Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Question for Barbara Forrest

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
William J. Murray:
If there is no natural cause for nature, then “nature” is by Seversky’s definition “supernatural” - which of course would make gravity “supernatural”.
Science does not address the "cause" of nature as such. It is silent on such issues.David Kellogg
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
William J. Murray,
What causes gravity, etc?
While the methodological naturalists flail at this question, it might be useful to have the actual answer posted here for reference. Simple, clear, and direct: Colossians 1:17:
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
herb
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Kairos (re: #405) My wife was cured of supposedly terminal cancer by faith healers 20 years ago and remains free of it to this day. Recently, my sister-in-law had lumps in her breast entirely disappear before they could even run further exams after intercessory prayer.William J. Murray
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
David Kellogg, You seem to forget what I was originally responding to and questioning, which was Seversky statement: —-“The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause."---Seversky. If there is no natural cause for nature, then "nature" is by Seversky's definition "supernatural" - which of course would make gravity "supernatural". Seversky didn't say that if the study of a thing included naturalistic descriptions, it was natural; he quite plainly claimed that if a phenomena did not have a natural cause, it was supernatural. What is the natural cause of nature - i.e., what is the natural cause of gravity, entropy, the strong and weak nuclear forces? I'm not asking for naturalistic descriptions of them; I'm asking for their natural cause. What causes gravity, etc? What causes nature?William J. Murray
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
PS: before heading off to church, let's put a wriggling red herring out of its misery. Prayer, by inherent definition, is well-intentioned request of Deity. There is therefore something fundamentally wrong to the point of absurdity -- as Cs Lewis long ago pointed out -- in trying to conceive much less carry out an experiment wherein X1, X2, X3 . . .; Xn pray for P1, p3, P4, p6 . . . but NOT for P2, p4. P6 . .. for let's say the same complaint. You canot consistently wsh well for 1, 3, 5; but not 2, 4, 6. this is just what the NT talks about as "asking amiss" to consume upon one's desires -- and warns that such empty words will not be answered, period. Nakashima has a much better idea; and I can assure you that I have both seen and experienced most powerful answers to prayer (including a few bona fide miracles, at least one of which was medically attested, being a healing of a star med student in a med school diagnosed with suspicious [and quite palpable] ovarian cysts); as can millions of others.kairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Clive @ 379:
Diffaxial, ——”No, that wasn’t my answer. Read it again, but first doff the straightjacket of “YES or NO.”” No. Was it scientific or not? YES or NO?
As I indicated in my earlier response, it is certainly possible to determine whether an operationally defined dependent variable (rate of surgical complications) varies in response to the experimental manipulation of an independent variable (intercessory prayer). Indeed, a great deal of experimentation within experimental and social psychology attempts to establish indirect causal relationships in a similar way. The study IS scientific to the extent that the proposed presence of such a relationship in their sample was examined empirically.* And to that extent, as a believer you are left to wrestle with the significance of their findings. Many positive assertions regarding specific events in the world motivated by belief in supernatural agency can be tested in this way. Is the larger postulate of supernatural agency testable thereby? NO, because ANY finding can be rationalized as the result of God's will: there is no empirical finding that can dispositively compel the rejection of the hypothesis that an omnipotent supernatural agent acts in the world. That renders this larger postulate non-empirical, and therefore non-scientific. I do think it interesting to speculate upon what would follow if a methodologically air-tight causal relationship HAD been observed in this study. That would certainly be contrary to many expectations (including mine). The first response would be very careful scrutiny of the experimental procedures to rule out the operation of hidden biases or influences (failure of the procedure to be truly "double blind," permitting experimenter effects, suggestion, subtle differences in the behavior of the treating medical personnel, etc.). Fraud would probably also be suspected. Were the methodology to stand up, replications would follow, with variations designed to tease out the "active ingredients" of the effect. Does the number of persons praying matter? The timing of the prayer? The content? The faith of the petitioner? The confidence of the petitioner in his faith? Whether the prayer is uttered verbally or silently? Whether those praying are personally acquainted with the recipient of the prayer? And so on. Would the postulate of supernatural agency guide these empirical efforts in any way, by specifying necessary characteristics of prayer? I don't see how, although perhaps there are Catholic or other doctrines with bearing on these questions. It is further interesting to ponder possible outcomes of the above. Let us say that we discover optimum values of each of the above variables - a curvlinear relationship between the number of prayers and the effect, a probabilistic relationship vis the timing of the prayer and the effect (say, contemporaneous is found to work best, with reduced effectiveness with increasing lead time), and so on. I wonder what believers would make of reliable replications of these effects, as such findings would suggest that whatever links prayer to outcomes, human beings can systematically manipulate that effect, a finding likely at variance with the expectations of most believers (most would be surprised to learn that God's response to prayer is subject to human control to any degree.). Tests of potential commercial and military applications wouldn't be far behind. Even for believers, such findings would raise questions about what is really going on - perhaps a lawful psi phenomenon of which we were heretofore unaware (some form of tele-empathy that requires no supernatural intervention after all) better fits the data. Alternatively, the phenomenon may elude replication altogether. Ultimately, any and all of these observable outcomes may be rationalized as consistent with God's will, and therefore none of them have the power to disconfirm the postulate of the actions of a supernatural agent. Any way you slice it, even in the counterfactual world in which this study found that prayer was modestly efficacious, there is no empirical finding that would provide dispositive answers to such questions, because there is no basis upon which to generate further necessary entailments of the postulate that there is a supernatural agent who responds to prayer in an observable manner. So once again, there we have it: the supernatural component of the postulate of efficacious prayer proves to be scientifically toothless. But this is fiction. No relationship was observed. Why they spent that kind of time and money on a study that, in my opinion, was doomed to yield this result is beyond me. Fortunately, the result isn't my problem. *I am being a bit generous here, as I haven't read the actual paper and there may be methodological or statistical flaws. But I do agree that such a study with these limited goals is possible in principle.Diffaxial
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Mr Kellogg: All I have needed to do is to point out that there is a major field of scientific investigation that inter alia addresses the scientific question of the origins and basis of gravity [FYI, a manifestation of the "distortion" of space-time due to the presence of mass], and looks at the context of the fine-tuning that attends to the relevant cluster of cosmogenetic parameters in the physics of cosmi; again in the general context of the Big Bang, the most credible current scientific account of origins of the cosmos as we observe it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
PS: Mr Kellogg also claims "The idea is not that “nature created itself” but that the “nature is what can be investigated scientifically . . . " Yes, the natural world can be investigated scientifically, as can the human one too, but that is not equivalent to saying that all "scientific" explanations must be natural-ISTIC; especially since natural and artificial may be empirically distinguished. the censoring of explanations of observed phenomena, that they can only be naturalISTIC, is the error of methodological naturalism, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere in this blog. (And BTW, since -- as Lakatos reminds us -- cores of scientific research programmes embed philosophical issues and claims, one may not draw a neat demarcation between science and philosophy.)kairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Re #393 I don't particularly care what we call supernatural and what we call natural. But if there was a statistically significant correlation between recovery and prayer (the report does not say the negative effect was statistically significant) then that proves nothing about how the act of praying caused the effect or even if prayer was the cause.Mark Frank
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Clive:
Depends on whether the tests were actually scientific and whether science can study the supernatural. That is the the question at hand.
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! If I grant your premise that this is a scientific experiment, will you answer the question as to what the results say about the supernatural?specs
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, that doesn't answer the question. I say again, Can you show me a scientific investigation of the origin of gravity? You link to apologetics sites, which use some scientific data to make philosophical and theological arguments.David Kellogg
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Oops: Pardon, it is Mr Kellogg. GEm of TKIkairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Mr Frank just above seems to be forgetting the field of reasearch known as Cosmology, including the issue that a great many parameters of our cosmos appear fine-tuned for life (as has been noted by astronomers of the ilk of say a Sir Fred Hoyle). Including, too, the relative size of gravitational and electromagnetic forces in the range that seems otherwise possible. And, the very close balance between positive and negative charges, in the context where electrostatic forces are long range [and could affect the possibility of formation of say galaxies.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
William J. Murray (sorry for the misattribution):
Since nature, as we know it, is defined by the innate, interacting qualities of the universe we call physical laws (throwing in chance), of which one is the value we call gravity, how exactly does one go about investigating its origin without hypothesizing some kind of a framework other than what we know as nature to have caused it?
Gee, I don't know. Can you show me a scientific investigation of the origin of gravity?David Kellogg
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
correction: "... some kind of framework other than.."William J. Murray
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
David Kellogg: I assume your comment was directed at me, and not Mark Frank, since the quote is from my post. Since nature, as we know it, is defined by the innate, interacting qualities of the universe we call physical laws (throwing in chance), of which one is the value we call gravity, how exactly does one go about investigating its origin without hypothesizing something a framework other than what we know as nature to have caused it? IOW, how can nature have a natural cause?William J. Murray
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
If, as Seversky claims, the supernatural is defined by that which has no natural cause, then all research done about the big bang, and the intrinsic values of gravity, and of the strong and weak nuclear forces, entropy, etc. are scientific investigations into supernatural phenomena - unless, of course, Seversky argues that nature created itself from nothing, which seems to be a logically flawed position.
It seems clear that scientific investigations of all those issues are investigations of their natural origins. The idea is not that "nature created itself" but that the "nature is what can be investigated scientifically." Full stop. Stuff beyond that is philosophy, not science.David Kellogg
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
I would like to point out that the goal posts are moving all around. First, we are asked to produce scientific research into supernatural phenomena. If, as Seversky claims, the supernatural is defined by that which has no natural cause, then all research done about the big bang, and the intrinsic values of gravity, and of the strong and weak nuclear forces, entropy, etc. are scientific investigations into supernatural phenomena - unless, of course, Seversky argues that nature created itself from nothing, which seems to be a logically flawed position. If, as others here have seemingly indicated, prayer healings, ghosts, mediumship, the existence of consciousness outside of the body (NDE), etc. are "supernatural" things that science cannot effectively investigate, they have been shown wrong on account that they have indeed been scientifically researched on those terms. Nakashima, however, claims that the act of prayer is not a superntural act, but that the act of healing is. Is healing a supernatural act? Or is it only supernatural if it seems to follow prayer? If healing doesn't seem to follow any known, natural cause, is it by definition supernatural? Is the term "spontaneous remission" just an intellectually dishonest way of re-labeling a supernatural phenomena? Nakashima's point here seems to be that if there was an effect that followed the prayer, then we would have successfully found out supernatural event via science; but, as RDK pointed out, a statistically significant result did follow the prayer: those who were prayed for experienced more complications. Perhaps a more stringent examination of the prayer effect needs to include certain control groups that pray from certian spiritual assumptions and compare their efficacy. We've apparently already established, with some evidence that prayer might have an effect, alebeit a negative one .. right, RDK? It seems that the atheistic materialists have been caught by their own attempts to define the supernatural out of the picture, and are left with incoherent justifications and rationalizations. The fact is, the supernatural - as it is defined by anyone here - has been subject to scientific scrutiny and has been successfully used as a research hueristic for hundreds of years. Where do atheistic materialists believe the principles of parsimony and elegance came from? A chance, order-from-chaos perspective? Materialist atheists still use the design hueristic today; it undergirds all of science as it is conducted, because without it, there would be no reason to even attempt science. The denial of it is often not discernible from madness.William J. Murray
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Yes, Mark, Clive is quite wrong. In fact, even if the study had positive results, it would have been silent on mechanism (natural or supernatural). Hard as it is to imagine, a positive result could be the result of some hitherto unknown effect of prayer as mental (brain) activity.David Kellogg
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
"The study was not whether people pray, but whether God answers their prayers. That was what was being studied and tested for." This is patently, wrong. From the report: Those who conducted the study are quick to say that its results do not challenge the existence of God. Also, it did not try to address such religious questions as the efficacy of one form of prayer over others, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work better than prayers from another, according to the Rev. Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Other researchers in the study, who include investigators from Harvard Medical School, Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Mind/Body Medical Institute, agree. Indeed, to repeat my point above, even if the results had shown that prayer made a difference it would have established nothing about how they made a difference.Mark Frank
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
specs, ------"And the results of the study show what about God answering prayers?" Depends on whether the tests were actually scientific and whether science can study the supernatural. That is the the question at hand.Clive Hayden
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Clive:
The study was not whether people pray, but whether God answers their prayers. That was what was being studied and tested for. That is supernatural. Therefore, they were testing the supernatural.
