|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 1:41:05 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have a problem that, if they wish to become more credible in their approach to science, will have to resolve.
We hear over and over again by the C/ID group that Evolution is strictly Materialism or Naturalism. This is their primary objection to Science in general but especially Evolution.
At the same time, I.D. proponents, while scoffing at a strictly materialistic/Naturalistic approach to science, will not openly admit that their ID is not of the material/natural world, thereby supporting indirectly Naturalism and materialism.
They are caught in a catch 22. If they claim that their ID is material, they cannot object to the material/natural approach science takes. But, if they claim that their ID is supernatural they can no longer hide the foundation of thier beliefs which is otherworldly.
They will have to decide on a platform which all I.D. proponents can agree upon.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 1:56:41 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1607
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have a problem that, if they wish to become more credible in their approach to science, will have to resolve.
We hear over and over again by the C/ID group that Evolution is strictly Materialism or Naturalism. This is their primary objection to Science in general but especially Evolution.
At the same time, I.D. proponents, while scoffing at a strictly materialistic/Naturalistic approach to science, will not openly admit that their ID is not of the material/natural world, thereby supporting indirectly Naturalism and materialism.
They are caught in a catch 22. If they claim that their ID is material, they cannot object to the material/natural approach science takes. But, if they claim that their ID is supernatural they can no longer hide the foundation of thier beliefs which is otherworldly.
They will have to decide on a platform which all I.D. proponents can agree upon.
Almost all ID proponents accept the material/natural approach of science, what they reject is the philosophical views of some scientists. Often atheistic scientist will try to make the argument that their philosophical beliefs are a required part of science, and it is that to which ID proponents object i.e. the special definition of "material/natural" proposed by some scientists. Scientists from the ID perspective accept the same conclusions when there is scientific proof; however, the draw very different conclusions when no scientific proof exists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 2:04:53 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Almost all ID proponents accept the material/natural approach of science, what they reject is the philosophical views of some scientists. Often atheistic scientist will try to make the argument that their philosophical beliefs are a required part of science, and it is that to which ID proponents object i.e. the special definition of "material/natural" proposed by some scientists. Scientists from the ID perspective accept the same conclusions when there is scientific proof; however, the draw very different conclusions when no scientific proof exists.
Yes, I think it is not the fact that science must deal with material considerations in it's investigations that concerns ID scientists, but rather it is that when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural', assuming that the implications and the evidence are one.
In short, ID scientists prefer to let science lead where it may, regardless of the implications
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 2:36:03 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I used the term Strictly twice. Both replies are restating what I did in my first post. However, Jhud is saying that ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers.
Do all ID proponents admit that biological supernatural influence is their basic hypothesis then?
< Message edited by Aristocrat -- 1/3/2008 2:44:05 PM >
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 2:50:54 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
by the way.....Discovery.org says: "....actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clearthat the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religiousquestions such as the nature or identity of the designer."
Now is Discovery.org misrepresenting the ID's here or elsewhere?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 2:53:48 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, Jhud is saying that ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers.
What sort of idiot would read what I said as saying anything of the sort?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 2:56:45 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1607
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I used the term Strictly twice. Both replies are restating what I did in my first post.
Using stricty doesn't change the fact that your objection to ID is based on philosophical not scientific reasons. My scientists who hold a to a position of ID, regularly participate in the scientific community, have their work peer reviewed and accepted by other scientists who do not hold to their philosophical views. The idea that approaching science with a philosophical belief that a supernatural God exists is "a problem that, if they (ID proponents) wish to become more credible in their approach to science, will have to resolve" is just plain nonsense, and has nothing to do with science or the credibility of the work of scientists who philosophically hold to a ID position.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:03:17 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural',
You said:
quote:
....when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural',
Why would ID proponents have a problem with that?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:06:58 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why would ID proponents have a problem with that?
You didn't answer the question. What sort of idiot would equate this:
quote:
when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural',
with this?
quote:
Jhud is saying that ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:16:27 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I used the term Strictly twice. Both replies are restating what I did in my first post.
