[_ Old Earth _] An interesting thought

[Barbarian]

et's see if we can find some common ground. I think we're essentially saying the same thing.
We can agree God exists but is immeasurable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about God.
We can agree miracles happen but aren't repeatable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about miracles.
We can agree humans have a soul. This isn't as straightforward because free will is being challenged, but I think we would agree science has nothing positive or negative to say about a soul.

Yes. There are some theologians who say that a soul is an epiphenomenon of a sentient nervous system, but although it may be involved in that, a soul is not morely an epiphenomenon of a nervous system. It cannot be explained in any naturalistic way.

Just curious, would you agree intelligent design theory qualifies as a scientific theory?

I've never seen a version of intelligent design that did not assume something beyond the reach of science. Can you show me one that does not? If so, it could very well be scientific.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think a possible indirect pathway to irreducible complexity is a death knell for the theory.

It merely demonstrates that irreducible complexity can evolve. Behe has already admitted in principle that it can. So apparently, this doesn't destroy his faith in ID. I'm not sure why.

I've never actually met anyone who was willing to talk about the nuts and bolts of the issue from an ID standpoint before this conversation. It's an interesting change.

 

[Jim Parker]

Let's see if we can find some common ground. I think we're essentially saying the same thing.
We can agree God exists but is immeasurable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about God.
We can agree miracles happen but aren't repeatable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about miracles.
We can agree humans have a soul. This isn't as straightforward because free will is being challenged, but I think we would agree science has nothing positive or negative to say about a soul.

Just curious, would you agree intelligent design theory qualifies as a scientific theory?

It's on the edge, IMO.
If one says that something appears to be impossible if it were not designed by some intelligence operating to cause it to happen, that would seem to be on the "science side" of the line.
If one says that something can only be explained by the action of some intelligence, then I think that has crossed the line outside of science and into a thinly disguised faith in creation. (ie: theology)
From the perspective of science, because we cannot explain how something happened does not demonstrate (prove) that "God did it." (Or some intelligent designer or space aliens, or the tooth fairy) All that science can say about something that cannot be explained by known processes is that we don't know how this came to be.
To the atheist, agnostic, etc., Intelligent Design is seen as an attempt to get creationism in the back door.

In my opinion, did God create everything? Absolutely. The Bible says so.
Can science tell us how it all happened? Nope. All science can "say" is, "we don't know." (yet)(we hope to figure it out...)


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Runner]

I've never seen a version of intelligent design that did not assume something beyond the reach of science. Can you show me one that does not? If so, it could very well be scientific.

I believe you're confused there. ID does not assume anything beyond the reach of science. ID allows for the possibility of explanations that do not fit within the paradigm of naturalistic materialism. Since science is by definition wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, it cannot even allow for the possibility.

ID seeks evidence for which the best explanation would seem to be an intelligent designer quite different from what evolution would be likely to produce. As the proponents of ID point out, the designer could well be something or someone who does not resemble any conventional notion of a God, let alone the God of Christianity. The very real possibility exists that we occupy a virtual reality and that the designer is some programmer at a higher level or dimension; this would still be ID to the nth degree.

ID proponents would simply say that when a body of evidence exists for which intelligent design seems to be the most plausible explanation, the paradigm must be expanded to allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. To remain wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, whereby the possibility of an intelligent designer is simply inadmissible, makes no sense in these circumstances.

A legitimate debate can be had and is being had as to whether evolutionary forces are capable of producing the results that ID proponents attribute to design or whether there is enough real evidence of design to require the paradigm of naturalistic materialism to be expanded, but I have read extensively in the ID literature and really don't believe the proponents are operating from any assumption that is more unreasonable than the countervailing assumption that "there is nothing beyond the reach of science."

Of course believers, including me, love ID. Of course many ID proponents, including me, have an explicitly Christian agenda. The opposite can be said of many proponents of naturalistic materialism. This really has no bearing on the validity of either paradigm.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe you're confused there. ID does not assume anything beyond the reach of science.

Well, let's take a look:

The self-professed "Governing Goal" of the guys who invented ID is:
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

So by their own admission it does. And then there's this, from the founder of ID, to a friendly audience:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
Philip Johnson
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

So again, this is a religious movement, whose backers hope to have an untestable religious doctrine installed as science.

Since science is by definition wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism,

No. You're confusing ontological naturalism (which is not science) with methodological naturalism, which is the way science works. The former says that there is nothing other than the material universe. The latter says that science can only address the physical universe, but does not rule out the supernatural. Science is the latter. This is why theists can do science.

it cannot even allow for the possibility.

Same confusion. You might as well accuse plumbing of ruling out God. Plumbing is also methodologically naturalistic, but like science, it is not ontologically naturalistic. So Christians can be plumbers with no contradictions.

As the proponents of ID point out, the designer could well be something or someone who does not resemble any conventional notion of a God, let alone the God of Christianity.

Hence the claim by IDers that God might be a mere "space alien." No, I don't think so.

Of course believers, including me, love ID.

Most believers don't buy it. It's that "maybe God isn't really God" thing.

And of course many people who accept the Christian concept of a transcendent and personal God, have no problems with science at all.

 

[Jim Parker]

ID allows for the possibility of explanations that do not fit within the paradigm of naturalistic materialism. Since science is by definition wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, it cannot even allow for the possibility.

Naturalism and materialism are philosophies.
Science, by definition, is not a philosophy. It is a process by which we examine the universe.
By labeling science "naturalistic materialism" you are using those terms in order to denigrate scientific endeavor.
By labeling science "naturalistic materialism" you reveal that you have "an axe to grind" which is more important than the accuracy of what you say.

Science deals with nature. That does not make science "naturalistic."
Science deals with matter. That does not make science materialistic.
Science deals with those things which can be examined and tested. Anything "supernatural" (outside of nature) is not available to be examined or tested, therefore, it is not possible to use science to understand it.

One cannot use a shovel to paint a Mona Lisa and or use science to examine God. That does not reduce science to a speculative, naturalistic materialism; it just means that science is the wrong tool to learn about God. (But the right tool to learn about nature.)

That is not to say that scripture and science do not intersect from time to time. To me, Gen 1:1-3 sounds very much like the "Big Bang Theory".
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The "kernel" from which the universe would spring.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
That sounds like the "Big Bang."
Explosions give off light.
There was no medium through which sound waves could be propagated.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Vaccine]

Yes. There are some theologians who say that a soul is an epiphenomenon of a sentient nervous system, but although it may be involved in that, a soul is not morely an epiphenomenon of a nervous system. It cannot be explained in any naturalistic way.

I agree with that. There are some like Sam Harris that will still try in purely materialistic terms though.

I've never seen a version of intelligent design that did not assume something beyond the reach of science. Can you show me one that does not? If so, it could very well be scientific.

The theory is only concerned with detecting design, whether the design in nature is real. Our government already funds this, the people at SETI think they can determine an intelligent radio signal from a non-intelligent one.

 

[Vaccine]

It's on the edge, IMO.
If one says that something appears to be impossible if it were not designed by some intelligence operating to cause it to happen, that would seem to be on the "science side" of the line.
If one says that something can only be explained by the action of some intelligence, then I think that has crossed the line outside of science and into a thinly disguised faith in creation. (ie: theology)
From the perspective of science, because we cannot explain how something happened does not demonstrate (prove) that "God did it." (Or some intelligent designer or space aliens, or the tooth fairy) All that science can say about something that cannot be explained by known processes is that we don't know how this came to be.
To the atheist, agnostic, etc., Intelligent Design is seen as an attempt to get creationism in the back door.

In my opinion, did God create everything? Absolutely. The Bible says so.
Can science tell us how it all happened? Nope. All science can "say" is, "we don't know." (yet)(we hope to figure it out...)


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

I'd agree with that. With regard to historical sciences it's an inference to the best explanation, so it's not 100%. Intelligent design theory is only concerned with detecting design, it makes no comment about the designer. The atheists misapply a reductio ad absurdum argument thinking ID theory attempts to identify a designer when it only seeks a cause.

 

[Vaccine]

It merely demonstrates that irreducible complexity can evolve. Behe has already admitted in principle that it can. So apparently, this doesn't destroy his faith in ID. I'm not sure why.

It's possible it can. Here's what Behe about it:
The underlying point of all these criticisms that needs to be addressed, I think, is that it is possible future work might show irreducible complexity to be explainable by some unintelligent process (although not necessarily a Darwinian one). And on that point I agree the critics are entirely correct. I acknowledge that I cannot rule out the possibility future work might explain irreducibly complex biochemical systems without the need to invoke intelligent design, as I stated in Darwin’s Black Box. (Behe 1996, 203-204) I agree I cannot prove that studies of self-organization will not eventually show it to be capable of much more than we know now. Nor can I definitively say that Professor Shapiro’s ideas about self-designing cells might not eventually prove true, or that currently unknown theories might prevail. But the inability to guarantee the future course of science is common to everyone, not just those who are supportive of intelligent design. For example, no one can warrant that the shortcomings of self-organization will not be exacerbated by future research, rather than overcome, or that even more difficulties for natural selection will not become apparent...... I strongly disagree with the contention that, because we can’t guarantee the success of intelligent design theory, it can be dismissed, or should not be pursued.

I've never actually met anyone who was willing to talk about the nuts and bolts of the issue from an ID standpoint before this conversation. It's an interesting change.

I'm glad we can have such a thoughtful exchange coming from different viewpoints.

 

[brother Paul]

I believe you're confused there. ID does not assume anything beyond the reach of science. ID allows for the possibility of explanations that do not fit within the paradigm of naturalistic materialism. Since science is by definition wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, it cannot even allow for the possibility.

ID seeks evidence for which the best explanation would seem to be an intelligent designer quite different from what evolution would be likely to produce. As the proponents of ID point out, the designer could well be something or someone who does not resemble any conventional notion of a God, let alone the God of Christianity. The very real possibility exists that we occupy a virtual reality and that the designer is some programmer at a higher level or dimension; this would still be ID to the nth degree.

ID proponents would simply say that when a body of evidence exists for which intelligent design seems to be the most plausible explanation, the paradigm must be expanded to allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. To remain wedded to the paradigm of naturalistic materialism, whereby the possibility of an intelligent designer is simply inadmissible, makes no sense in these circumstances.

A legitimate debate can be had and is being had as to whether evolutionary forces are capable of producing the results that ID proponents attribute to design or whether there is enough real evidence of design to require the paradigm of naturalistic materialism to be expanded, but I have read extensively in the ID literature and really don't believe the proponents are operating from any assumption that is more unreasonable than the countervailing assumption that "there is nothing beyond the reach of science."

Of course believers, including me, love ID. Of course many ID proponents, including me, have an explicitly Christian agenda. The opposite can be said of many proponents of naturalistic materialism. This really has no bearing on the validity of either paradigm.

Well put Runner...if naturalist materialism is the only viewpoint allowed then that closes the mind to alternate possibility!

 

[brother Paul]

Jim said "Science deals with nature. That does not make science "naturalistic. Science deals with matter. That does not make science materialistic. Science deals with those things which can be examined and tested. Anything "supernatural" (outside of nature) is not available to be examined or tested, therefore, it is not possible to use science to understand it."

And that does not mean it is not there or just as real. Even the idea of being "outside the natural order" is relative to the limits of the perception of materialists and the definitions they insist to impose.

For example, while I was still pretty much an agnostic, shortly before I received the revelation of the true and living God through Christ, due to a few "outside the natural order" experiences (a couple within groups of people who were there and also experienced them and were equally shocked), I studied the Siddhis of Pantajali. They are called and indeed allow one to experience "the superpowers of the mind"! Now the point is they are NOT spiritual in nature...nor the result of delusion (which materialists would like to claim)...they are real and ANYONE who desired to explore these would experience similar results...what they are is heightened perceptual sensitivities which result from activating uncharted areas and connections in the NATURAL human brain. But because the Materialists must remain in closed minded denial they MUST not venture on this journey.

