Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[Guy Threepwood]

Hell's teeth Guy - you're slipping - it took you two posts to get it in!

OK - all join in the chorus...Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man....Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Maa-an...Piltdown Man...(repeat and fade)

There - see ID is true after all and Piltdown Man proves it! It must surely be true now after we've repeated it so often!

touched a nerve there!

Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man....Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Maa-an...Piltdown Man... was chanted as unquestionable proof of humans evolving from apes, it took 40 years to fade

So you can't expect it to be forgotten as irrelevant now, I don't bring it up one any more often than somebody brings up something like 'science is a totally trustworthy institution'

The problem today is the same as then- why scrutinize the evidence, if you like the conclusion?

PS - on your question regarding the scientific contributions of Hawking etc...

Hawking - massively important contributions to our understanding of black holes, singularities and gravity - if you don't know about this stuff you really need to read up before discrediting him as a scientist

His biggest thing was 'Hawking radiation' which was never verified to exist, and the Big Crunch, whereby we would literally crawl back into the womb as time reversed... this was debunked with supernova measurements some time ago now.
few people have gotten the entire nature of the universe more literally backwards than he did! Yet he is often cited as the worlds greatest living scientist.

I think I'd award Sagan with getting the closest to demonstrating some predictive ability on planet temperatures., but as above, compared to powered flight, electricity, computing, they are academic achievements of little practical value. So too with evolution, it is an inherently academic pursuit held to little practical account, so is free to follow vagaries of academic fashion

 

[socharlie]

So, just because X has an answer, it's necessarily right? That about it?

.

it depends, if it satisfies what you looking for. Check Gerald Schroeder. He is a trained scientist and have answers that make sense.

 

[socharlie]

well its not Christian although some Christians believe it.

what is not Christian?

 

[shunyadragon]

touched a nerve there!

Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man....Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Maa-an...Piltdown Man... was chanted as unquestionable proof of humans evolving from apes, it took 40 years to fade.

This old, old, old stuff and not addressing the subject of the thread. At the time anthropology and paleontology were young science, and it took time to investigate the claim, but nonetheless it was found to be fraud by scientists as with many frauds over recent history. All you have done is demonstrate science has self-corrected and advanced the knowledge of science

So you can't expect it to be forgotten as irrelevant now, I don't bring it up one any more often than somebody brings up something like 'science is a totally trustworthy . institution'

The problem today is the same as then- why scrutinize the evidence, if you like the conclusion?

As usual you are misrepresenting science and not addressing the subject of the thread. Read the first post and please respond constructively.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The primeval atom was a mistaken idea - it was ultimately rejected by scientists regardless of their theological or philosophical worldviews because it did not match the evidence in the end.

It was dismissed and mocked as 'Big Bang'- explicitly for the overt theistic implications atheists saw in such a specific creation event. They overwhelmingly preferred static models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)
i.e. it was absolutely methodological naturalism that sent scientists barking up the wrong tree, and rejecting what turned out to be the truth.

Same holds for ID for many, Dawkins is perfectly open about his ideological resistance to anything that does not specifically support atheism-


We all have beliefs, and it's difficult to remove them objectively from scientific study right? the specific problem with atheism- how does a person separate a belief, he refuses to even acknowledge as such??

My point was not that a theistic believer could not make rational scientific conclusions and still hold on to their beliefs, but that the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism does not help @shunyadragon 's argument against Intelligent Design - the only difference I can discern between his Baha'i version and a more explicitly theistic ans supernatural interventionist Creator version is the point at which naturalism is abandoned. Personally, I don't abandon naturalism at any point but I am happy to admit that leaves with no answer to some of the biggest questions. If I admit I don't know I can't be wrong can I? Not that not being wrong is terribly important - but being certain and mistaken is a problem - as Hoyle embarrassingly discovered but declined to admit.

Yes, Hoyle is a great example of the problem of attacking the intellect of people with different beliefs than your own, it means you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, or you become all the names you called others
He was forced to go to his grave still rejecting the Big Bang; the name he himself coined to mock the primeval atom.


Similarly with Dawkins, do you seriously think he would ever change his position no matter the evidence? And this problem permeates academia in general- helped by the peer pressure review system.

As Planck said- (to paraphrase), science doesn't progress by changing scientists minds, you have to wait for the old ideas to die off with them.

 

[Grandliseur]

First, atheists have nothing to do with whether Noah;s Ark nor Solomon's Temple are real or not. It is the archaeologists, historians and other scientists that research such claims, and evaluate whether such things existed in history. The archaeologist's associated with Biblical Archaeology research are for the most part theists.

First, Solomon's Temple is not rejected by archaeologists. Architecture achievements such as this are well within normal engineering achievement of cultures at the time. Even though evidence of Solomon;s tomb were not found at the Temple Mount. Several equivalent temples have been found.