And the results of the study show what about God answering prayers?specs
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT
5 --> Furthermore, this is all in the context of the empirically anchored inference to design. In that context, we see that the US National Academy of Sciences [NAS], acting officially, has insisted that science is about making "natural" explanations of observed phenomena. (Cf 335 - 6 above on that. This is not about a few odd philosophers on idiosyncratic views; it is about the agenda-serving distortion of major scientific and educational institutions, with deleterious and oppressive public policy consequences that the so-called watchdogs in the media have been dogs that will not bark. In short, the issue of our being caught up in a Plato's Cave world of agenda serving shadow shows with stage-managed performances and stories creating a false view of the world in the name of science held captivity to materialism, is -- sadly -- plainly on the table.) 6 --> In another context, the same august body insists that the alternative to "natural" is supernatural. (Cf Section E my always linked for details.) But a moment's reflection on say a food label will show that there is another obvious possibility, one that would go a long way to resolving the issue: natural vs ART-ificial (i.e. intelligent). 7 --> There is abundant evidence on causal factors, and when we look at it from one useful perspective [I link details], we see that natural causes (those traceable to mechanical forces of necessity, and to chance patterns), are markedly different from those that trace to intelligent causes. In particular, the latter are marked by characteristic signs that boil down to complex, purposeful functional organisation and associated information. 8 --> So, it is a scientifically legitimate exercise to study and use these signs of intelligent cause. 9 --> On origin of cell based life on earth, the FSCI in DNA and associated algorithmic, code based -- thus, linguistic -- procedures and information rich nanotechnology, point strongly to intelligent cause. 10 --> But, without further information we cannot infer to whether or not the cause is within the observed cosmos (say scientists from an earlier intelligent race) or beyond the observed cosmos. 11 --> on the other hand, an investigation of the origin of the observed cosmos, shows that it is evidently a complex integrated entity that has a multitude of parameters and laws that are in aggregate tightly fine-tuned to facilitate life. 12 --> That makes inference to an intelligent, obviously very powerful, cause beyond the observed cosmos with intent to create a life-habitable cosmos a scientifically reasonable one (as is now actually a commonplace in Cosmology). ____________ So, we may draw a bottomline: it is scientifically reasonable (apart form imposing the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism) to infer to a cosmos created by an intelligent and powerful agent with intent to create a universe in which cell based life is facilitated; which in turn makes such a cause a credible candidate indeed for the intelligence behind such life. Nor is this line of reasoning strange or novel to readers of this blog. just, since it is inconvenient for the agenda of evolutionary materialism (the underlying worldview and scientific paradigm that motivates methodological naturalism) it is studiously ignored. So, onlookers, draw your own conclusions for yourself. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Much of the above simply shows that SB is right, and you should note that those who defend methodological naturalism have had precisely nothing to say about the on the ground oppressive consequences of the imposition of this "rule" as I noted above at 335 - 6. Also, Mr Frank at 338 is a classic: Let’s try working with supernatural explanations in science . . . I wish to comment, responsibly, in logically ordered steps. I trust that the logic and factual basis of the case will suffice to answer to those who -- evidently having nothing to say on substance -- wish to complain on style, length or use of sequenced points to make a serious argument on a momentous matter for our civilisation. (One that BTW can be read in a couple of minutes . . . ): 1 --> Mr Frank's remarks (sadly, as usual) of course fail to reckon with the relevant history of science, and such things as, say, Newton's General Scholium in the greatest of all modern scientific works, Principia. 2 --> In that work, Newton makes it plain that even so simple a thing as the term "laws of nature" was the result of thinking in a theistic frame of thought: the laws scientists sought were viewed as the principles by which God ordered and sustains the world. 