Intelligent Design, most scientific

[Nullasalus]

Quoting Miller and Levine on “Cardinal Schoenborn’s Mistake”, with emphasis added.

But the Cardinal is wrong in asserting that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the “meaning” on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the “mainstream biologists” of which the Cardinal speaks?

Not at all. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”

From what I’ve seen, the flashpoint of the Intelligent Design movement, and the greatest fight between most ID proponents and critics, usually comes down to people trying to masquerade personal philosophy as science. Hecd2 talks about how scientists have the right to use their science to inform their worldview and to be public about it. That’s fine. The problem for a long time - and even now - has been that some scientists have quite a knack for making their worldview sound as if it’s the only viable option given the data.

The nasty, dreaded secret in this debate is that when a theist points at a natural process or event in natural history and declares “Creator at work!”, they have gone outside of the sphere of science - and equally has the atheist or agnostic who points at that same process or event and says “Unintended Chance!”. You don’t need to refer to design or the lack of design when dealing with questions at this level - and there is no mechanism, not even theoretical, for testing design one way or the other at said levels either.

The problem is that, until the ID movement, we only heard one side of the story. What a “scientist, as a scientist” cannot speak on was whether God played a role in the universe. Whether God did not play a role in the universe was treated as not only a scientific question, but in some circles, a settled question. If there is no scientific method for detecting design, guess what? There is also no scientific method for ruling out design. Science as it stands can illustrate action, but not motivation or the lack thereof behind action.

Contra to hecd2’s paper, I think Schoenborn’s comments about some evolution proponents are valid. What seems like chance could be purpose, just as what seems like purpose could be chance. Science can do without either supposition - certain scientists, for what amount to personal, (a)theological reasons, cannot.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, I wasn’t thinking of that at all.

Admittedly, I think this whole matter strikes at the heart of all discussions I’ve read about over the last 5000 years or so…the question of free-will vs. determinism.

And, to be fair, I don’t think any side of these debates quite have all the answers-- I know I don’t.

---

I think this whole discussion of intelligent design vs. evolution (ie., Creation) ultimately comes down to the mystery of iniquity that Paul refers to-- and even he admits it’s a very deep mystery notwithstanding the powerful revelations from God that he had directly received.

**On one side of the mystery there is the question of why good people suffer “bad things”.

On the other side of the mystery is how an all-powerful God could allow things to go “wrong”.**

The two different questions, in my opinion, are very interactive with each other, although most people that I speak with do not seem to have really considered how deeply these two profound questions relate to each other.

Ultimately, however, most answers I’ve read from any apologetic angle that is presented (law vs. grace, intelligent design vs. creation, etc.) somehow seems to lead to one of these two questions noted above.

And, in the end, it always comes down to free-will vs. determinism.

Always.

Yes, it has to do with the nature of intelligence and self-reference. It’s a difficult question; one philosophers and cognitive psychologists alike have difficulty approaching.

Have you read Douglas Hoffstader’s “Godel, Escher, Bach”, or the follow-up “The Mind’s I?”

No, I haven’t read the book. But now that I’ve looked it up more, I think I might add it to my list of books for research (see my signature). It looks really good to be honest.

It is clear enough that we have “room” to go astray, but exactly how that is managed in a universe that is deterministic on the macro level is unclear. Perhaps the quantum mind theories are right. Haven’t looked at them in a rigorous way, so I can’t say.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

I have read about quantum mind theories, which seems to mesh with the idea of God himself as a “raw potential” – albeit, alive and fully cognizant from eternity toward infinity. If this is so, then our sins are actually apparently a deviation from God’s “divine potential” that has always existed, always exists and always will exist.

I do tend to think that hell would be akin to an eternal body and soul thrown into the void seathing quantum foam (as conceived by John Wheeler) – they would be lost in an eternally fabricless space-timeless seething foam of wormholes and tiny black holes.

I don’t really know though-- and I don’t want to find out personally either. But this reminds me very much of the “lake of burning fire” reserved for the devil and his followers as mentioned within the Unvealing (aka., The Apocalypse).

