Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[socharlie]

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.

years ago I have see some wacking of him by fake former Soviet scientist hired by some humanist association , it was pathetic.
Ho much of his work did you read ?
btw, "Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from Latin "deus" meaning "god") is a philosophical position that posits that God (or in some cases, gods) does not interfere directly with the world" from Wiki. Deism is a form of Theism.

 

[Polymath257]

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. 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.

The primeval atom didn't even fit the *theory* of the time (meaning general relativity). it was a way of saying the theory fails at some point.

 

[socharlie]

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

start with Isaak Newton and you can help yourself. I do not accept your views about Behe, btw. 20 years ago I was in "irreducible complexity" on my own, fwiw.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

OK, so you have your anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything more substantial? Any actual evidence for the deterioration of our organs of perception (eyes? ears? nose?)

 

[Polymath257]

start with Isaak Newton and you can help yourself. I do not accept your views about Behe, btw. 20 years ago I was in "irreducible complexity" on my own, fwiw.

Can we have someone from the last 100 years? yes, our ideas have changed since Newton was around. But he was NOT an ID scientist in the sense used today. He did not base his scientific ideas on ID. And, in fact, his theological beliefs were rather irrelevant to his scientific advances.

 

[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.

"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Wiki
That is what Schroeder does. I read several of his works. Nobody disproved him.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.'

I couldn't agree more. Like you, I like to sit at my computer in the comfort of my air conditioned home in the glow of electric lighting while linked to a vast network of other computers so that I can tell the world almost instantaneously how disappointed I am by science.

 

[socharlie]

OK, so you have your anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything more substantial? Any actual evidence for the deterioration of our organs of perception (eyes? ears? nose?)

I have all evidence I need, science knows some 5 % of universe , I accept that. But metaphysically I rather refer to Rudolf Steiner

 

[shunyadragon]

"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Wiki
That is what Schroeder does. I read several of his works. Nobody disproved him.

No Schroeder DID NOT. He proposed an explanation for stretching time to justify a seven day creation, and actually did not propose a hypothesis that could be falsified to justify his view. Please cite him if you believe this is so. The problem is Schroeder NEVER proposed a hypotheisis that could be falsified to support ID.

 

[socharlie]

OK, so you have your anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything more substantial? Any actual evidence for the deterioration of our organs of perception (eyes? ears? nose?)

just google it, the first one I got 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

 

[David T]

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

ID scientists all agree its a lion!! I say no it's a house kitty.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have all evidence I need, science knows some 5 % of universe , I accept that. But metaphysically I rather refer to Rudolf Steiner

This is very very misleading concerning what science 'knows,' because science does not claim to 'know' anything. Where did you get this 5%? Problem is that science is continually making observations of more and more of the actual objects in the universe all that has been achieved is that they are consistent with previous observations.

Rudolf Steiner is not a scientist. He is a philosopher and educator, and never proposed anything concerning the falsification of ID.

 

[socharlie]

No Schroeder DID NOT. He proposed an explanation for stretching time to justify a seven day creation, and actually did not propose a hypothesis that could be falsified to justify his view. Please cite him if you believe this is so. The problem is Schroeder NEVER proposed a hypotheisis that could be falsified to support ID.

Disproof what he says. He just says that Genesis time line does not contradicts scientific some 15 Bln year age of university and days of creation - eras- coincide with scientific time line of evolution of Earth. Read his works. Time is relative.

 

[shunyadragon]

just google it, the first one I got 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Believing in God does not equate to believing in nor proposing a hypothesis for ID. I am a scientist and I do not believe ID is science, nor does it amount to a hypothesis that may be falsified by science.

 

[shunyadragon]

start with Isaak Newton and you can help yourself. I do not accept your views about Behe, btw. 20 years ago I was in "irreducible complexity" on my own, fwiw.

The contemporary science of evolution has demonstrated the natural processes that explain the natural evolution of simply life forms to complex life forms.

 

[socharlie]

This is very very misleading concerning what science 'knows,' because science does not claim to 'know' anything. Where did you get this 5%? Problem is that science is continually making observations of more and more of the actual objects in the universe all that has been achieved is that they are consistent with previous observations.

Rudolf Steiner is not a scientist. He is a philosopher and educator, and never proposed anything concerning the falsification of ID.

I hope you remember that you speaking about science and I - about metaphysics. No self respected scientist would claim "there is no God". ID is science only partially as metaphysics.

 

[socharlie]

The contemporary science of evolution has demonstrated the natural processes that explain the natural evolution of simply life forms to complex life forms.

I had a logical problem between evolution of complex organisms over log periods of time and survival of the fittest theory.
I accept evolution in a somewhat limited form.

 

[shunyadragon]

I hope you remember that you speaking about science and I - about metaphysics. No self respected scientist would claim "there is no God". ID is science only partially as metaphysics.

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis concerning our physical existence that claims there is scientific justification for this,

If you wish to discuss this from a metaphysical or philosophical perspective that is a different subject,

 

[shunyadragon]

I had a logical problem between evolution of complex organisms over long periods of time and survival of the fittest theory.
I accept evolution in a somewhat limited form.

The science of evolution is not a logical problem in and of itself. The objective verifiable evidence of genetic and structural biologic changes over time from simple forms to complex forms is where the evidence is despite being personally illogical to some.

 

[socharlie]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis concerning our physical existence that claims there is scientific justification for this,

If you wish to discuss this from a metaphysical or philosophical perspective that is a different subject,

basic definition of faith is firmly be sure that visible originated in invisible, i.e. the world is metaphysical, there is no scientific proof that this is not correct. We have different coordinate systems - there is no point to argue.

Francis Collins - Wikipedia