3 --> That is, it is undeniable from the history that major founding scientists did indeed think of science as "thinking God's thoughts after him." (Many of us continue to think of science in such historically warranted terms today, and some of us even hold relevant certifications and achievements, including the odd Nobel Prize or two. [Dan Peterson's remarks here will repay a thoughtful read on this subject, putting a few relevant facts into play and so showing what underlies the recent attempt to impose methodological naturalism as a procrustean bed, historically and philosophically unjustifiable "[re-]definition" on science.]) 4 --> So, the idea of design theorists now injecting a novel oddity -- "supernatural hypotheses" -- is a strawmannish distortion of the actual underlying issues on what science is and has been in light of its history and related philosophical issues. (All of which by the way is an exercise of philosophy informed by history, not of science. Ms Forrest and co, sadly, do not come across as having either done their homework seriously, nor having a responsible intent to do so; all, in service to an obvious, demonising ad hominem laced agenda.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Nakashima, The study was not whether people pray, but whether God answers their prayers. That was what was being studied and tested for. That is supernatural. Therefore, they were testing the supernatural.Clive Hayden
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
The study was scientific. The act of prayer was a natural phenomenon. The act of healing (had it been observed) would have been a supernatural phenomenon. I dislike the mthodology chosen for this study exactly because of the "thou shalt not test" rule that I think guarantees failure of the study. I think a better methodology would require participants to keep logs of prayer that was not specifically asked for by the study itself. It should also be broadened to include Muslims, Hindus, etc.Nakashima
June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
#380 "Calling Prayer to the Christian God asking for healing of certain patients and waiting for God to miraculously heal them is not supernatural? Well then what is?" Of course it isn't. It is just an action by human beings who believe they are talking to a God. If prayer had proved to be effective it would not have proved divine intervention. It would have been an interesting phenomenon to be investigated - cause yet to be determined.Mark Frank
June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
RDK "The point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer - a decidedly supernatural action - had any tangible effect on the well-being of those patients. RDK "I looked up the results to that study. Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications." I didn't look at the study, but prayer did have a tangible effect on the well being of those patients who where told they were being prayed for, if according to you, they experienced more complications. You're stating it's one for one, this is an empirical result and could lead to more research to verify if prayer has a tangible result on well being. It seems "any scientist worth his salt" would see this as an avenue into further supernatural research, and not a validation of his naturalism, and so a dead end to supernaturalism. Or do you assume the bad effect you mentioned had only to do with the patient's knowledge that the prayer was done for them. Not assuming this, which would be correct, could lead to a whole battery of supernatural tests. Assuming this could lead to a whole battery of supernatural tests regarding the mind's relationship to health. After all, if all and only the patients who were told they were being prayed for, got worse, that's a pretty supernaturally stark line regarding the mind's power.lamarck
June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Calling Prayer to the Christian God asking for healing of certain patients and waiting for God to miraculously heal them is not supernatural?
No. It is a natural act by a natural actor.
Well then what is?
The answer.specs
June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Calling Prayer to the Christian God asking for healing of certain patients and waiting for God to miraculously heal them is not supernatural?
No. It is a natural act by a natural actor.
Calling Prayer to the Christian God asking for healing of certain patients and waiting for God to miraculously heal them is not supernatural? Well then what is?
The answer. Well then what is?specs
June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 19

Leave a Reply