Using stricty doesn't change the fact that your objection to ID is based on philosophical not scientific reasons.
I have absolutely no qualms with ID being taught as a philosophy and not science in public schools.
quote:
My scientists who hold a to a position of ID, regularly participate in the scientific community, have their work peer reviewed and accepted by other scientists who do not hold to their philosophical views. My guess is that there is no philosophical approach through ID that is mentioned in these Peer Reviews you speak of. If there is, I would love to see some proof of that.
quote:
The idea that approaching science with a philosophical belief that a supernatural God exists is "a problem that, if they (ID proponents) wish to become more credible in their approach to science, will have to resolve" is just plain nonsense,
I didn't say it was. Many scientists are Christians, indeed, I am a Christian. But you will not find that as a major or even minor point in any peer reviews. Please feel free to demonstrate where I am wrong.
< Message edited by Aristocrat -- 1/3/2008 3:24:37 PM >
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:18:27 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose the base contradiction is now this: ID takes research to the point where logic fails, and the other camp takes research to a point at which they make suppositions that cannot be proven.
I would say it this way - ID takes research as far as the evidence (which is material in nature) will allow, regardless of the implications of that material evidence.
Materialists (of which many evolutionary thinkers are a subset, by intention or aquiescence) will only consider material evidence which doesn't threaten their materialistic metaphysic.
In short, if the implication of the material evidence isn't materialistic (or can't be relialy construed as such), then materialists dismiss it as 'supernatural'.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:19:02 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Why would ID proponents have a problem with that?
You didn't answer the question. What sort of idiot would equate this:
quote:
when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural',
with this?
quote:
Jhud is saying that ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers
Please correct me then. Do ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers when materialism falls short?
I don't wish to misrepresent you.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:22:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please correct me then. Do ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers when materialism falls short?
I don't wish to misrepresent you.
ID proponents (Published ones, like Behe and Dembski and Meyers), like all scientists, look at the material evidence, that is all they look at - no scientist should look to materialism, and if one did, it would be a startiling admission of metaphysical bias.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:23:32 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That was my point, Jack. The research cannot progress further when there is nothing logical to pursue. In essence, there is no more evidence available.
Point taken - science is definitely limited this way.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:30:29 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 708
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
In short, if the implication of the material evidence isn't materialistic (or can't be relialy construed as such), then materialists dismiss it as 'supernatural'.
What sort of material evidence is dismissed as 'supernatural'?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:31:05 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Please correct me then. Do ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers when materialism falls short?
I don't wish to misrepresent you.
ID proponents (Published ones, like Behe and Dembski and Meyers), like all scientists, look at the material evidence, that is all they look at - no scientist should look to materialism, and if one did, it would be a startiling admission of metaphysical bias.
But...material evidence is all Evolution scientists look at also and they form no assumptions but continue to follow the evidence. It is the ID/creationists who wish to use evidence to make their own assumptions. Making unfounded assumptions is not what evidence is for.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 3:43:53 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Why would ID proponents have a problem with that?
You didn't answer the question. What sort of idiot would equate this:
quote:
when such investigations lead to intelligence as a cause, materialists reject such an explanation as 'supernatural',
with this?
quote:
Jhud is saying that ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers
Please correct me then. Do ID proponents look to the supernatural for answers when materialism falls short?
I don't wish to misrepresent you.
I am not answering for Jack, but it seems to me that ID proponents simply say the answer beyond a certain point is not possible to deduct without consideration that Intelligence caused it. That is not a declaration of: this is what happened beyond saying an Intelligence designed it.
Well as I said in another post, you can contemplate an Intelligent designer all day long and gain nothing in return. That is why it is not science. But you are still free to contemplate it.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 4:04:33 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not answering for Jack, but it seems to me that ID proponents simply say the answer beyond a certain point is not possible to deduct without consideration that Intelligence caused it. That is not a declaration of: this is what happened beyond saying an Intelligence designed it.
