Anyway, it’s been fun, and I look forward to further discussion at another place, another time.

Can you understand why formulation #2 provides the optimum approach, since the other alternatives rule out intelligent causes and forbid us to follow where the evidence leads.

Formulation #2 being,

matter arose from mind–the universe was created–life was designed, first causes exist and causation is a low of logic.

Nobody is ruling out any possibility. Formulation #2 (with all its disparate clauses) has been considered and so far found untestable and unfruitful, so it’s natural to ignore it for the present. An optimal approach must be fruitful and testable or our curiosity will not have a path to follow.

But you and your colleagues are invited to prove otherwise. I would especially encourage you to demonstrate the fruitfulness of the non-human-intelligent-causation hypothesis. That would turn some heads your way.

If, on being told, a child learned that there were both mechanical causes and intelligent causes, would the child say, “tell me more about the natural causes, but forget about the other kind.”

There’s a problem. Learning doesn’t come just from being told. You seem to be assuming the existence of the intelligent creator in your hypothetical.

Do you accept my answer to your original question?

Metaphysical content does not do things like that any more than the foundation that supports a house distinguishes the living room from the kitchen.

To get a better idea of what is going on, consider another metaphysical formulation.

a. The universe is best understood mechanistically.

b. Matter is primary over mind.

c. Matter arose from mind.

d. Brains give rise to consciousness.

e. God is not necessary—law and chance can explain evolution, life, and consciousness.

Now we have considered three metaphysical formulations.

1) God friviously shoots thunderbolts

2) matter arose from mind–the universe was created–life was designed, first causes exist and causation is a low of logic.

3) mind arose from matter–the universe created itself, life just happened, first causes don’t exist, and causality can come and go.

Can you understand how each of these metaphysical orientations affect the way science is done? Can you understand why formulation #2 provides the optimum approach, since the other alternatives rule out intelligent causes and forbid us to follow where the evidence leads.

If, on being told, a child learned that there were both mechanical causes and intelligent causes, would the child say, “tell me more about the natural causes, but forget about the other kind.”

Try to be a bit more polite in your discourse.

Horsefeathers.

The the issue I was addressing in my #103 was the notion (as expressed very well by Dan Peterson) that the Judeo-Christian worldview (in particular the concept of a divine lawgiver) is an essential ingredient of science. I then, in my #108, challenged kairosfocus to find theological content in any scientific product. My unstated premise was that the existence of a divine lawgiver is irrelevant to scienctific practice.

Neither kairosfocus nor StephenB responded to my challenge, leaving claims that sectarian religious belief has any special relevance to scientific practice unsupported.

Instead of providing such support, StephenB accused me of confusing theology with metaphysics. I was diverted by that accusation, but I will grant arguendum that the term “theology” can be replaced by the term “metaphysics” in my challenge.

Indeed, since we have this:

The Christian worldview [or metaphysical formulation] that launched modern science is as follows: God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to comprehend that universe, and [C] a correspondence between the two.

Much of modern science has tried to distance itself from that paradigm, even as it continues to depend on it, but that is only because much of modern science is illogical, as I often point out on this thread.

the change in terminology makes no difference.

So my challenge translates into a search for metaphysical content in a scientific product. To meet my challenge, do not claim that no science would be possible without an assumption that the universe is comprehensible. I want to see unique metaphysical content. For example, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Newton’s first law of motion from his second law of motion? Or, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Galileo’s heliocentrism from Pasteur’s optical chirality?

StephenB,

—-“Principles be damned. I was talking about content.
And you think I’m confused…”

Yes, deeply. If you think that metaphysical principles have no content, then you are
definitely confused.

I was talking about the content of scientific findings, not the content of metaphysics. See above.

Also, have you never heard of materialism, naturalism, atheism, and existentialism, all of which assume that the world has no purpose? I have asked Darwinists informed by one or more of these metaphysical promptings why they bother to do research since, for them, there is no truth to find. None have ever answered my question. Can you answer it?

It’s easy to answer, and I hope you will remember that I have answered: One does not require an assumption of purpose in the world to have curiosity about its workings. Nor does one need to have an abstract or metaphysical notion of truth to enjoy the same motivation. Have you never seen a child take apart a mechanical toy? Scientists are curious children.

You are fighting with me right now, and it isn’t about science. No Darwinist comes here to discuss science for very long because they have nothing to talk about. They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans.

I’m not fighting with you, I’m disagreeing. It may not be about science for you, but it is for me. As I have mentioned to you before, defining science is a current interest of mine. I find the efforts of ID believers to redefine science along sectarian religious lines to be misguided. I believe that my comments on this thread have been directed to that issue with fair consistency.

When you say “They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans,” you are rejecting much evidence (and it keeps growing) that practicing biologists of many stripes take seriously as supporting the idea. As I said earlier, evolutionary theory is deeply embedded in biology today. It can’t be simply replaced by design. All of biology would have to be rethought and rebuilt around a design paradigm (assuming one existed). I don’t think that is a realistic prospect.

I had intended to take a look a this thread, but it is plain that Stephen has the matter well in hand:

ou seen to be confusing theology with metaphysics. The idea that “God left clues” speaks to the metaphysics of a creative, purposeful effort. Theology implies things like the Trinitarian God, a savior, a redeemer, sin, the fall, and so forth. The former has everthing to do with science; the latter has nothing to do with science.
Science is not a-metaphysical. Quite the contrary, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. The Christian worldview [or metaphysical formulation] that launched modern science is as follows: God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to comprehend that universe, and [C] a correspondence between the two.

Much of modern science has tried to distance itself from that paradigm, even as it continues to depend on it, but that is only because much of modern science is illogical, as I often point out on this thread . . . .

Metaphysics is, among other things, a study of first causes. God is a very good candidate for a first cause . . . . theology can overlap with metaphysics, which causes you to approach the problem from an overly simplistic vantage point.

In fact, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. Other metaphysical assumptions are the correspondence between the human mind and the universe that it hopes to investigate . . . .

To hypothesize gravity, for example, is to assume a regularity and rationality about the world that makes it comprehensible. It is the very opposite of assuming that God whimsically whacks the world with thunderbolts in a disorderly and unpredictable way, which by the way was an earlier metaphysical foundation that retarded science. See how that works?

Thanks Steve!

GEm of TKI

Metaphysics is, among other things, a study of first causes. God is a very good candidate for a first cause.

From Wikipedia: “Whether there is a God (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion.”

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand that theology can overlap with metaphysics, which causes you to approach the problem from an overly simplistic vantage point.

In fact, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. Other metaphysical assumptions are the correspondence between the human mind and the universe that it hopes to investigate.

—-“Principles be damned. I was talking about content.
And you think I’m confused…”

Yes, deeply. If you think that metaphysical principles have no content, then you are
definitely confused.

—-“Since when is an assumption that the universe is intelligible a “metaphysical principle”?

—-“To me, it’s a working hypothesis.”

No, it is an assumption on which hypotheses depend. To hypothesize gravity, for example, is to assume a regularity and rationality about the world that makes it comprehensible. It is the very opposite of assuming that God whimsically whacks the world with thunderbolts in a disorderly and unpredictable way, which by the way was an earlier metaphysical foundation that retarded science. See how that works?

—-“By your reasoning, the assumption that the universe is unintelligible is also a metaphysical principle.”

That is correct. Consult the above example. Also, have you never heard of materialism, naturalism, atheism, and existentialism, all of which assume that the world has no purpose? I have asked Darwinists informed by one or more of these metaphysical promptings why they bother to do research since, for them, there is no truth to find. None have ever answered my question. Can you answer it?

—-“I say, let the metaphysicians duke it out.

It happens daily. Materialists Darwinists come here to peddle their atheism in the name of science, and they dominate almost all of higher education, persecuting anyone who dares question their ideology. It has nothing at all to do with science, because science doesn’t act like that. You are fighting with me right now, and it isn’t about science. No Darwinist comes here to discuss science for very long because they have nothing to talk about. They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans.