Understanding Intelligent Design From a Biblical Perspective
With all of the hype surround Intelligent Design these days, some basic statements need to be made to help Christians solidify an understanding of what is happening. What is going on in that Pennsylvania courtroom we keep hearing about on the news? How does this affect me as a Christian parent seeking to educate my child upon the foundations of Scripture? How will this entire debate affect how we do science? How will it affect our nation as a whole? I want to make four statements of clarification that I hope are helpful in moving the Christian mind toward a better understanding.
Faith can be logical and still be true faith.
Those who are against teaching ID in the classroom (alongside evolution) as a possible theory for the origin of life, postulate that faith has no place in the classroom. They say that faith is not based on logic or material evidence. I disagree. Now, faith can merely be the belief in something apart from evidence, but it does not have to be. For example, I might believe that I am going to win the gold medal in swimming at the Olympics in 2008. But I have never swam in a competition in my life and I am severely out of shape. So I can have faith that I will win all day long, but it is illogical faith based on absolutely nothing.
On the other hand, I might have faith that Michael Phelps will win the gold medal. He has already won a number of them. He is training with great passion and vigor. It is faith, yes, since it is still future and has not happened, but it is faith based on logic and material evidence. Christianity is the latter type of faith. It is based on the fact that Christianity answers more questions about reality than any other system of thought.
My point is this: ID is not a mere illogical attempt to get God back in the classroom. In fact, in a moment you will see that ID has absolutely nothing to do with faith, but is in a reality an attempt at pure science.
Science need not exclude persons to still be science.
In an interview with one of the parents who is suing the Dover School System in Pennsylvania for mentioning ID alongside evolution, this mother said matter-of-factly, “Science is about ‘what,’ not about ‘who.’” What about this scenario: suppose an archeologist finds an arrowhead while on a dig? Is this scientist ever allowed to ask “who?” This woman’s remarks are clearly illogical! Of course, we have to ask “who” if and when a possible “who” is involved! Science begins with observing data. If the observation reveals even the slightest possibility of design, than science demands that we ask the question “who.”
ID is not about faith. It is about beginning with data and coming to conclusions about that data. ID scientists have shown many times over that the universe itself, cell structures, complexities of systems within the human body (the eye or the ear, for example), and a host of other phenomenon reveals the strong possibility of design. It is a mockery to true science to say that we cannot explore that possibility because of the possible “religious overtones” that are involved. To do that would be to allow culture to determine scientific principles. The whole purpose of science is to pursue the truth. If a particular item appears to have design, than science demands that we ask “who?”
Intelligent Design seeks to be pure science and not biblical Creationism.
Those who have control of the definitions of “science,” and close-mindedly accept evolution as true, continuously postulate that ID is not pure science, but rather Creationism in disguise. I emphatically disagree. ID is not biblical Creationism. ID makes absolutely no guess as to the nature of the designer, but just that the evidence points to one. ID scientists make the observations and hypothesis, but they (if they understand their discipline) should leave the explanation of this designer to philosophers and theologians. ID’s job is to observe the data and make hypotheses and theories, which they do.
What the evolutionists fear is that teaching ID will aid the various religions, and in fact, they are right. Students will not be taught to be closed-minded, and might explore the possibility of God or some divine being. This will invariable lead to the seeking of answers and might lead these people to the church or other house of worship. BUT that is not the goal of ID. Think about it. If Naturalism is believed to be true, then people will certainly behave a certain way in light of it. Some people, for example understand that man is merely an animal and the survival of the fittest, etc., and so they take over a country (Hitler for example) and kill lots of people based on those views. Now the Naturalist scientist did not set out to put a Hitler in charge, but it was a natural consequence of their scientific work. Likewise, ID is not out to grow the church, even though that might be a consequence of their findings. But who cares? The point of science is to find the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Allowing Intelligent Design to be taught can be highly beneficial to the church’s mission.
This being the case, the church needs to be asking the Lord in prayer to allow a victory in Pennsylvania. If ID is allowed to be taught alongside evolution, than at the very least, students sitting in the classroom will not be forced to believe that there is only one possible theory to the origin of life (which stifles true science). To be sure, they will not be getting the Bible, they will not be getting the message of salvation, and they will not be getting the full truth of Creation as described in Genesis 1-2, but they will be getting the possibility of a designer, which might open possible doors for evangelism.
Furthermore, Christian parents who cannot afford private schools or home-schooling can take comfort that their children will be exposed to some form of science that allows for the possibility of a designer. In other words, there will be less to correct when the kids come home from school.
