A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments

StephenB:
Carolus Linneaus. He is known as the “father of modern taxonomy” and also made contributions to ecology. Natural theology and the Bible informed his Systema Naturae and Systema Vegetabilium.
He sure doesn't let the Bible or natural theology guide him when he classifies Homo among the primates. And a good thing too!David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Methodological naturalism is just a nonsensical construct. The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.” “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be. As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge. Anything other than that is just pure nonsense.Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Nakashima and William J. Murray have come up with the best counter-examples. StephenB, not so much.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray, that's a good example, especially the Lancet article!David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

How does one distinguish between a phenomenon with no natural cause and one with an unknown natural cause? If one cannot, doesn't it become easy to move investigation of that phenomenon from one side of the demarcation to the other?ScottAndrews_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I'll talk about Defoe in a separate post. Let me briefly note that Boyle's argument "that the study of science could improve the glorification of God" does not violate methodological naturalism. I'm taking a look at Ray's book (available here). It's worth noting that the Ray institute classifies that book as one of his "theological" works, as compared to his works in science (botany), which were written in Latin. Do his works of botany violate methodological naturalism? Same question goes for Swedenborg. Does he do scientific work that violates methodological naturalism, or does he just speculate some scientific issues. The motivations of Linneaus are not relevant. Does his practice violate MN?David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

If one simply wishes for examples of scientific research into classic supernatural phenomena, one need go no further than William Crookes publication of "Notes of an Enquiry into the Phenomena called Spiritual during the Years 1870-1873." Quarterly Journal of Science. January 1874, or "Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands" published in the Lancet, which states at the end: "Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences." I can, of course, cite all sorts of research into various psi and spiritual phenomena being conducted or which has been conducted by the University of Arizona (Veritas Project), or by Dr. Julie Bieschel at the Windbridge Institute involving the devleopment of triple and quadruple-blind protocols for the study of such phenomena, most of which is published in alternative science journals.William J. Murray_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

---seversky: “As has been pointed out already, the phrase “methodological naturalism” is a term of recent coinage. Yet it embodies ideas which are much older. Ideas such as we can only usefully study phenomena which have a ‘nature’, that are ordered and have distinctive and enduring properties rather than being areas of pure randomness or utter chaos.” If you are going to enter into a discussion this late, you have a moral obligation to absorb the arguments against your position and to know what is being discussed. Clearly, you have not taken the time to do that. ----“Ideas such as that by observing phenomena we can abstract data around which to construct explanatory models. Ideas such as that there can be many possible explanations and hence there is a need for some means of testing them to see which is the closest approximation to what is observed.” All this is part of the scientific approach and has nothing at all to do with one group of scientists imposing methodological standards on another group of scientists. We have already established that fact that nothing like methodological naturalism has ever happened before. ----“The fact is that even if the bane of all believers here - ‘naturalistic’ and atheist science - were banned by decree, it would not change the need for similar methods to those described above if science were to continue as a distinct human enterprise. Let us suppose that only science that was consonant with Christian belief were to be taught in the science classroom, which version of Christianity would it be, Roman Catholic or Protestant? If Protestant, which denomination would it be, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist - Southern or Northern Convention, Pentecostalist? And what of the Muslim who proclaims that Allah is the one and only true god, let alone all the other religions and gods? Who is to decide which is the true one? How do you decide which, if any, is the true one?” That statement is not relevant to the discussion. ----“The fact is that this whole debate about ‘natural v supernatural’ is ultimately futile if it proves impossible to agree on definitions. And does it really matter? Good science is still being done - both by believers and non-believers - regardless.” If the line between natural and supernatural cannot be established, then there is no way to enforce or even define methodological naturalism. Did you not even read Dr. Hunter’s post? I can easily discern that you did not. ----“In my view, science is a pragmatic endeavor. It can use its box of tools to investigate anything that can be observed - and by “observed” I mean gather data about however indirectly. If the soul actually exists in some measurable form - however incorporeally - then it can be investigated by science. If there is a god who influences the behavior of this Universe in some way then it can be studied by science, at least in principle. If that god exists only as an idea in the minds of intelligent beings like ourselves then we can debate its nature ’til the cows come home but we while we might be doing theology or philosophy we will not be doing science.” This, too, is irrelevant to the discussion. ----ID is not ruled out as science by some methodological naturalist fiat. According to methodological naturalism, any ID inference to design in the biological realm is non-scientific by definition. Again, you have a moral obligation to investigate this subject prior to commenting on it, especially at this late date. -----“It fails because it has not ruled itself in by demonstrating that there is something there that needs to be studied. Neither does criticizing the alleged inadequacy of evolutionary theory to explain what is observed do anything to establish the existence of an Intelligent Designer as an investigable phenomenon. Finding compelling evidence of the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence in the emergence of life on Earth, however, would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. And is there any doubt that there would be a stampede of scientists charging in from all directions to study it trampling all discussions about what is natural and supernatural underfoot as they did so?” We are not criticizing evolutionary theory, per se, nor are we discussing ID theory, its successes or its failures. We are discussing methodological naturalism, which is an arbitrary rule established in the 1980’s as a means of invalidating ID. At the very least, you should read the FAQ on methodological naturalism. Better still, you should try to absorb some of what has been said.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