Is it not feasible that on rarest occasion one or another has caught a glimpse (and physically seen) slightly beyond the puny narrow band on the vast spectrum (on one side or the other) of the "normal" human? Or heard sounds slightly beyond the "normal" quite limited human range? Of course it is possible. But if one reported it publicly they would immediately be deemed by materialists to be "delusional", "insane", or even "schizophrenic", or else some other conveniently materialistically defined box based on the limits of their pre-determined set of criteria.

So "supernatural" is not remotely possible since even these supra-NATURAL realities are not even allowed to be considered.

 

[Jim Parker]

The theory is only concerned with detecting design, whether the design in nature is real.

That theory makes the assumption that there is a designer and then goes and looks for evidence to support the theory.
But, no matter how much "evidence" is found, the theory cannot be tested.
So, it's not science. It's theology looking for evidence of God in nature.
That's not a bad thing to do. It is a very worthwhile THEOLOGICAL exercise.
It's just not science.

The atheists misapply a reductio ad absurdum argument thinking ID theory attempts to identify a designer when it only seeks a cause.

ANd they would be right. When you get to the core of the ID argument, you find that it is a variation on the theology of creation which pretends to be science by avoiding saying "God."
When you say you are not seeking a designer but, rather, only a "cause," you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and not fooling anyone but yourself. The "designer" is the "cause" and everyone knows that you're talking about God.

Our government already funds this, the people at SETI think they can determine an intelligent radio signal from a non-intelligent one.

It's not a very difficult task since we have millions of examples of each to which they can compare anything they find.
So far, nothing but natural microwave energy has been detected.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Is it not feasible that on rarest occasion one or another has caught a glimpse (and physically seen) slightly beyond the puny narrow band on the vast spectrum (on one side or the other) of the "normal" human? Or heard sounds slightly beyond the "normal" quite limited human range?

Not it is not feasible. The human eye is sensitive to a specific spectrum. While some people have wider or narrower ranges of sensitivity, the retina does not have receptors which can sense wavelengths outside of that specific spectrum.

The same is true of the ear. As the eye responds to photons of specific wavelengths and transmits electrons which the brain can process, so the ear responds to physical waves and and transmits electrons to the brain to be interpreted by the brain as sound. The ear's sensitivity is fixed by the receptors in the inner ear. Sounds above and below the range to which the receptors can respond do not cause an electric signal to be sent to the brain.

Light "seen" and sounds "heard" which are beyond the range of the sensors to pick up, are not "seen" or "heard". They are perceived in some other, non physical manner, such as the hesychast's vision of the divine, uncreated energy of God, do not have any physiological (scientific) explanations and cannot be tested. Such experiences are real; people really do hear God speak to them and see what is physically impossible to see. None of it is available for scientific examination.

So it is not feasible as a natural phenomenon but it does happen as a super-natural event.

iakov the fool

 

[brother Paul]

Not it is not feasible. The human eye is sensitive to a specific spectrum. While some people have wider or narrower ranges of sensitivity, the retina does not have receptors which can sense wavelengths outside of that specific spectrum.

The same is true of the ear. As the eye responds to photons of specific wavelengths and transmits electrons which the brain can process, so the ear responds to physical waves and and transmits electrons to the brain to be interpreted by the brain as sound. The ear's sensitivity is fixed by the receptors in the inner ear. Sounds above and below the range to which the receptors can respond do not cause an electric signal to be sent to the brain.

Light "seen" and sounds "heard" which are beyond the range of the sensors to pick up, are not "seen" or "heard". They are perceived in some other, non physical manner, such as the hesychast's vision of the divine, uncreated energy of God, do not have any physiological (scientific) explanations and cannot be tested. Such experiences are real; people really do hear God speak to them and see what is physically impossible to see. None of it is available for scientific examination.

So it is not feasible as a natural phenomenon but it does happen as a super-natural event.

iakov the fool

I disagree in general with the 1st few paragraphs! These explanations are the rule but with every rule there are exceptions. And yes all things do NOT have a scientific explanation (nor ever will), and that does not mean they are not. Finally some creature see what we cannot see and hear what we cannot hear (therefore sights and sounds exist outside our ability to perceive them thus I am sure others exist that no earthly creature can even imagine). Thus if quantum physics can be considered science and the possibility (which is mainstream by the way) of alternate simultaneous dimensions or realities exist it supports my premise even further.