As you can see, the opportunity to teach ID in the classroom can be highly beneficial for believers, both in the realm of providing better science (closer to the truth) and in the realm of opening more minds with the hope of reaching them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope these four points of clarification help.
Faith can be logical and still be true faith.
Those who are against teaching ID in the classroom (alongside evolution) as a possible theory for the origin of life, postulate that faith has no place in the classroom. They say that faith is not based on logic or material evidence. I disagree. Now, faith can merely be the belief in something apart from evidence, but it does not have to be. For example, I might believe that I am going to win the gold medal in swimming at the Olympics in 2008. But I have never swam in a competition in my life and I am severely out of shape. So I can have faith that I will win all day long, but it is illogical faith based on absolutely nothing.
On the other hand, I might have faith that Michael Phelps will win the gold medal. He has already won a number of them. He is training with great passion and vigor. It is faith, yes, since it is still future and has not happened, but it is faith based on logic and material evidence. Christianity is the latter type of faith. It is based on the fact that Christianity answers more questions about reality than any other system of thought.
My point is this: ID is not a mere illogical attempt to get God back in the classroom. In fact, in a moment you will see that ID has absolutely nothing to do with faith, but is in a reality an attempt at pure science.
Science need not exclude persons to still be science.
In an interview with one of the parents who is suing the Dover School System in Pennsylvania for mentioning ID alongside evolution, this mother said matter-of-factly, “Science is about ‘what,’ not about ‘who.’” What about this scenario: suppose an archeologist finds an arrowhead while on a dig? Is this scientist ever allowed to ask “who?” This woman’s remarks are clearly illogical! Of course, we have to ask “who” if and when a possible “who” is involved! Science begins with observing data. If the observation reveals even the slightest possibility of design, than science demands that we ask the question “who.”
ID is not about faith. It is about beginning with data and coming to conclusions about that data. ID scientists have shown many times over that the universe itself, cell structures, complexities of systems within the human body (the eye or the ear, for example), and a host of other phenomenon reveals the strong possibility of design. It is a mockery to true science to say that we cannot explore that possibility because of the possible “religious overtones” that are involved. To do that would be to allow culture to determine scientific principles. The whole purpose of science is to pursue the truth. If a particular item appears to have design, than science demands that we ask “who?”
Intelligent Design seeks to be pure science and not biblical Creationism.
Those who have control of the definitions of “science,” and close-mindedly accept evolution as true, continuously postulate that ID is not pure science, but rather Creationism in disguise. I emphatically disagree. ID is not biblical Creationism. ID makes absolutely no guess as to the nature of the designer, but just that the evidence points to one. ID scientists make the observations and hypothesis, but they (if they understand their discipline) should leave the explanation of this designer to philosophers and theologians. ID’s job is to observe the data and make hypotheses and theories, which they do.
What the evolutionists fear is that teaching ID will aid the various religions, and in fact, they are right. Students will not be taught to be closed-minded, and might explore the possibility of God or some divine being. This will invariable lead to the seeking of answers and might lead these people to the church or other house of worship. BUT that is not the goal of ID. Think about it. If Naturalism is believed to be true, then people will certainly behave a certain way in light of it. Some people, for example understand that man is merely an animal and the survival of the fittest, etc., and so they take over a country (Hitler for example) and kill lots of people based on those views. Now the Naturalist scientist did not set out to put a Hitler in charge, but it was a natural consequence of their scientific work. Likewise, ID is not out to grow the church, even though that might be a consequence of their findings. But who cares? The point of science is to find the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Allowing Intelligent Design to be taught can be highly beneficial to the church’s mission.
This being the case, the church needs to be asking the Lord in prayer to allow a victory in Pennsylvania. If ID is allowed to be taught alongside evolution, than at the very least, students sitting in the classroom will not be forced to believe that there is only one possible theory to the origin of life (which stifles true science). To be sure, they will not be getting the Bible, they will not be getting the message of salvation, and they will not be getting the full truth of Creation as described in Genesis 1-2, but they will be getting the possibility of a designer, which might open possible doors for evangelism.
Furthermore, Christian parents who cannot afford private schools or home-schooling can take comfort that their children will be exposed to some form of science that allows for the possibility of a designer. In other words, there will be less to correct when the kids come home from school.
As you can see, the opportunity to teach ID in the classroom can be highly beneficial for believers, both in the realm of providing better science (closer to the truth) and in the realm of opening more minds with the hope of reaching them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope these four points of clarification help.
29 Comments:
>> true science
What is true science?
"What is true science?"
For the purpose of this argument, true science would merely be regarded as following every possible pursuit of enquiry. To the extent Naturalists will not allow the possibilty of supernatural causes, they stop the scientific process. True science, in other words, searches for truth at all costs, even if the truth is a designer.
More specifically and bearing in mind that this post was written to Christian believers, from the solidly biblical perspective, true science is "thinking God's thoughts after Him." Since God is ultimate reality, the center of all things, who holds all things together, and who does all things for His own glory, then true science always interprets data in light of those facts.
>> this post was written to Christian believers
(Taking no offense) I didn't realize that skeptics were not included in the intended audience. If at anytime you would like me to stop posting, just say so.
>> To the extent Naturalists will not allow the possibilty of supernatural causes, they stop the scientific process.
Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and deductions to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses. - Wikipedia
Scientists cannot test things that exist outside of our natural world. So, by including supernatural causes, the scientific process is stopped.
Your definition of 'true science' is very different from the definition of 'science'. Encyclopedia: Science
The definition of science that you linked reads as follows:
Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge;
This may surprise you, but there is no conflict between this definition and ID. ID is a reasoned investigation of nature which is aimed at finding the truth. The search is methodical. Looking, for example, at the irreducible complexity argument, the question that arises is not from a precommitment to theism, but from the nature of the evidence. The complexity of the most simple of cells is so vast as to defy naturalistic explanation.
As Jason points out, if ID is not scientifically "methodological" than neither is archaeology. It is the blind adherence to the idea that there must be a naturalistic explanation for every phenomenon we see in nature that is not "aimed at finding the truth", but rather aimed at supporting a particular world view.
>> This may surprise you, but there is no conflict between this definition and ID.
If ID was successful in employing the scientific method to provide emperical evidence that there is a creator... that creator could not be supernatural. It would have to be natural (as stated above, scientific method cannot be used to test things that exist outside our natural world).
So, if you are right about ID using scientific method, and ID manages to come up with evidence supporting a desiger - that would only show that the designer was a natural being. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, don't theists believe that God is supernatural?
monster zero,
So, you are saying that unless you can identify the creator, you cannot identify that something is created? I have a paperweight in front of me and I have no who made it, but I am certain based upon its appearance that it was made by someone. Have I somehow come to an inappropriate conclusion?
Also, your second paragraph misunderstands the nature of ID. It takes no position on who the designer is. It could be LGMs from Cygnus-5, for all we know. As far as I can tell, ID does not stand for the proposition that the designer is God, the Christian god or even (necessarily) a supernatural being. It looks at the evidence and says: "this looks created because it is impossible that it could have arisen by the mechanism of chance." Do you have a problem with that?
>> So, you are saying that unless you can identify the creator, you cannot identify that something is created
This is not about my opinion. To identify that something was created (by an intelligence), yes, using the scientific method, we would have to identify the creator. How else could we test it?
If you find a paperweight, you can say that it was created because you can identify the creators. Humans make paperweights... so you can deduce that it was 'created' by humans.
>> this looks created because it is impossible that it could have arisen by the mechanism of chance
Obviously I have a problem with that. Just because something is complicated does not mean that it was created. Just my opinion. If ID was to provide solid evidence that we were created by some other intelligence, I would be the first to congratulate them. How extraordinary it would be to discover that we are a mechanism, designed by some other being(s).
In the meantime, I'm sure the scientific community will employ the same skepticism toward ID that they have been in the past months. Although you say that ID is not religious in nature... I find very few scientists, and almost all theists endorsing it.
"In the meantime, I'm sure the scientific community will employ the same skepticism toward ID that they have been in the past months. Although you say that ID is not religious in nature... I find very few scientists, and almost all theists endorsing it."
This is simply not true as evidenced by the existence of the Discovery Institute. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Here is a quote from that website.
"Since Discovery Institute first published its statement of dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 300 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Such prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others."
A complete list of more than 400 credentialed scientists who doubt Darwin can be found here. http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm
So the truth is, there are many scientists who are seriously dissenting.
Let me add to what Jason said: the reason that many scientists aren't endorsing it is largely because of the works of the popularizers of science who make the claim that ID is creaionism in disguise. It isn't, but the claim is made and causes many people to dismiss it out of hand.
Add to that the fear of reprisal that other scientists have admittedly held prior to agreeing that ID is a legitimate scientific viewpoint, it is no wonder that most scientists don't accept it. They don't really know it, and if they did accept it they would be afraid of reprisals.