In a post on his blog Evolving Thoughts, Australian philosopher of science John Wilkins writes about the difficulty of finding demarcation criteria that would enable us to draw a bright line between science and non-science, he notes:
As someone once noted - possibly Johnson - day may shade into night but day and night are, on the whole, tolerably well defined.
As has been pointed out already, the phrase "methodological naturalism" is a term of recent coinage. Yet it embodies ideas which are much older. Ideas such as we can only usefully study phenomena which have a 'nature', that are ordered and have distinctive and enduring properties rather than being areas of pure randomness or utter chaos. Ideas such as that by observing phenomena we can abstract data around which to construct explanatory models. Ideas such as that there can be many possible explanations and hence there is a need for some means of testing them to see which is the closest approximation to what is observed. The fact is that even if the bane of all believers here - 'naturalistic' and atheist science - were banned by decree, it would not change the need for similar methods to those described above if science were to continue as a distinct human enterprise. Let us suppose that only science that was consonant with Christian belief were to be taught in the science classroom, which version of Christianity would it be, Roman Catholic or Protestant? If Protestant, which denomination would it be, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist - Southern or Northern Convention, Pentecostalist? And what of the Muslim who proclaims that Allah is the one and only true god, let alone all the other religions and gods? Who is to decide which is the true one? How do you decide which, if any, is the true one? The fact is that this whole debate about 'natural v supernatural' is ultimately futile if it proves impossible to agree on definitions. And does it really matter? Good science is still being done - both by believers and non-believers - regardless. In my view, science is a pragmatic endeavor. It can use its box of tools to investigate anything that can be observed - and by "observed" I mean gather data about however indirectly. If the soul actually exists in some measurable form - however incorporeally - then it can be investigated by science. If there is a god who influences the behavior of this Universe in some way then it can be studied by science, at least in principle. If that god exists only as an idea in the minds of intelligent beings like ourselves then we can debate its nature 'til the cows come home but we while we might be doing theology or philosophy we will not be doing science. ID is not ruled out as science by some methodological naturalist fiat. It fails because it has not ruled itself in by demonstrating that there is something there that needs to be studied. Neither does criticizing the alleged inadequacy of evolutionary theory to explain what is observed do anything to establish the existence of an Intelligent Designer as an investigable phenomenon. Finding compelling evidence of the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence in the emergence of life on Earth, however, would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. And is there any doubt that there would be a stampede of scientists charging in from all directions to study it trampling all discussions about what is natural and supernatural underfoot as they did so?Seversky_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