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Science as it stands can illustrate action, but not motivation or the lack thereof behind action.

I see your point, but that’s not quite exactly true.

Forensics combined with criminal psychology regularly makes accurate predictions regarding the intentionality of the criminals they track down and prosecute-- often defining points of contact between action and motivation with amazing accuracy.

 

[Nullasalus]

I see your point, but that’s not quite exactly true.

Forensics combined with criminal psychology regularly makes accurate predictions regarding the intentionality of the criminals they track down and prosecute-- often defining points of contact between action and motivation with amazing accuracy.

I was hoping someone would point that out! I don’t think it comes into play in the spheres the base natural sciences make up, but you can argue that’s science at work in those cases.

There are objections there too, though - ranging from free will debates to qualia debates. Even regular judicial objections, distinguishing between murder in the first and second degree, insanity pleas, etc. It’s a whole other realm, and an interesting one.

 

[reggieM]

If there is no scientific method for detecting design, guess what? There is also no scientific method for ruling out design.

That’s an interesting point.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that there could be no method for defining what is meant by “design”. It’s a fairly new field of study so we don’t know what will emerge. But the assumption is that human beings can recognize the work of human intelligence. We can also recognize the work of an animal intelligence versus random natural process (a beaver dam, for example).

I do not see why this cannot be tested in terms of probability. A “designed structure or system” is one that shows a consistency of pattern or repetion or “fitness” that is radically different than the results of a random process.

For example, something like a beehive which is the product of design and intelligence (showing purpose). Random mixtures of the same elements used to construct a beehive or bird’s nest never show the repeated patterns even to a small degree.

So, when one finds a bird’s nest in nature it is immediately recognized as a product of design and intelligence.

When a pattern is found in nature that meets all the criteria that we use to define a “designed system” then that fact should be included as a part of scientific study.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What role does Darwinian naturalism propose for God in the creation of human beings?

Same as metallurgy. None whatever. Science can’t say anything about God. Which means that it can neither demonstrate nor deny God.

What role do you believe God had?

He’s the Creator. But science can’t tell me that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, humans are very good at telling the difference between design and nature. In anthropology, there are people who spend a lifetime working out ways to detect minuite signs of design in primitive tools that might otherwise pass notice.

It’s not that we can’t find design in nature; it’s that there isn’t any sign of that. God seems to have done it right from the beginning, and never needed to adjust it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Same as metallurgy. None whatever. Science can’t say anything about God. Which means that it can neither demonstrate nor deny God.

He’s the Creator. But science can’t tell me that.

Then by definition, if there was anything miraculous or extremely improbably that happened to facilitate the evolution of man, science will never know about it. Therefore science would come up with a false explanation of how things happened.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then by definition, if there was anything miraculous or extremely improbably that happened to facilitate the evolution of man, science will never know about it.

“Extremely improbable” would presumably leave some evidence we could evaluate. But if God were to set aside the rules and step in to make an adjustment, we would never be able to explain it scientifically.

Miracles happen from time to time. Science can’t explain them. So far, we have no sign that God has done it for any other reason than to teach us something. Hence, it seems unlikely that He’s done that apart from our notice. But it’s possible. So far, no sign of that kind of thing. For which I’m grateful. If He did much of that, the universe would be an rather precarious and unpredictable place, which wouldn’t be good for us.

Therefore science would come up with a false explanation of how things happened.

No, it would remain inaccessible to science, as (for example) the Resurrection is.

 

[reggieM]

Then by definition, if there was anything miraculous or extremely improbable that happened to facilitate the evolution of man, science will never know about it. Therefore science would come up with a false explanation of how things happened.

That’s correct. There’s another way to look at it as well. If God directly or indirectly caused some development in evolution, or if God directly created the soul of man, then Darwinian theory which states that all of the development of life came from the natural (not supernatural) processes of random mutation and natural selection – then science would be missing some essential facts about nature and would inevitably come up with false explanations.

One might say that science should not be concerned with this. But even if one accepts that (which I don’t), it’s a deliberate blindness to never admit that God could have intervened directly and miraculously in the process, and therefore all scientific research that excludes that possiblity is wrong from the start.

For someone to say that “God created the universe” and then to say that “God rarely intervenes miraculously” is to offer a contradiction. The act of creation ex nihilo itself is a miracle.

Christ works a miracle every day, millions of times a day, on every Catholic altar where there is a Holy Mass. To say that God’s miraculous intervention in life is “rare” is to dismiss the Catholic Faith in a serious way.

God created the universe and creates and infuses each human soul with each conception – miraculous occurences that cannot be explained by Darwinian theory. Science is blinded to reality if it is forbidden from seeing or admitting this. It cannot give the answers to origins therefore, nor can it explain the nature of a human being.

The fact that the most prominent Darwinian theorists refuse to admit any of this merely reveals the hubris and arrogance that is so common in those circles.

 

[The_Barbarian]

That’s correct. There’s another way to look at it as well. If God directly or indirectly caused some development in evolution, or if God directly created the soul of man, then Darwinian theory which states that all of the development of life came from the natural (not supernatural) processes of random mutation and natural selection

Wrong. It says no such thing. It merely assumes natural phenomena have natural causes, without excluding the possibility of the supernatural.

then science would be missing some essential facts about nature and would inevitably come up with false explanations.

So far, that’s not happened. Science has been remarkably successful at figuring out how it works.

One might say that science should not be concerned with this. But even if one accepts that (which I don’t), it’s a deliberate blindness to never admit that God could have intervened directly and miraculously in the process, and therefore all scientific research that excludes that possiblity is wrong from the start.

As you just learned, science doesn’t say that. In particular, Darwinian theory doesn’t say that. Darwin, after all, assumed that God created the first living things, for example. It’s the last sentence in “The Origin of Species.”

For someone to say that “God created the universe” and then to say that “God rarely intervenes miraculously” is to offer a contradiction.

Nonsense. It’s perfectly consistent logically, and it’s what we observe.

The act of creation ex nihilo itself is a miracle.

If you define a miracle as intervention in nature, then no. There was no nature when God did that. Supernatural, but not miraculous. That had to happen after the initial creation.

Christ works a miracle every day, millions of times a day, on every Catholic altar where there is a Holy Mass. To say that God’s miraculous intervention in life is “rare” is to dismiss the Catholic Faith in a serious way.

Nonsense. God does miracles only to teach us something. The mass is precisely that. If God went out and tinkered with nature on a regular basis, we would have a seriously unpredictable universe to live in.

God created the universe and creates and infuses each human soul with each conception – miraculous occurences that cannot be explained by Darwinian theory.

You’re still surprised that science doesn’t deal with the supernatural? You haven’t been paying attention.

Science is blinded to reality if it is forbidden from seeing or admitting this.

Yep. It can only address natural things, not the greater reality. This might seem wrong to you, but very little we can do, works better.

It cannot give the answers to origins

Origins of species, but not the ultimate nature of reality. For that, you need other ways of knowing.

therefore, nor can it explain the nature of a human being.

Wrong. It can explain the nature of a human being, but not the supernature.

The fact that the most prominent Darwinian theorists refuse to admit any of this merely reveals the hubris and arrogance that is so common in those circles.

Even Dawkins, when pressed, admits that science can’t disprove God. Perhaps “hubris and arrogance” is not limited to scientists, um?

 

[Nullasalus]

When a pattern is found in nature that meets all the criteria that we use to define a “designed system” then that fact should be included as a part of scientific study.

I think a good tact for ID proponents to take would be to mirror the naturalist aim in science. Where an ID-critic shows how something could have come about without design, an ID-proponent should focus on how something could have come about with design. A catholic philosopher on this forum once posted that he believed ID could never be disproven, because the moment an OoL is found (which will involve reproducing the act in a laboratory), the ID pathway will have also been found (because, of course, the act was reproduced in a lab.)

I don’t think this can settle the question of design versus chance, for reasons I’ve already stated. But I also think the entire ID fight has vastly more to do with how some vocal scientists have, for decades, treated subjects from cosmology to evolution as ‘disproving God’. If you go read what, say, Michael Behe says about evolution, it’s actually pretty tame. He doesn’t even see the absolute need for miracles, or supernatural involvement in the course of man’s evolution (and he accepts an old earth, common descent, etc.) But he does see how a designer could have set the system up to become what it has, and why such a designer may do this. That’s a hell of a lot more threatening to men like Dawkins, whose love of science has more to do with how they enjoy wielding it philosophically and (a)theologically than any love for science itself.
The Barbarian:

Even Dawkins, when pressed, admits that science can’t disprove God.

If by ‘when pressed’ you mean he thinks it’s more socially advantageous for him to give that reply than another, sure. He’s also talked about how ridiculously unlikely it is for God to exist, and treated that claim as scientific. And then there are books like ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis’, to go with ‘The God Delusion’.

Did you know that Daniel Dennett (while a philosopher, he was Dawkins’ big ally on this fight for awhile) has been on record as saying he doesn’t even believe people who believe in God should be treated seriously, and it’s more advantageous to atheism that they simply be laughed at, reviled, and their claims gone uncontested? And he’s not the only one. Sadly, if the topic is God, there are people who care less about an honest discussion and more about results. And I’m not just talking about the YECs here.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s correct. There’s another way to look at it as well. If God directly or indirectly caused some development in evolution, or if God directly created the soul of man, then Darwinian theory which states that all of the development of life came from the natural (not supernatural) processes of random mutation and natural selection – then science would be missing some essential facts about nature and would inevitably come up with false explanations.

This is what I’m concerned about too. We could be seriously overlooking something when applying the lens of naturalism over God’s creation.

One might say that science should not be concerned with this. But even if one accepts that (which I don’t), it’s a deliberate blindness to never admit that God could have intervened directly and miraculously in the process, and therefore all scientific research that excludes that possiblity is wrong from the start.

I too agree that science should be concerned with this-- and I agree that using this “filter” is indeed was causes many to arriving at false conclusions using scientism.

For someone to say that “God created the universe” and then to say that “God rarely intervenes miraculously” is to offer a contradiction. The act of creation ex nihilo itself is a miracle.

This is such an excellent point, because it really strikes at the heart of what so many assume they already know and can therefore dismiss because of their own initial assumptions.

Christ works a miracle every day, millions of times a day, on every Catholic altar where there is a Holy Mass. To say that God’s miraculous intervention in life is “rare” is to dismiss the Catholic Faith in a serious way.

Bingo.

God created the universe and creates and infuses each human soul with each conception – miraculous occurences that cannot be explained by Darwinian theory. Science is blinded to reality if it is forbidden from seeing or admitting this. It cannot give the answers to origins therefore, nor can it explain the nature of a human being.

I think that science can tell us many things about how God operates-- spiritual metaphors can be gleaned which, in my opinion, require faith so see.

Having said that, one can use “scientific parables” – relating divine concepts in scientific language – so as to make God’s divine presence shine more brightly through the ordinary world around us and use it to point toward God himself.

Jesus himself certainly used parables, spiritual teachings placed in “ordinary situations” that the people of his time could relate to so as to draw them closer to the Father.

I think science, and particularly the theory of evolution, could benefit greatly from this same style of discourse– but placing the “modern parables” in a scientific context that the scientifically minded would easilly grasp, even if their not considered literally true.

The fact that the most prominent Darwinian theorists refuse to admit any of this merely reveals the hubris and arrogance that is so common in those circles.

I will also note that many theistic evolutionists seem extremely reluctant to attempt to draw any kind of “scientific parables” to point people toward God.

In fact, whenever I ask people “What does evolution tell us about God?” I usually hear crickets chirping in background or else the blunt answer “Nothing”.

This is something that I personally find to be a major downfall to the theistic evolutionist position and a boost to the intelligent design movement, even though I myself am subscribing more and more to the theistic evolutionary position.

Instead of looking for ways that one can explain God to people using the “evolutionary parables” like how Jesus used parables of salt, light, coins, etc…, they seem to be content to smugly insist that everyone agree with them without actually offering any explanation as to why we should believe, except – of course – the science says so.

Then again, scientific people tend to not be poetic, so perhaps it’s to be expected. Perhaps the flip-side danger of the hyper-literalism of young earth creationism is the that of the scientifically hyper-literalists who insist that anything they say be as scientifically accurate as possible-- even to the exclusion of the “creative side” which Jesus himself used all too well. :yup:

 

[reh12345]

Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in “Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium,” (see LINK below) Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
This was from
americandaily.com/article/7913

“I don’t know where the secularists get this idea that intelligent design is not scientific, when the best scientists in the world believe in it.”

Reply:
the best scientists in the world know that intelligent design is
not a scientific theory, but a repackaging of creationism. the principle problem is that of defining intelligence. It is arogance
to assume that the intelligence of God is within human understanding or is human intelligence is godlike. read Job for a definative statement by God on the limits of human intelligence.
any good scientist submits his theories to the test of reality.
Does this theory perdict what will happen, that is to say is capable of perdicting a future and unforseen event not merely explaining the past.

for example einstien’s theory of relativity predicted that light traveling close to the sun would be slighty bent by the mass of the sun. this turns out to be true. so this supports the theory.
since newtons theory does not predict this outcome the finding discredits Newtowian mechanics.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Wrong. It says no such thing. It merely assumes natural phenomena have natural causes, without excluding the possibility of the supernatural.

And yet nature is a subset of the supernatural, is it not?

I thought even you admitted this much.

So far, that’s not happened. Science has been remarkably successful at figuring out how it works.

Actually, science has been remarkably accurate in discerning designs and patterns within nature, and reproducing and simulating these processes in a predictable manner.

Whether science actually understands ‘why’ things happen is seriously open to debate-- because our ability to “figure out” things is seriously subject to change depending on whichever natural explantion our knowledge of God’s Creation advances toward…

As you just learned, science doesn’t say that. In particular, Darwinian theory doesn’t say that. Darwin, after all, assumed that God created the first living things, for example. It’s the last sentence in “The Origin of Species.”

True.

But, after the words “On the Origin of Species”, specifically on page i, page ii we also read three quotations too.

The first, by William Whewell from his Bridgewater Treatise, sets out the idea that in natural theology events in the material world are brought about “by the establishment of general laws” rather than by individual miracles.

The second by Francis Bacon from his Advancement of Learning argues that we should study both the word of God in the Bible and the works of God in nature together, so that the works of God teach us how to interpret the word of God.

From the second to sixth editions, a third quotation is included, from the Analogy of Revealed Religion by the eighteenth century bishop Joseph Butler. This describes natural as meaning “stated, fixed or settled” by “an intelligent agent” who can equally carry out single supernatural miracles.

Are you actually saying that the miraculous is not the same as the supernatural?

Again, I simply don’t understand your position on this.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. It says no such thing. It merely assumes natural phenomena have natural causes, without excluding the possibility of the supernatural.

And yet nature is a subset of the supernatural, is it not?

Right. Science can only study the rules by which that subset works.

Barbarian on the idea that miracles often interfer with the operation of nature:
So far, that’s not happened. Science has been remarkably successful at figuring out how it works.

Actually, science has been remarkably accurate in discerning designs and patterns within nature, and reproducing and simulating these processes in a predictable manner.

The rules. Yes. And we see no sign of God stepping in and tinkering with them, unless it’s a miracle for our benefit. He doesn’t have to do miracles to make them work. Perhaps it might be worth considering St. Augustine’s take on this; he remarked that we are amazed by the Biblical miracles, but never consider the wonder of natural things. Of course, Augustine also considered miracles a normal part of nature, and miracles just natural things that we don’t comprehend.

“Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature”, he said. That is not our understanding of them.

Whether science actually understands ‘why’ things happen is seriously open to debate–

It’s not controversial among scientists. We know we can’t get to the “why.” We learn the “how.”

because our ability to “figure out” things is seriously subject to change depending on whichever natural explantion our knowledge of God’s Creation advances toward…

So far, we’ve done pretty well. He did very well at making a consistent and knowable universe.