From: Searching for the Temple of King Solomon - Biblical Archaeology Society

"For centuries, scholars have searched in vain for any remnant of Solomon’s Temple. The fabled Jerusalem sanctuary, described in such exacting detail in 1 Kings 6, was no doubt one the most stunning achievements of King Solomon in the Bible, yet nothing of the building itself has been found because excavation on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, site of the Temple of King Solomon, is impossible.

Fortunately, several Iron Age temples discovered throughout the Levant bear a striking resemblance to the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. Through these remains, we gain extraordinary insight into the architectural grandeur of the building that stood atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount nearly 3,000 years ago.

As reported by archaeologist John Monson in the pages of BAR, the closest known parallel to the Temple of King Solomon is the ’Ain Dara temple in northern Syria. Nearly every aspect of the ’Ain Dara temple—its age, its size, its plan, its decoration—parallels the vivid description of the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. In fact, Monson identified more than 30 architectural and decorative elements shared by the ’Ain Dara structure and the Jerusalem Temple described by the Biblical writers."

Third, as far as Noah's Ark there is no archaeological or other evidence that the Ark ever existed. The Ark as described is not sea worthy nor even possible without advanced technology not remotely available at the time it is claimed to be built. The other problem is there is absolutely no evidence of world wide nor regional flood associated with the Noah's Ark.

Forth. this does not address the questions concerning the subject of the thread,

I am not sure what your point is. I simply answered what was said to me.
Your information about this other temple is interesting, and I found a video presentation of it. However, that presentation contains things we clearly cannot equal with S's temple.

As to your rejection of Noah's ark, that is your prerogative. I do not reject the Biblical account; however, I do not accept the common depiction of the ark. Since you don't believe it existed, this matters not all all since we cannot come to consensus about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

it depends, if it satisfies what you looking for. Check Gerald Schroeder. He is a trained scientist and have answers that make sense.

First, does not address the issue of the thread, OFF TOPIC, Gerald Schroeder never did propose a hypothesis nor theory to support 'Intelligent Design.'

Second, Schroeder is only one of maybe three or four out of thousands of physicists and cosmologists that make a vain attempt force fit a literal Genesis account into the evidence of physics and cosmology. In the methodology of science you do not propose a hypothesis and force fit the evidence to the hypothesis. For example; his 'stretching factor,' which he uses to justify human observation of billions of years into a matter of seven days is not based on sound physics. It has no basis in the observed nature of our universe. It is theist assumption without evidence.

 

[Grandliseur]

First, atheists have nothing to do with whether Noah;s Ark nor Solomon's Temple are real or not. It is the archaeologists, historians and other scientists that research such claims, and evaluate whether such things existed in history. The archaeologist's associated with Biblical Archaeology research are for the most part theists.

First, Solomon's Temple is not rejected by archaeologists. Architecture achievements such as this are well within normal engineering achievement of cultures at the time. Even though evidence of Solomon;s tomb were not found at the Temple Mount. Several equivalent temples have been found.

From: Searching for the Temple of King Solomon - Biblical Archaeology Society

"For centuries, scholars have searched in vain for any remnant of Solomon’s Temple. The fabled Jerusalem sanctuary, described in such exacting detail in 1 Kings 6, was no doubt one the most stunning achievements of King Solomon in the Bible, yet nothing of the building itself has been found because excavation on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, site of the Temple of King Solomon, is impossible.

Fortunately, several Iron Age temples discovered throughout the Levant bear a striking resemblance to the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. Through these remains, we gain extraordinary insight into the architectural grandeur of the building that stood atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount nearly 3,000 years ago.

As reported by archaeologist John Monson in the pages of BAR, the closest known parallel to the Temple of King Solomon is the ’Ain Dara temple in northern Syria. Nearly every aspect of the ’Ain Dara temple—its age, its size, its plan, its decoration—parallels the vivid description of the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. In fact, Monson identified more than 30 architectural and decorative elements shared by the ’Ain Dara structure and the Jerusalem Temple described by the Biblical writers."

Third, as far as Noah's Ark there is no archaeological or other evidence that the Ark ever existed. The Ark as described is not sea worthy nor even possible without advanced technology not remotely available at the time it is claimed to be built. The other problem is there is absolutely no evidence of world wide nor regional flood associated with the Noah's Ark.

Forth. this does not address the questions concerning the subject of the thread,

Solomon's temple:
I just found a video of Solomon's temple that tries to follow the Biblical description. I have never before seen it, but so far, it seems quite accurate though I don't know that the depiction of the cherubims are correct.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure what your point is. I simply answered what was said to me.
Your information about this other temple is interesting, and I found a video presentation of it. However, that presentation contains things we clearly cannot equal with S's temple.