 

[Roro1972]

alternate simultaneous dimensions; so if im in a million dimensions and have a dollar im a millionare; dont help me here

 

[Jim Parker]

These explanations are the rule but with every rule there are exceptions.

It is a fact that the human eye and ear have a range of sensitivity.
What is the exception to 1+1=2?
The "rules" we are talking about are observations of the universe

And yes all things do NOT have a scientific explanation (nor ever will), and that does not mean they are not.

I didn't say they were not.
We can't measure or observe dark matter or dark energy. We only know of it's existence through the observation of it's effects on observable, material objects and from proofs from advanced mathematics.
Some things are not withing the realm of scientific evaluation so it is a tautology to say we will never have a scientific explanation of something that is not subject to scientific examination.

Finally some creature see what we cannot see and hear what we cannot hear (therefore sights and sounds exist outside our ability to perceive them thus I am sure others exist that no earthly creature can even imagine).

We weren't talking about what "some creatures" can hear and see. We were talking about what human beings can hear and see.
That "finally" is totally illogical.

Thus if quantum physics can be considered science and the possibility (which is mainstream by the way) of alternate simultaneous dimensions or realities exist it supports my premise even further.

How does quantum theory support your premise that the human eye can see beyond what it can see and the human ear can hear beyond what it can hear?
Quantum theory does not posit that there are "alternate" dimensions. It proposes that there are 10 actual dimensions and, if gravity is included, as in string theory, then 11 dimensions.
Quantum physics deals with the ultra-small. It does not deal with anything having to do with what the human eye can see and the human ear can hear.

There are perceptions beyond hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling and tasting. That they exist is demonstrated by people's experiences, my own included. But they cannot be measured, tested, or quantified by any methodology known to scientists so far.

You have added nothing of substance to your premise.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

alternate simultaneous dimensions; so if im in a million dimensions and have a dollar im a millionare; dont help me here

You can only spend one dollar in each dimension. Sorry.

 

[Roro1972]

You can only spend one dollar in each dimension. Sorry.

yeah Jim thats what I said.

 

[Barbarian]

One cannot use a shovel to paint a Mona Lisa and or use science to examine God. That does not reduce science to a speculative, naturalistic materialism; it just means that science is the wrong tool to learn about God. (But the right tool to learn about nature.)

Precisely.

 

[brother Paul]

alternate simultaneous dimensions; so if im in a million dimensions and have a dollar im a millionare; dont help me here

And what evidence demands you must be in each of these possibilities? Can't a possibility exist NOW where you are not? Of course it could! Also while the "normal" human hearing range is 20 HZ to 20 KHZ, the fact is some children can hear 23 KHZ, and a non-trivial amount of humans have heard into a slightly higher range. And in some senses 1 + 1 can equal more than 2. And as iacov pointed out there is "experience" (which in itself, when shared by many, can be said to be empirical).

The premise I referred to was "For example, while I was still pretty much an agnostic, shortly before I received the revelation of the true and living God through Christ, due to a few "outside the natural order" experiences (a couple within groups of people who were there and also experienced them and were equally shocked), I studied the Siddhis of Pantajali. They are called and indeed allow one to experience the superpowers of the mind! Now the point is they are NOT spiritual in nature...nor the result of delusion (which materialists would like to claim)...they are real and ANYONE who desired to explore these would experience similar results...what they are is heightened perceptual sensitivities which result from activating uncharted areas and connections in the NATURAL human brain. But because the Materialists must remain in closed minded denial they MUST not venture on this journey." I stand by this!

My "Finally" declared "Finally some creature see what we cannot see and hear what we cannot hear (therefore sights and sounds exist outside our ability to perceive them thus I am sure others exist that no earthly creature can even imagine)" in response to Jim's "Light "seen" and sounds "heard" which are beyond the range of the sensors to pick up, are not "seen" or "heard" which may be true in one sense, but that does not mean they are not see-able nor hear-able (thus the reference to "some creatures").