Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[Grandliseur]

I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

I am not impressed by the scientific approach at all. When people with engineering skills, even those who have PhD's in their fields, covering engineering and water erosion are ignored when it comes to ancient megalithic remains, the Sphinx - cannot get the accepted paradigm changed when there are clear marks of machinery having been used, of water marks on the Sphinx that predates Egypt's pharaohs, it seems clear that science is just another word for 'country club' of the rich and powerful. Even one example of an archaeologist, female, stands out because of her loosing her job over standing on the test results of her work in one place that this 'country club' could not accept due to the change of paradigm it would cause.

Thus we have fields of science that we implement in our technology which causes many to be so proud of our scientific methods, yet, in other areas, it is the inquisition of the Catholic church reborn in this modern exclusive 'country club.'

 

[socharlie]

What evidence are you basing this on? What is your reasoning for believing this?

physical part of metaphysical is what science study. reasoning may be in him/her having working tools of perception.

 

[leibowde84]

science has no answers on how Big Bang came about, what was before BB, how life originated , what is consciousness, so, ID has advantage.

Why would that give ID an advantage if the supposed "answers" from ID aren't supported by verifiable evidence?

Theories do not get credit and are in no way more likely simply because they claim to account for more. Evidence credits theories, not the vastness of explanation.

In other words, the CURRENT lack of definitive explanations for the things you mentioned in no way make ID a better theory. Only evidence can do that. Anyone could make up a theory, not based on anything but their imagination, that provides more explanation than even the Bible does. When evidence is not required, imagination is really the only alternative.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not impressed by the scientific approach at all. When people with engineering skills, even those who have PhD's in the fields covering water erosion are ignored when it comes to ancient megalithic remains, the Sphinx - cannot get the accepted paradigm changed when there are clear marks of machinery having been used, of water marks on the Sphinx that predates Egypt's pharaohs, it seems clear that science is just another word for 'country club' of the rich and powerful. Even one example of an archaeologist, female, stands out because of her loosing her job over standing on the test results of her work in one place that this 'country club' could not accept due to the change of paradigm it would cause.

Thus we have fields of science that we implement in our technology which causes many to be so proud of our scientific methods, yet, in other areas, it is the inquisition of the Catholic church reborn in this modern 'country club.'

This isn't actually a problem because the scientific method is used constantly to disprove the assumptions and theories of others. And, the method is entirely evidence driven. If a scientist has a problem with a theory, they can use experimentation and other evidence to show that it is wrong. It's pretty much the best system we humans have.

What specific scientific theory do you think was fraudulently arrived at?

 

[socharlie]

Why would that give ID an advantage if the supposed "answers" from ID aren't supported by verifiable evidence?

Theories do not get credit and are in no way more likely simply because they claim to account for more. Evidence credits theories, not the vastness of explanation.

In other words, the CURRENT lack of definitive explanations for the things you mentioned in no way make ID a better theory. Only evidence can do that. Anyone could make up a theory, not based on anything but their imagination, that provides more explanation than even the Bible does. When evidence is not required, imagination is really the only alternative.

if you do not have working organs of perception you do not have "verifiable evidence" which is not of physical nature.
90% or more of ever existed-existing people were/are theists, that is my estimate.

 

[siti]

I am not impressed by the scientific approach at all.

Fair enough - you stick with your intelligent design and leave the intelligent conversation to the rest of us then.

 

[leibowde84]

physical part of metaphysical is what science study. reasoning may be in him/her having working tools of perception.

That doesn't answer my question. Metaphysics is the study of being/existence. So, the physical part of that would be what science is limited to (as anything beyond that would not be verifiable/testable), and for obviously good reason. The scientific method cannot consider that which is not testable/visible/verifiable. Once it did, it would cease to be science.

What specific scientific theory do you think was fraudulently created without evidence?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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]

what is a "firm concession" and how does it relate to science?

 

[leibowde84]

if you do not have working organs of perception you do not have "verifiable evidence" which is not of physical nature.
90% or more of ever existed-existing people were/are theists, that is my estimate.

Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

 

[socharlie]

That doesn't answer my question. Metaphysics is the study of being/existence. So, the physical part of that would be what science is limited to (as anything beyond that would not be verifiable/testable), and for obviously good reason. The scientific method cannot consider that which is not testable/visible/verifiable. Once it did, it would cease to be science.

What specific scientific theory do you think was fraudulently created without evidence?

science studies physical world. I have no problem with science at all. I accept what science finds.
Metaphysics, which literally means “that which comes after the physical,” is the study of the spiritual root of physical life. In this way, metaphysics shares similar goals with other noble studies such as general spirituality, theology, philosophy, mysticism, theosophy, and ontology.

What is Metaphysics | Spiritual Arts Institute

 

[socharlie]

Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

I am saying that majority of human beings ever lived were theists - I can not dismiss this.

 

[Grandliseur]

and leave the intelligent conversation to the rest of us then.

As usual, the atheist excels at not so veiled insults. His intelligence level shines through like a laser cutting right to the bone. It is indeed rewarding to be on the receiving end of such high intelligence. Again, this is the way of atheists. When they cannot counter anything, it becomes a matter of personal debasement and insult rather than constructive conversation for many of them. No wonder that those who have the degrees to question matters cannot change anything with that kind of attitude from quite a few A's.

 

[Grandliseur]

This isn't actually a problem because the scientific method is used constantly to disprove the assumptions and theories of others. And, the method is entirely evidence driven. If a scientist has a problem with a theory, they can use experimentation and other evidence to show that it is wrong. It's pretty much the best system we humans have.

What specific scientific theory do you think was fraudulently arrived at?

I was specifically referring to how the study of ancient megalithic structures around the globe have been studied by professionals with degrees, even among them one or two professors. These have clearly demonstrated that high technology in their making was evident from the artifacts studies, and as mentioned water marks on the Spinx that clearly shows our present taught history to be wrong, that it is obvious we are dealing with an ancient high technological civilization now in ruins and long forgotten. Much more than this was seen to be suppressed by the powers that be.

 

[siti]

As usual, the atheist excels at not so veiled insults. His intelligence level shines through like a laser cutting right to the bone. It is indeed rewarding to be on the receiving end of such high intelligence. Again, this is the way of atheists. When they cannot counter anything, it becomes a matter of personal debasement and insult rather than constructive conversation for many of them. No wonder that those who have the degrees to question matters cannot change anything with that kind of attitude from quite a few A's.

I'm not an atheist - I am, however, a scientist and if you denigrate the whole of "science" as a corrupt "country club" for the rich and powerful on the basis that "it" does not agree with your interpretation of marks you may have seen in online pictures of the sphinx you are very definitely not making intelligent conversation and you very clearly do not understand the "scientific approach" you seek to discredit at all. My comment was not a thinly veiled personal insult (it was not veiled at all and was not meant to be) but an open and honest appraisal of the asinine quality of your remarks. Is that a bit clearer for you now?

 

[Grandliseur]

I'm not an atheist - I am, however, a scientist and if you denigrate the whole of "science" as a corrupt "country club" for the rich and powerful on the basis that "it" does not agree with your interpretation of marks you may have seen in online pictures of the sphinx you are very definitely not making intelligent conversation and you very clearly do not understand the "scientific approach" you seek to discredit at all. My comment was not a thinly veiled personal insult (it was not veiled at all and was not meant to be) but an open and honest appraisal of the asinine quality of your remarks. Is that a bit clearer for you now?

Oh, sure, exchanging insults with those who have nothing else to offer on this site is going to do wonders for my warnings going to rain down on me.
Can you not do any better than the above?! Let's hear it. You should be able to do better than the above, I am sure. We got off to such a good start, don't you think.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, sure, exchanging insults with those who have nothing else to offer on this site is going to do wonders for my warnings going to rain down on me.
Can you not do any better than the above?! Let's hear it. You should be able to do better than the above, I am sure. We got off to such a good start, don't you think.

When people have a substantive argument to offer, there is not much need or desire for name calling. Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, so at that point you can check 'ignore' and move on..

 

[siti]

Oh, sure, exchanging insults with those who have nothing else to offer on this site is going to do wonders for my warnings going to rain down on me.
Can you not do any better than the above?! Let's hear it. You should be able to do better than the above, I am sure. We got off to such a good start, don't you think.

I agree!

I am not impressed by the scientific approach at all.

400+ years of the scientific advancement of human knowledge and understanding of the world dismissed in just ten words - brilliant start! Forgive me for not immediately abandoning everything I have spent my entire adult life investigating by the "scientific approach" and agreeing with your bizarre and (apparently since you have presented no actual evidence) baseless theory about science as a global elitist conspiracy to hide the truth from the great unwashed. Now - if you want a sensible response, post a sensible comment. Otherwise, GIGO!

 

[Grandliseur]

When people have a substantive argument to offer, there is not much need or desire for name calling. Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, so at that point you can check 'ignore' and move on..

Agree.

At least one other was both smart and nice enough to simply ask me to elaborate rather than taking what I said as a personal insult to himself. In such cases, educational, even pleasant, communication may happen.

In my first post on this thread, I believe I gave specific reasons for my dissatisfaction with the system and didn't just dump on all sciences. So, maybe he had a bad hair-day to take it personal.

 

[Grandliseur]

I agree!
400+ years of the scientific advancement of human knowledge and understanding of the world dismissed in just ten words - brilliant start! Forgive me for not immediately abandoning everything I have spent my entire adult life investigating by the "scientific approach" and agreeing with your bizarre and (apparently since you have presented no actual evidence) baseless theory about science as a global elitist conspiracy to hide the truth from the great unwashed. Now - if you want a sensible response, post a sensible comment. Otherwise, GIGO!

Have a nice day. I think your way of communicating only gets my dander up. So, as you so clearly said, which I agree with - GIGO.

 

[siti]

When people have a substantive argument to offer, there is not much need or desire for name calling. Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, so at that point you can check 'ignore' and move on..

Ah Guy! There you are! My post was not an insult - it was taxonomic. An asinine remark does not make for intelligent conversation any more than calling "a rose by any other name" would make its aroma any less sweet. If you want a substantive argument see my reasoned comment Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science and either agree or disagree with that. But please don't join @Grandliseur in attempting to discredit the whole of science on the basis of some odd marks on an old statue - which actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic anyway.