trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. I was shocked by what I read.

What I am about to say now is my own impression of what I read in those 500 pages of that court case: Several of those who called themselves Christians appeared to have committed blatant perjury, and finally had to admit the truth on the stand. At one point it got so bad the Judge took over the questioning. This was not our finest hour as Christians.

In the end, upon cross examination, Michael Behe’s claims about the Theory of Intelligent Design fell apart, along with his credibility (this is my opinion.) Behe admitted, under oath, basically that the definition of a scientific theory would have to be changed, for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory.

Too often, we let other Christians tell us things without checking it out ourselves-very dangerous. Then we lose credibility.

I think we should leave science to the scientists. We need to deal with the spiritual issues and concentrate on walking with Christ.

 

[chilehed]

Why does science rule out a Creator?....

It doesn't. That's a philosophical presupposition that's not actually supportable by science.

 

[Mago]

it doesn't...

but, about origins.. origins of what? life and planets are free game... the origins of the universe isn't...

however, there are no current theories regarding the origins of the universe. the big bang expains the evolution of the current universe. not evolution as in the theori of evolution, but the developent... but, it says nothing about how the universe came into existance...

 

[LightSeaker]

Science does not make comment one way or another about a Creator. As others have stated, science is agnostic.

.