"To the extent that anyone supports methodological naturalism, they are supporting that kind of arbitrary oppression." Speaking of oppression, I wonder what Inspector Generals are thinking these days.jerry_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: “Here’s a statement of methodological naturalism over 300 years old. It’s from Daniel Defoe’s The Storm (1704). Thanks to Pompous Bore at AtBC for the source.” David, you are a regular riot, you really are. Shall I tell you about a few scientists who lived at about the same time as you novelist friend, Daniel Defoe. Robert Boyle, scientist and theologian who argued that the study of science could improve the glorification of God. John Ray, an English botanist who wrote “The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation.” Emanuel Swedenborg. Several of his theological works contained some science scientific hypotheses. Carolus Linneaus. He is known as the "father of modern taxonomy" and also made contributions to ecology. Natural theology and the Bible informed his Systema Naturae and Systema Vegetabilium. Also, even though Defoe’s opinions are irrelevant to science, you are, nevertheless, misreading him. [A] When he writes, “we do allow that the Finger Infinite is the first Mighty Cause of Nature herself” ……methodological naturalism has already left the building. Methodological naturalism must proceed as if “nature is all there is.” [B] When he writes, “also .to say that the “treasury of Immediate Cause is generally committed to Nature; and if at any Time we are driven to look beyond her, ‘tis because we are out of the way: ‘tis not because it is not in her, but because we cannot find it.”……. He is alluding to secondary causes. [C] When he writes, “When therefore I say the Philosophers do not care to concern God himself in the Search after Natural Knowledge; I mean, as it concerns Natural Knowledge, meerly as such; for ’tis a Natural Cause they seek, from a General Maxim, That all Nature has its Cause within it self…” ....He is saying that when you are trying to find out HOW something works, you should not complicate things by trying to find out WHY it works But of course, all of this is irrelevant given the fact that the scientists of that era were mixing God and science so completely it was difficult to know where the theology left off and the science took over. Please tell your Darwinist friends to stop feeding you all this pablum.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, science has always had “line[s] of demarcation between science and nonscience.” No one has ever drawn that line for anyone else. It just hasn't happened--until now, that is. ----"The “penalty” is not “disenfrancisement from the scientific community” but refusal to consider the work produced on the other side of the line as science. Behe, Gonzalez, etc.: they are free to do science and sometimes. It’s just that their ID work isn’t considered science." That's disenfranchisement. If you lose your standing in the professional community, you have lost everything. More importantly, you are leaving out the people who have no standing at all. When I was blogging on the Ben Stein website a year or two ago, plenty of people had stories to tell about getting taken out of the game even before they entered the arena. Others made it clear that they survived only by keeping quiet and playing that game. Their speech was chilled. That is not what higher education should be about. To the extent that anyone supports methodological naturalism, they are supporting that kind of arbitrary oppression.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

A Darwinist was trying to rewrite history by characterizing methodological naturalism as a historical phenomenon, so I set the record straight. Rather than restrict your analysis to my adversary’s early comments as if they were the last word, you just might want to read further down the page to see how I responded—unless, of course, such a foray into intellectual honesty would disturb your peace.
Actually, I read the entire thread and found your argument entirely unconvincing. Your approach is to find a famous scientist that is a theist, and conflate their a priori rejection of philosophical naturalism into a presumed rejection of methodological naturalism and hope nobody notices the sleight of hand. That you continue to employee the same tactic after repeated discussions of the same issue points to a willful obtuseness that renders you, in my opinion, a poor judge of my intellectual honesty. Note to moderator: Based on a single comment, in which I merely register my disagreement with StephenB, he has decided to render judgement on my intellectual honesty. Is this really the type of community you are trying to foster? One where sincere disagreement is met with derision?specs_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg, We have found several times in science that our intuitions based on commonplace experience fail to tell us the true state of affairs. So I think it is helpful to test commonplace intuitions which are common in our culture, such as ESP. A consistent negative result gives us a warrant to exclude them from scientific study. Prior to that, they don't need a model to proceed, because the experiments are still somewhat in the way of "stamp collecting". Circling back to the larger discussion, my examples show why I don't think there is a clean line to be drawn around science and 'the natural' as coextensive.Nakashima_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Here's a statement of methodological naturalism over 300 years old. It's from Daniel Defoe's The Storm (1704). Thanks to Pompous Bore at AtBC for the source.
When therefore I say the Philosophers do not care to concern God himself in the Search after Natural Knowledge; I mean, as it concerns Natural Knowledge, meerly as such; for 'tis a Natural Cause they seek, from a General Maxim, That all Nature has its Cause within it self... ...In this Search after Causes, the Philosopher, tho' he may at the same Time be a very good Christian, cares not at all to meddle with his Maker: the Reason is plain; We may at any time resolve all things into Infinite Power, and we do allow that the Finger of Infinite is the First Mighty Cause of Nature her self: but the Treasury of Immediate Cause is generally committed to Nature; and if at any Time we are driven to look beyond her, 'tis because we are out of the way: 'tis not because it is not in her, but because we cannot find it. Two Men met in the Middle of a great Wood; One was searching for a Plant which grew in the Wood, the Other had lost himself in the Wood, and wanted to get out: The Latter rejoyc'd when thro' the Trees he saw the open Country: but the Other Man's Business was not to get out, but to find what he look'd for: yet this Man no more undervalued the Pleasantness of the Champion Country than the other. Thus in Nature the Philosopher's Business is not to look through Nature, and come to the vast open Field of Infinite Power; his business is in the Wood; there grows the Plant he looks for; and 'tis there he must find it. Philosophy's a-ground if it is forc'd to any further Enquiry. The Christian begins just where the Philosopher ends; and when the Enquirer turns his Eyes up to Heaven, Farewel Philosopher; 'tis a Sign he can make nothing of it here.
Defoe was of course a very serious Christian, though (alas, StephenB) a severe Protestant who was arrested for his satirical pamphlet "The Shortest Way with Dissenters."David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
What about ESP experiments? What about the feeling of being looked at?
Good question! I used to live near the Rhine Research Center, an ESP research place near Duke (and at one time, way back, IIRC, led by someone affiliated with Duke). They moved the location because the traffic interfered with the ESP research. :-) As far as I know, there's no physical model for how ESP might work. ESP "research" done in the absence of such a model, even a loosely conceived one, seems like so much BS. On the other hand, if research is undertaken to uncover hitherto unknown physical forces, then I'm all for it. Or merely to falsify such forces. A true example: a Ph.D. candidate in physics does a set of experiments for a thesis to see if he can find a fifth fundamental force (in addition to gravity, EM, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). Now, he knows there's probably not one, and so the thesis is going to have a negative result. But he does various experiments on the top of a high tower (and at ground level) to show that the only fundamental forces at work are ones we know. What's the point? In part, the point of graduate research in physics is to show that you can conduct a rigorous experiment, gather precise measurements (very precise, in this case), use and sometimes create complex experimental apparatus, etc.David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Correction: a sentence in the first paragraph should read
Behe, Gonzalez, etc.: they are free to do science and sometimes do.
David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