I think that clarifies pretty well. I would add that this understanding is only 'anti-materialistic' in as much as intelligence can be considered a non-material cause, which is debatable.
But this discussion has caused me to think of a thought experiment which should claify where intelligent design stands with regard to materialism.
As a philosophical belief, materialism says in essence that ‘matter is all that there is’. That is, that the only entities or causes which exist are material in nature – that is composed of some material which exists in the universe.
Now imagine instead of that philosophy, scientists were wed to the idea of ‘terrestrialism’, a belief we will define as holding that, ‘the only life which exists is terrestrial (of earth) in nature’, and anything which even considers extraterrestrial life is wholly unscientific.
Now imagine a group of these scientists go to another planet in our solar system and they discover there an interstellar spacecraft of completely foreign design. The language on it's controls is unknown to human history, the engineering unique and unlike any in known to these scientists. Indeed, it is beyond any capabilities they have.
Because of there ‘terrestrial’ bias, they come up with a number of scenarios for how this might have come from earth, and how another civilization might have once existed on earth that was unknown to humans, and who developed this starship. They must come up with such stories, and interpret the evidence accordingly, because anything which considers an extraterrestrial origin is by their definition, ‘unscientific’.
Now imagine at a scientific conference concerning the spacecraft, a rather naïve ID-like scientist suggests that their approach is wrong – they shouldn’t attempt to constrain their evidence to a preconceived notion that requires a terrestrial explanation, but instead let the evidence lead where it may – perhaps this is the first indicator of life elsewhere. Perhaps if they follow that research vigorously and consider the possibility that intelligence isn’t limited to earth, it might lead them to novel discoveries and fresh research venues.
Of course, the young scientist is roundly laughed out of the room, reminded that his notions go against the ‘consensus’ and are threatening to the very foundations of terrestrialism, which has served the scientific community well for years, and in addition, he has no real evidence other than his own incredulity that such life forms might exist elsewhere.
Shouts follow him out into the hall; “Show us the extraterrestrial engineers!” - “Tell us why extraterrestrials would leave a spaceship here!” – “Such a notion is unfalsifiable”.
Realizing his scientific career is imperiled the naive young scientist decides he best be quiet and not risk further derision if he wants to continue to work in science.
And from that day forward, all good school children understand that while we don’t know the origin of the mysterious spacecraft, we can be assured it came from earth, and that some day science will demonstrate that fact – no need to consider possibilities to the contrary.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 4:08:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
But...material evidence is all Evolution scientists look at also and they form no assumptions but continue to follow the evidence. It is the ID/creationists who wish to use evidence to make their own assumptions. Making unfounded assumptions is not what evidence is for.
Actually, the primary proposition of ID (based partly on assumption, though supported by evidence) is that intelligent activity can be detected. This is wholly founded, even utilized, by science.
It is the materialist assumption that intelligence can't be considered because of the implications of such a consideration that is 'unfounded'.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 4:11:34 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6790
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
What sort of material evidence is dismissed as 'supernatural'?
The understanding that information driven machinery must originate from intelligent agency, and that such machinery is found in biological organisms.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 4:36:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 708
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
What sort of material evidence is dismissed as 'supernatural'?
The understanding that information driven machinery must originate from intelligent agency, and that such machinery is found in biological organisms.
That's not material evidence. That's an assumption.
Sure, a watch on the beach is material evidence, but one cannot extrapolate from that to the rings of Saturn or life on earth.
Pointing to examples of black ravens does not provide material evidence that all birds are black. Similarly, I think watches and life are birds of a different feather. One cannot just assume that one must be like the other.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Contradiction: - 1/3/2008 4:45:38 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Another thought occurs to me. When an intelligent designer is assumed several questions come into play.
1. does that mean the intelligent designer is more intelligent than us?
2. what other creations is the ID responsible for that exist outside of our knowledge?
3. Is there a chance that the ID would not wish to leave any evidence behind to indicate his/her/its presence?
4. If the ID created us, why hasn't he made himself known empirically?
5. what type of proof would we need to show that we are the product of an ID beyond any doubt?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