Barbarian observes:
As you just learned, science doesn’t say that. In particular, Darwinian theory doesn’t say that. Darwin, after all, assumed that God created the first living things, for example. It’s the last sentence in “The Origin of Species.”

True.

But, after the words “On the Origin of Species”, specifically on page i, page ii we also read three quotations too.

The first, by William Whewell from his Bridgewater Treatise, sets out the idea that in natural theology events in the material world are brought about “by the establishment of general laws” rather than by individual miracles.

So the evidence indicates. We don’t see Him stepping in to adjust things. And if He is omnipotent, why would we think He had to?

The second by Francis Bacon from his Advancement of Learning argues that we should study both the word of God in the Bible and the works of God in nature together, so that the works of God teach us how to interpret the word of God.

I don’t know if I agree with that entirely, but I can attest that knowing more about His creation has enriched my love of God.

From the second to sixth editions, a third quotation is included, from the Analogy of Revealed Religion by the eighteenth century bishop Joseph Butler. This describes natural as meaning “stated, fixed or settled” by “an intelligent agent” who can equally carry out single supernatural miracles.

Pretty much Catholic doctrine, um?

Are you actually saying that the miraculous is not the same as the supernatural?

I don’t know why you’d think that. God can step in any time He wants, and does, from time to time. But he doesn’t tinker with nature to make it work. He does it to teach us. This is why we can be confident of science; nature is not capricious.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Miracles happen from time to time. Science can’t explain them. So far, we have no sign that God has done it for any other reason than to teach us something. Hence, it seems unlikely that He’s done that apart from our notice. But it’s possible. So far, no sign of that kind of thing. For which I’m grateful. If He did much of that, the universe would be an rather precarious and unpredictable place, which wouldn’t be good for us.

Can science detect miracles? What you wrote seems to assume that if God had performed miracles that helped evolution along, then science would know about it. But what about miracles that aren’t so bold and blatant as to leave undeniable evidence? We know that even many miracles that occur today can’t be proven.

Interesting that you’re grateful that God hasn’t messed up your evolutionary science with pesky miracles. I’d say that your whole system presumes that lack of miracles unless they are proven, but is incapable of detecting most miracles when they do happen. Where does that leave God?

Perhaps you could propose a scientific experiment to test the hypothesis that man’s intelligence was a result of God pushing evolution along in a certain direction against what random chance would have produced. Or perhaps not, and perhaps you’ll just assume that it didn’t happen, since it doesn’t fit well into your scientific method.

 

[reggieM]

reggieM: “Christ works a miracle every day at Holy Mass”

Barbarian: “Nonsense”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. It says no such thing. It merely assumes natural phenomena have natural causes, without excluding the possibility of the supernatural.

But all causes are supernatural Barbarian

Right. Science can only study the rules by which that subset works.

But the subset of nature works according to its parent, does it not?

The rules. Yes. And we see no sign of God stepping in and tinkering with them, unless it’s a miracle for our benefit. He doesn’t have to do miracles to make them work.

But if all physical things are based on the substrate of metaphysical things, then all things are effectively supernatural by degree in descending order from God in the Highest Heaven right down to the most basic cells of life.

In other words, we’re not saying he “has” to do miracles to “make creation work”. We’re saying “creation works” because “creation is miraculous” by nature.

Perhaps it might be worth considering St. Augustine’s take on this; he remarked that we are amazed by the Biblical miracles, but never consider the wonder of natural things. Of course, Augustine also considered miracles a normal part of nature, and miracles just natural things that we don’t comprehend.

“Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature”, he said. That is not our understanding of them.

I have always enjoyed Augustine’s thoughts on science.

So far, we’ve done pretty well. He did very well at making a consistent and knowable universe.

I guess the problem with all this is that we simply don’t know what we don’t know. And we’re not even 100% sure of what we do know.

I don’t know why you’d think that. God can step in any time He wants, and does, from time to time. But he doesn’t tinker with nature to make it work. He does it to teach us. This is why we can be confident of science; nature is not capricious.

We’re not talking about “tinkering” with nature Barbarian.

I think most of us had made this part clear.

We’re saying that which is natural and that which is supernatural interact so closely that, unless God himself reveals it as such, we really can’t say for sure at times exactly when it is God suspending the naturally known laws or God simply creating via the naturally known laws we are already familar with.

So, for example, if one were to say 300-400 years ago that there were invisible lights radiating throughout all creation, most purely scientifically minded people from that time would dismiss this as preposterous and superstitious belief.

Now, 300-400 years later, we really do know that invisible light is indeed considered part of the spectrum-- and no supernatural explantion is generally required by the scientifically minded. But, if we suggest there is a divine intelligence behind all these things, most purely scientifically minded people from this time would dismiss this as preposterous and superstitious belief.

See what we mean?

 

[The_Barbarian]

B:
It says no such thing. It merely assumes natural phenomena have natural causes, without excluding the possibility of the supernatural.

But all causes are supernatural Barbarian

Yep. But within that, God created nature, a little subset of reality, in which everything works according to specific rules. Nature is different than the rest, in this regard.

B earlier:
Right. Science can only study the rules by which that subset works.

But the subset of nature works according to its parent, does it not?

Different set of rules. That’s why He did it.

B :
And we see no sign of God stepping in and tinkering with them, unless it’s a miracle for our benefit.

But if all physical things are based on the substrate of metaphysical things, then all things are effectively supernatural by degree in descending order from God in the Highest Heaven right down to the most basic cells of life.

Difference of kind, not degree. Nature is no less a wonder than Heaven. All things he makes are equally wonderful, in their own way.

In other words, we’re not saying he “has” to do miracles to “make creation work”. We’re saying “creation works” because “creation is miraculous” by nature.

Pretty close. This particular part of creation is nature, and it works by a different set of rules.

B :
Perhaps it might be worth considering St. Augustine’s take on this; he remarked that we are amazed by the Biblical miracles, but never consider the wonder of natural things. Of course, Augustine also considered miracles a normal part of nature, and miracles just natural things that we don’t comprehend.

“Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature”, he said.

I have always enjoyed Augustine’s thoughts on science.

He was well-educated in Hellenistic science. Here’s a message which is still relevant:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

B :
So far, we’ve done pretty well. He did very well at making a consistent and knowable universe.

I guess the problem with all this is that we simply don’t know what we don’t know. And we’re not even 100% sure of what we do know.

In science, all truth is provisional, since science is inductive, going from particulars to the generalities.

B:
I don’t know why you’d think that. God can step in any time He wants, and does, from time to time. But he doesn’t tinker with nature to make it work. He does it to teach us. This is why we can be confident of science; nature is not capricious.

We’re not talking about “tinkering” with nature Barbarian.

What else is it, when you make something, and then have to step in from time to time to make it work the way you want?

I think most of us had made this part clear.

Maybe it would be good to explain what you do think He does.

We’re saying that which is natural and that which is supernatural interact so closely that, unless God himself reveals it as such, we really can’t say for sure at times exactly when it is God suspending the naturally known laws or God simply creating via the naturally known laws we are already familar with.

So far, that’s hasn’t been a problem.

So, for example, if one were to say 300-400 years ago that there were invisible lights radiating throughout all creation, most purely scientifically minded people from that time would dismiss this as preposterous and superstitious belief.

Not the Ionian scientists, who generally acknowledged that there were many things that exist that cannot be discerned. Indeed, democritus demonstrated the existence of atoms by experiments and such reasoning. And any scientist from Bacon on, (or rather from Ibn al-Haitham, whom Bacon emulated) would say that it was possible but untestable at that time.

But, if we suggest there is a divine intelligence behind all these things, most purely scientifically minded people from this time would dismiss this as preposterous and superstitious belief.

We used to think lightning was God smiting his enemies. In some ways, progress has been a matter of learning that God didn’t directly intervene in various things, after all. This doesn’t mean that someday we won’t find a case like that, but the evidence certainly suggests that we won’t.