A few responses to various people. StephenB, science has always had "line[s] of demarcation between science and nonscience." The "penalty" is not "disenfrancisement from the scientific community" but refusal to consider the work produced on the other side of the line as science. Behe, Gonzalez, etc.: they are free to do science and sometimes. It's just that their ID work isn't considered science. On the whole, I take the position that what counts as science is determined by the community: that science is as science does. A rule of methodological naturalism is not immutable or eternal; it does seem to be mighty effective for the practice of science, and Nakashima, the Newton example is an interesting one: I'll consider it. William Murray, there is no MN "explanation" of the Big Bang in the sense of why it happened, there is just an incomplete description of how it happened.David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry. What is the MN explanation of the big bang? If it has no MN explanation, how can it be theorized by science to have occurred, since nothing we can define as "nature" could have generated it? In other words, if we have evidence that something happened, be it a singularity called a big bang or intelligent design, doesn't "that thing" itself have to be explicable in terms of MN in order for it to be called a scientific theory? BTW, doesn't Forrest's MN Maxim mean that in court, all testimony as to motive must be made in terms of neurons firing?William J. Murray_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg, 4. Alchemy. Hmm. I’ve been rereading Chaucer recently: anybody who’s read the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale knows that many saw alchemy as a fraud centuries before Newton. But on the other hand, alchemy is sometimes seen as a proto-chemistry. I don’t know enough about Newton’s alchemy to know how he did it. It seems to me that a “scientific” alchemy is really an embryonic (and wrong) kind of chemistry. So, not alchemy in general, but Newtonian alchemy. The Wiki page on Newton has a bit on his alchemy. I thought it interesting that John Maynard Keynes once owned most of newton's alchemical papers. Keynes also quipped that Newton was not first of the Age of Reason, rather the last of the Magicians. From what I have read on the subject, it seems to me that Newton was a mthodological supernaturalist, and yet scientific. He thought the dimensions of the Temple and Tabernacle as revealed in the Bible had something to say about the world at large, not in an allegorical sense but directly about the material world. It seems as rational to me as hydroplate theory, perhaps more, because it has more respect for its source material. Did it have a negative result? Yes, and sadly it was not made available to influence in any way the birth of modern chemistry, or else Newton might have been considered the Father of that science also! The point is that Newton understood science as well as any person of his time, and considered a received, supernatural text to be part and parcel of his investigations. That is why I would argue for the category "scientific but not MN". What about ESP experiments? What about the feeling of being looked at?Nakashima_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Bill Dembski:
It appears that the first usage of this term traces to the Christian philosopher Paul de Vries. He used the term orally at a conference in 1983. A few years later it appeared in print in the paper “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review 15 (1986), 388-96. For de Vries, methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of God, contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which actively denies God’s existence. This bit of sleuthing is the work of Ron Numers.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/who-coined-the-term-methodological-naturalism/Diffaxial_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