As to your rejection of Noah's ark, that is your prerogative. I do not reject the Biblical account; however, I do not accept the common depiction of the ark. Since you don't believe it existed, this matters not all all since we cannot come to consensus about it.

The bottom line of your accusations is that atheists make these determinations, and that is blatantly false. Consensus is a matter of the professional academic archaeologists and historians and actual archaeological evidence, who are not mostly atheists.

The main problem is this you are not addressing the main issue of the thread, OFF TOPIC. If you want to address these issues based on the evidence and start a thread and I will respond with sound professional academic references.

AGAIN, PLEASE GET ON TOPIC.

 

[shunyadragon]

Solomon's temple:
I just found a video of Solomon's temple that tries to follow the Biblical description. I have never before seen it, but so far, it seems quite accurate though I don't know that the depiction of the cherubims are correct.

Again, OFF TOPIC, please address the topic of the thread as stated in the first post.

 

[David T]

what is not Christian?

Intelligent design or creationism it's irrelevant and at best bad science fiction fantasy. So if you define Christianity as being cluelessly disassociated from reality it's not Christian. Although I might say it's normal. More specifically it has zero to do with the bible.

 

[socharlie]

First, does not address the issue of the thread, OFF TOPIC, Gerald Schroeder never did propose a hypothesis nor theory to support 'Intelligent Design.'

Second, Schroeder is only one of maybe three or four out of thousands of physicists and cosmologists that make a vain attempt force fit a literal Genesis account into the evidence of physics and cosmology. In the methodology of science you do not propose a hypothesis and force fit the evidence to the hypothesis. For example; his 'stretching factor,' which he uses to justify human observation of billions of years into a matter of seven days is not based on sound physics. It has no basis in the observed nature of our universe. It is theist assumption without evidence.

What is ID? is there anyone who has hard borders? ID is in it's title. What Schroeder explains is ID by intent. I suggest to look at his work carefully like Antony Flew.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Why not? The majority for most of history believed in a flat earth. The majority, through history also did not travel farther than about 20 miles from their birth place. The opinions of the majority are rather poor when it comes to seeking truth.

 

[socharlie]

Intelligent design or creationism it's irrelevant and at best bad science fiction fantasy. So if you define Christianity as being cluelessly disassociated from reality it's not Christian. Although I might say it's normal. More specifically it has zero to do with the bible.

There are very serious scientists involved in supporting idea of ID. Are you sure that you really understand reality?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is ID? is there anyone who has hard borders? ID is in it's title. What Schroeder explains is ID by intent. I suggest to look at his work carefully like Antony Flew.

Neither Schroeder nor Anthony Flew ever proposed a hypothesis for falsifying 'Intelligent Design' which is the subject of the thread. As far as Schreoder's Genesis cosmology, you can start a thread and I will wack it to pieces simply based on basic physics, and the observed cosmology of our universe, Anthony Flew is a philosopher and only became a DEIST, not a Theist, very late in his life.

Again, since the philosophy of Anthony Flew is OFF TOPIC I am requesting you start a thread and I will address the problems with his view. I do not believe he ever even mentioned the issue of ID.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Sorry, but you are telling the story wrong. The issue is why the Sphinx has eroded as much as it has. One hypothesis put forward is that it was older and thereby subject to a different climate (wetter).

Contrary to your presentation, this has been debated extensively in the scientific community. Sphinx water erosion hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[socharlie]

Why not? The majority for most of history believed in a flat earth. The majority, through history also did not travel farther than about 20 miles from their birth place. The opinions of the majority are rather poor when it comes to seeking truth.

Because I am Gnostic and have my own experience and that is why I make my choices certain ways. I attribute materialistic and atheistic views of "reason" to deterioration of organs of perception in modern times.

 

[David T]

There are very serious scientists involved in supporting idea of ID. Are you sure that you really understand reality?

Egotistical narcissistic bs. Are your "scientists" experts of the cross? Do they actually understand it? I see zero emperical evidence of that being true... Nadda.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is ID? is there anyone who has hard borders? ID is in it's title. What Schroeder explains is ID by intent. I suggest to look at his work carefully like Antony Flew.

There are very very few scientist (serious?) out thousands that support 'Intelligent Design.' None have proposed a falsifiable hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.'

This thread is getting very long yet no one has cited an academic source proposing a falsifiable hypothesis for ID.

 

[Polymath257]

There are very serious scientists involved in supporting idea of ID. Are you sure that you really understand reality?

Show us one. No, Behe doesn't qualify. He admitted he didn't do the legwork before giving his 'examples' of IC.