Jason >> So the truth is, there are many scientists who are seriously dissenting.
Your original post was concerning how science organizations have generally turned their backs on ID. So, do you feel that scientists support ID or are turning their backs on it?
The only thing that should be of any concern in this whole discussion is whether or not ID passes the scrutiny of the scientific method. If it does, so be it (any new scientific discovery should be celebrated). If not, will you continue to be so adamant in support of it?
On a side note: if ID is correct, and it turns out that we were created by (anything other than the Christian God), wouldn't that be a huge blow to Christianity?
Monster zero,
On your last question, the answer is yes. But then, Christians are more interested in the truth than Darwinists are. :)
"Your original post was concerning how science organizations have generally turned their backs on ID. So, do you feel that scientists support ID or are turning their backs on it?"
Sorry for the confusion. The distinction is that those scientists who control the accepted popular definitions and principles of science (through universities and popular media) have by and large turned their backs on ID - which makes it appear that ALL scientists have. My point is that there are many who consider ID a viable option.
"The only thing that should be of any concern in this whole discussion is whether or not ID passes the scrutiny of the scientific method. If it does, so be it (any new scientific discovery should be celebrated). If not, will you continue to be so adamant in support of it?"
Agreed. It appears to me and many other logically thinking people, including many scientists that ID not only passes the scrutiny of the scientific method (not methodological naturalism, which stifles science), but also surpasses Darwin's theory. If it is proven wrong, I will not change my position - Biblical Creationism, which I accept by faith in the Word of God, not based on any other evidence. No matter what puny human scientists on either side do, I trust in the Word of God.
"On a side note: if ID is correct, and it turns out that we were created by (anything other than the Christian God), wouldn't that be a huge blow to Christianity?"
I'll emphasize again that ID scientists are not looking for a specific designer. They are only saying that via science (observation of data), it appears that many things appearing in nature are better explained by postulating a designer than mere natural processes. To be totally hypothetical - if some other designer were discovered in this process (say the aliens referred to earlier), then sure, it could be a blow to Christianity. Interestingly, as I said in my previous statement, I still would hold my position firmly - Biblical Creationism, assuming that God had some reason behind the scenes that I could not see. This is the attitude of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the book of Daniel. Even if God did not deliver them, they still would love and worship Him. This is what we as God's people are called to do.
>> I accept by faith in the Word of God, not based on any other evidence
So, if ID (which you are currently advocating) manages to succeed in providing concrete evidence that a creator exists (and because they used scientific methods to find this evidence deduce that the creator is not the Christian God) you will withdraw your support because the findings would not be compatible with Biblical Creationism?
To put it more simply: despite scientific evidence, you would disbelieve if the evidence didn't coincide with your religious beliefs?
"To put it more simply: despite scientific evidence, you would disbelieve if the evidence didn't coincide with your religious beliefs?"
Exactly. One reason why - I do not trust any human's ability to properly understand the "evidence," but I do trust that God has spoken through His Word. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). For me, ID could be good, in the sense that it points people somewhat towards the right direction. But I will never budge on the truth revealed in God's Word that He, and no other, created the earth and heavens - Genesis 1:1.
ID is beneficial in that it does not start there, where I start and where most Christians start, that is, with God's revelation of Himself through Christ and His Word. It starts on the other end of the spectrum, with evidence and seeks to do science and that science indicates that there may indeed be a "somebody" there.
Why do I care, considering my position? Becuase if ID is given credibility than more people will be open to the truth when Christians inform them of their lost condition and need for a Savior and what Christ did on the cross. To me, the good of ID is to open student's minds to other possibilities than the Naturalistic system offers (which cannot be much more than Nihilism).
"...a huge blow to Christianity?" This question is as speculative as Darwinism itself. The Christian faith is historical and evidential. The evidence points to a designer and the Word of God affirms Him as follows: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
>> This question is as speculative as Darwinism itself.
Both evolution and ID are speculative by definition (speculative). They are theories.
I'm not sure how my question about the potential harm to Christianity is speculative...
Actually, it's more speculative than evolution. For at least, evolutionists deal in physical reality, even if it presupposes antisupernaturalism. "To be totally hypothetical - if some other designer were discovered in this process (say the aliens referred to earlier)", is 'man on the moon', 'pie in the sky' speculation. Evolutionists avoid the question by fixing the criteria, namely matter created itself. Talk of aliens goes outside the box to avoid the ultimate question itself: What would you do with Jesus? Matt 27:22 Jesus is the rock Matt 16:16-18 If there is an is there had to have been a was and as ID proves greater than matter itself.
I do not understand.
monster zero said...
This is not about my opinion. To identify that something was created (by an intelligence), yes, using the scientific method, we would have to identify the creator. How else could we test it?
If you are right, then the SETI program that searches for radio signals from alien civilizations is not science. You are indeed assuming too much. We need not have to know much about the exact nature of an intelligent designer in order to identify his/its existence. We know what the marks of intelligent design are. WE are familiar with them everyday, and these marks allow for the fruitful work of forensic sciences like archaeology and SETI. If I identify some phenomena as having been intelligently designed, my not being able to tell you much else about who or what the designer is, does not change my initial discovery.
As for for your contention that the intellignet designer of the universe--if we found one--would have to be a natural entity, this is a blatant non-sequitor which does not think through the in\mplications of the issue at hand. If the universe as a whole, say, is found to be the result of intelligent design (e.g., b/c the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants cannot be due to chance), then the designer surely cannot be a part of the space-time universe. He must transcend it. That opens the door for the designer possibly being a supernatural being. If you say that won't work because we can;t investigate a supernatural being, then what would you say if the designer were a natural being from, say, an alternate universe? He would be natural (in some sense), but he would be no more capable of being investigated!
>> As for for your contention that the intellignet designer of the universe--if we found one--would have to be a natural entity, this is a blatant non-sequitor which does not think through the in\mplications of the issue at hand
I'll try one more time: If you are using SCIENCE to find it, it would have to be a natural entity (as per the definition of science).
monster zero said. . .
I'll try one more time: If you are using SCIENCE to find it, it would have to be a natural entity (as per the definition of science).
Well now, it is the definition of science that we are debating--so you cannot appeal to some alleged definition of science as a trump card to squelch the opposition. For what it is worth, most philosophers if science (most notably spelled out by Larry Laudan and J.P. Moreland) have shown that there simply is no universally accepted definition of science and that attempts to demarcate science from other disciplines (like theology) have all failed miserably, employing criteria that either rule out legitimate areas of science or including disciplines that are not science.
So, one more time, tell us _why_ (without appealing to your own question-begging definition of science) science cannot discover a non-natural cause for natural phenomena? More simply, tell us why it is that a scientist, in looking for an explanation for some natural phenomena, just cannot discern that the best explanation for those phenomena is something outside the natural world?
As stated above:
Scientists cannot test things that exist outside of our natural world. So, by including supernatural causes, the scientific process is stopped.
Why isn't this clear?
monster zero said. . .
Scientists cannot test things that exist outside of our natural world. So, by including supernatural causes, the scientific process is stopped.
I can grant your premise here, but deny your implied conclusion. You are absolutely right that once one recognizes that the cause of some natural phenomenon is a supernatural intelligence, science can go no further (Jason himself made this or a similar point earlier when he remarked that ID theorist don't claim to be able to penetrate scientifically into the precise nature of the designer). But it doesn't follow that science and scientists cannot, through scientific investigation, arrive at the conclusion that a supernatural intelligence exists and is in fact the best explanation for the phenomenon in question. What's the problem?
>> But it doesn't follow that science and scientists cannot, through scientific investigation, arrive at the conclusion that a supernatural intelligence exists and is in fact the best explanation for the phenomenon in question. What's the problem?
If science cannot test supernatural things how could scientists ever use the scientific method to come to ANY conclusions about a supernatural intelligence?
Interestingly, one could argue that if scientists uncovered evidence of an intelligence that created us (using the scientific method), it could not be supernatural (because it would be testable and thus have to exist in our natural world).
We seem to keep going in these semantic circles (mostly about the definition of science). You've also acused me of using faulty definitions. I assure you, they are not my own. I'm using wikipedia, dictionary.com, m-w.com. I figured that these were pretty standard, and would provide fair and balanced definitions. I'm sorry you disagree.
monster zero said...
We seem to keep going in these semantic circles (mostly about the definition of science). You've also acused me of using faulty definitions. I assure you, they are not my own. I'm using wikipedia, dictionary.com, m-w.com. I figured that these were pretty standard, and would provide fair and balanced definitions. I'm sorry you disagree.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that dictionaries have some kind of intrinsic authority. You forget that dictionaries are written by fallible human beings and sometimes those human beings have biases and prejudices that affect how they define terms. No doubt the definition in wikipedia was written by a methodological naturalist. But, this is precisely the problem! You seem unware that the definition of "science" is a hotly debated topic among philosophers of science and has been for many decades (and this is not just a debate among the religious and non-religious, but among philosophers and scientists of all stripes).
All of this means that you simply cannot settle the debate we are having by quoting some dictionary. You must support your views (i.e. your definition of science) with arguments. We may seem to be going in semantic circles, but that's partly because you appear to think that you can beat the opposition by quoting a dictionary.
If science cannot test supernatural things how could scientists ever use the scientific method to come to ANY conclusions about a supernatural intelligence?
I think perhaps here we really do have a semantic confusion that is causing us to talk past each other. What do you mean when you say "scientists cannot test supernatural things"? Do you mean:
(1) scientists cannot perform experimental tests on a supernatural being?
Or:
(2) scientists cannot perform experimental tests (on natural things) that lead them to the conclusion that a supernatural being exists?
If you mean (1), then I readily concede your point, but it hardly leads to the conclusion that science can't discover the existence of a supernatural being. If you mean (2), then it would imply your conclusion, but I would question its truth. I can see no reason why (2) is true. Can you give me one?
Interestingly, one could argue that if scientists uncovered evidence of an intelligence that created us (using the scientific method), it could not be supernatural (because it would be testable and thus have to exist in our natural world).
The same ambiguity besets your use of "testable" here as in your previous paragraph. And this makes your argument either invalid or unsound. When you say "because it would be testable and thus have to exist in the natural world" do you mean:
(3) because scientists would be able to perform experimental tests on it and it would thus have to exist in the natrural world?
Or:
(4) because scientists would be able to perform experimental tests on natural things that led them to the conclusion that this supernatural being exists?
But,(1) is false. The fact that there is empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural designer (i.e., there are effects in the world attributable to a supernatural being) does not provide any reason to think that that designer must itself be subject to experimental tests--anymore than our discovery of ETs sending radio signals picked up by SETI means that we would be able to perform test on those ETs.
And (2) I would admit is true, but it does not lead to your conclusion.
BTW, if we want to be precise, neither natural nor supernatural beings are tested or testable by scientists. Hypotheses are tested. And I can see no reason why the following hypothesis cannot be tested by scientists: the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
>>And I can see no reason why the following hypothesis cannot be tested by scientists: the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
Okay, we disagree.
From my perspective you are saying: Scientists are able to test for evidence of the supernatural in our natural world. That evidence would be natural (it would have to be, because the scientists found it, right)? So what tests exactly would they be performing to come to the conclusion that some natural thing had been in contact with some supernatural thing?
Does it have pixie dust on it?
monster zero said...
From my perspective you are saying: Scientists are able to test for evidence of the supernatural in our natural world. That evidence would be natural (it would have to be, because the scientists found it, right)? So what tests exactly would they be performing to come to the conclusion that some natural thing had been in contact with some supernatural thing?
The tests that the ID theorists are proposing. For example, specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity in biological organisms (BTW, these are precisely the criteria used by SETI). In cosmology, we can point to the incredible fine-tuning of the universe for life and show that appealsto chance are implausible.
So... these organisms are so complicated that supernatural entities must have interacted with them?
I can understand saying: this is so complicated that it must have been created, but even so... we are talking about the supernatural.
I know nothing about SETI, nor how it applies to a supernatual creator, sorry.
ON ANOTHER NOTE:
When I first started posting here, it was because I was interested in you (as in Steve and Jason). You both seem to be passionate and interesting individuals, who hold a COMPLETELY different worldview than my own. I was interested in getting into discussions with you to test my own convictions. I figured that if you were so passionate about your ideas, maybe there was something I was missing (and I could hopefully learn something).
Unfortunately, most of our conversations degraded into semantical arguments. I find that when discussing religion/beliefs/worldviews that people tend to speak from their own context. You say 'science' and mean something completely different than when I say 'science'. This makes any conversation difficult, and I have given up hope that we can come to terms that we can agree upon.
I wish you and Jason good luck in your endeavors!
You both seem to be passionate and interesting individuals, who hold a COMPLETELY different worldview than my own.
I think that gets to the crux of the issue doesn't it? A lot of people hold the world view that Jason and Steve have.. and why is it that our culture has decided that their worldview is wrong, and those like Monster Zero's are right and furthermore, neutral? This assumption is taken to the point of only allowing one worldview to be taught in our "neutral" public schools.
Post a Comment
<< Home