That comment at 269 was too strong. I retract the second sentence.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "Again, where are all the papers that violate MN before the recent suppression? (They’re rarer than transitional forms in a creationist museum!) ---"What contributions to the literature has a non-materialist science provided?" More unadulterated nonsense. Your capacity to evade, your attempts to obfuscate, and, most notably, your hostility to the truth, never cease to amaze me. The essence of MN, as I have pointed out several times, is to establish a non-negotiable line of demarcation between science and nonscience--a rule---a line that may not be crossed under penalty of disenfranchisement from the scientific community. This has never happened before in the history of science. It's a fact. Get over it and move on.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

---spec: "Stephen, I believe you have forgotten having this discussion with Jack Krebs last March. You can refresh you memory here." It was basically the same discussion we are having here. A Darwinist was trying to rewrite history by characterizing methodological naturalism as a historical phenomenon, so I set the record straight. Rather than restrict your analysis to my adversary's early comments as if they were the last word, you just might want to read further down the page to see how I responded---unless, of course, such a foray into intellectual honesty would disturb your peace.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Actually MN is a conspiracy of the illuMiNati and the freeMasoNs." I have tried to help you in the past with good benevolent advice, and I hope that, eventually, you will learn from it. If you have nothing to say, those mindless verbal eruptions aimed at your adversaries intellectual competence and moral character will do you more harm than good, unless of course, there is something to them. The trick is to build up your own “ethos” [a little rhetoric lingo there] with substantive arguments. It begins with that ever-present challenge of actually trying to make a case for something. If you want some ideas, let me know and I will try to help.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Also, on the Big Bang, there's nothing non-materialist in Hubble's 1929 paper on the expanding universe ("A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae"). Again, where are all the papers that violate MN before the recent suppression? (They're rarer than transitional forms in a creationist museum!) What contributions to the literature has a non-materialist science provided?David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy, ------"Clive, don’t you have any response to my post at 184? I thought you wanted a dicussion?" Nah, too much confusion to sift through and sort out, too many rabbit trails. If you want to narrow it down a bit, make it specific, I'll have a discussion.Clive Hayden_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Propositions for non MN science: 1. The Big Bang. Nothing in the scientific literature on the Big Bang is non-naturalistic. There may be some philosophical conclusions that people draw outside the science, but the original papers don't point to anything that's not in the natural world. For example, Dicke et al.'s paper "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation" (1965) discusses implications of its finding in entirely naturalistic terms, speculating on naturalistic propositions such as how much matter the universe should contain if it's either open or closed. 2. Same goes for the particle/wave duality. Nothing in the literature is non-materialistic. 3. Did anybody seriously propose in the scientific literature that radio waves had a supernatural origin? 4. Alchemy. Hmm. I've been rereading Chaucer recently: anybody who's read the Canon's Yeoman's Tale knows that many saw alchemy as a fraud centuries before Newton. But on the other hand, alchemy is sometimes seen as a proto-chemistry. I don't know enough about Newton's alchemy to know how he did it. It seems to me that a "scientific" alchemy is really an embryonic (and wrong) kind of chemistry.David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB, did DeVries coin the term or not?David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

---RDK: "I’ve already linked to the deVries story, but alas - this is a prime example of the ID camp not listening when evidence is shoved in front of their faces. Stephen B will continue to argue that MN is a Darwinist conspiracy until he is blue in the face." You don't handle factual refutations too well, do you. Reread #229 and then run along. You were given a piece of revisionist history and you bought it because you wanted to buy it. Face it, deal with it, and learn from it. Meanwhile, if you have anything substantive to say about the detailed refutation, by all means roll up your sleeves and have a go at it.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply