1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by shunyadragon, Jan 23, 2018.

  1. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,309
    Ratings:
    +9,043
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

    My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

    I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

    From: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm

    "Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

    Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

    Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

    Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.
     
    #1 shunyadragon, Jan 23, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    I don't see how intelligent design has anything to do with science.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. james dixon

    james dixon Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,702
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    still seeking
    Science is the study of intelligent design.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Science is an investigative modality and so far it hasn't found any need for an intelligence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    70,605
    Ratings:
    +35,605
    Religion:
    Love/Omnism
    I agree. ID is theology not science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,309
    Ratings:
    +9,043
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    In reality no. Intelligent Design is a proposed proposition or hypothesis that our physical existence is Created by an Intelligent Source. The claim by those that believe in 'Intelligent Design' is that scientific methods can falsify, confirm or demonstrate ID.

    Your goal is to demonstrate how scientific methodology can falsify ID. Simplistic assertion do NOT satisfy the standards to science.
     
    #6 shunyadragon, Jan 23, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  7. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    16,830
    Ratings:
    +29,610
    Religion:
    Hindu
    Just as history is the study of the Bible.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,309
    Ratings:
    +9,043
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Does not equate. Historians study the whole history of civilized humanity usually considered at the beginning of written records, based on archaeological, historical documents and other evidence. Historians do study the Bible as a compilation of books set in history, just as they do all ancient documents set in history.
     
  9. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    16,830
    Ratings:
    +29,610
    Religion:
    Hindu
    Does equate.

    Science is not an exclusive study of ID just as history is not an exclusive study of the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. socharlie

    socharlie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    819
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    christian heretic
    science has no answers on how Big Bang came about, what was before BB, how life originated , what is consciousness, so, ID has advantage.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    22,514
    Ratings:
    +8,720
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    actually, physicists have proposed a number of different models of what was "before" the big bang, and how it came about. Some of them may eventually be falsifiable proposals; many are not testable even in theory.

    Biologists and chemists have proposed a number of ideas about how life originated. Again, some may be testable and falsifiable.

    Again, neurologists, psychologists, physicists, computer scientists, and others have offered many theories about what consciousness is, and have been testing the different proposals to see if any can be tested and falsified. Not all of them can be, but many are.

    So, what advantage does ID have? It has the advantage of proposing something that cannot be tested or falsified. It makes no unique or testable hypotheses. It is a "just-so story" that ranks up there with How the Leopard Got His Spots.

    If you truly believe that ID is science, then you need to make specific testable, falsifiable proposals. Otherwise, it is not science.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. socharlie

    socharlie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    819
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    christian heretic
    there is no firm concession in science, ID has answers. ID is not science. Science study physical world, by definition. ID has metaphysical origin.
     
  13. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,818
    Well put. Besides shunyadragon I find it all just "look at me" and irrelevant anyway especially in context to religion.
     
  14. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    I'm not sure I agree with the methodological naturalism/philosophical naturalism division - and I am certain that such a division is neither simple or clear cut enough to be useful in the context of separating science from ID. For instance, whilst I can quite see how a devout believer could 'do' science (i.e. experiments) without the need to take a creator into account, I don't see how such a believer could conscientiously present meaningful 'conclusions' - e.g. about a naturalistic evolutionary account of human origins - whilst simultaneously holding a theological concept of supernatural special creation in mind. In drawing conclusions, you're either a naturalist or you're not - I think. And if you're just doing experiments and not drawing conclusions then you're probably a technician rather than a scientist.

    Intelligent Design is a theological concept not a scientific one - it is a top-down deduction based on the assumption that the perceived 'order' of things (cosmos) could not have emerged except by the deliberate action of an intelligent and necessarily supernatural creator. This may or may not be true - but there is absolutely, certainly and without any shadow of doubt, no scientific experiment that could ever be done to establish this even as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Science simply does not do top-down deduction, that is not its business - it does bottom-up induction based on the analysis of observed bits of the world. Its a different process altogether.

    The methodological naturalism of science is not an option - it is forced on us because we cannot observe anything but the natural. ID does not fail to be science because it has abandoned methodological naturalism - it hasn't and never will be able to do that because it will never be able to actually observe anything other than the natural. Rather, ID fails to be science because it deduces a conclusion that cannot possibly - even in theory - be induced from observation and analysis.

    My own view is that if science ever has anything to say about God per se it will be because we have discovered by inductive scientific reasoning what Spinoza had deduced philosophically centuries earlier - that on the grandest scales there is no genuine distinction between God and Nature - deus sive natura - as he put it. And if we do ever discover that, then that will spell one of two possible interpretations: either an increasingly anorexic theology will have slimmed down sufficiently to become a legitimate part of science - or science will have killed off theology for good. I guess we'll still be left with a choice of which interpretation suits us best.
     
    #14 siti, Jan 23, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  15. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    22,514
    Ratings:
    +8,720
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    "Firm concession?" What does that mean?

    I agree, however, that ID is not science, and it provides metaphysical answers without verifiable evidence.
     
  16. socharlie

    socharlie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    819
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    christian heretic
    I do not agree with "without verifiable evidence" statement. many just do not have tools to verify evidence.
    the action of conceding, granting, or yielding something.
    synonyms: admission · acknowledgment · acceptance · recognition ·
    [more]
     
  17. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,887
    If you don't have the tools to verify the evidence it cannot possibly be science.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,456
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    What evidence are you basing this on? What is your reasoning for believing this?
     
  19. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,456
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Well-put.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. socharlie

    socharlie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    819
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    christian heretic
    it is not science it is metaphysics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...