Should science be secular?

[Charlemagne_II]

*That was not my point at all. Behe’s argument is a floating fish in the backwater. THAT is my point. Anyone can bring him up as much as he/she wants. *

New scientific notions are always vigorously opposed, even within the scientific community. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein all went through a period of peer challenge and opposition. Those who opposed them as “floating fish in the backwater” are now forgotten. In fact, they were swimming mightily upstream, as are Behe and others, who I predict in time will help move the scientific community back toward the God of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton.

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[larkin31]

*That was not my point at all. Behe’s argument is a floating fish in the backwater. THAT is my point. Anyone can bring him up as much as he/she wants. *

New scientific notions are always vigorously opposed, even within the scientific community. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein all went through a period of peer challenge and opposition. Those who opposed them as “floating fish in the backwater” are now forgotten. In fact, they were swimming mightily upstream, as are Behe and others, who I predict in time will help move the scientific community back toward the God of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton.

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

This reply is this: “Becuase some religious scientists were opposed and were right, Behe is right.”

Today, you have to make a better case than this. Behe’s argument dies of its own false assumptions and flaws. Died years ago, in fact.

Maybe it will have a miraculous resurrection!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes - ToE are a bit premature as not enough information is known about our universe. It’s hypothetically possible I suppose, but few such theories would be, or have been, given much credibility at our current level of knowledge.

However, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans ARE higher primates. I’m well aware that you don’t like this, but it is a fact.

Do you think I don’t enjoy all the advantages of a physical existence?

You are missing the point. The question - which is well beyond the scope of science - is whether human beings are no more than higher primates…

 

[tonyrey]

Behe’s argument dies of its own false assumptions and flaws. Died years ago, in fact.

An assertion which requires justification…

 

[larkin31]

An assertion which requires justification…

You can look up the responses to Behe yourself. They were overwhelming.

Start with his flagellum argument, and then read the subsequent research that was done on the flagellar motor precursor units.

The advances of empirical science will continue to debunk the “irreducible” part of the claim. It is only a matter of time.

 

[buffalo]

You can look up the responses to Behe yourself. They were overwhelming.

Start with his flagellum argument, and then read the subsequent research that was done on the flagellar motor precursor units.

The advances of empirical science will continue to debunk the “irreducible” part of the claim. It is only a matter of time.

Precursor units - “units” used in other systems and organisms point to common design. The evo claim is they have evolved several times. Calculate the odds of that.

 

[larkin31]

Precursor units - “units” used in other systems and organisms point to common design. The evo claim is they have evolved several times. Calculate the odds of that.

Are we allowed to discuss evolution at CA?

 

[buffalo]

Are we allowed to discuss evolution at CA?

to a degree. I can’t remember which places… I think the back fence is OK.

 

[larkin31]

to a degree. I can’t remember which places… I think the back fence is OK.

what’s a back fence?

 

[buffalo]

what’s a back fence?

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

 

[larkin31]

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

We are not in the “back fence” section. This is philosophy, and the question is, “Should science be secular.”

I do not feel free here to respond on evolution, per the rules.

 

[buffalo]

We are not in the “back fence” section. This is philosophy, and the question is, “Should science be secular.”

I do not feel free here to respond on evolution, per the rules.

I can’t even keep track of this anymore.

There is a lot of subject matter that touches upon evolution.

We can move to the back fence then.

 

[wanstronian]

1. No - but we can agree that the Empire State building exists.

Yes, we can.

If we work through Genesis we can see many more facts known to be true.

I had a quick breeze through the first two chapters earlier, and can’t find any true facts. There’s an acknowledgment of the Euphrates, and of Ethiopia, but that’s about it.

1. Nothing about early cosmology is provable. Evidence has been gathered and reasoned that is contrary to some parts.

Quite true, but there are some bits that are disprovable. Like the fact that there was light before there were any stars, and that the light from these distant stars reached earth instantly, and that Adam was created from dust, and Eve from Adam’s rib, and that all earthly creatures were created in one day… and so on.

1. How so? If God dictated it to man then it gives a different perspective. Start with time. Imagine time being rolled up like a measuring tape. From God’s perspective perhaps there are seven layers. He sees it all at once. From the human perspective we live on the tape itself. All we can see is forward and backward and we count the graduations.

Yes, it gives it a different perspective. But you’re just conjecturing here. Nothing in the bible other than its own words, suggests that it wasn’t authored by man.

1. Well know I cannot interview them can I? However, that is not the case in the Gospel .

Really? All the witnesses to Jesus’s miracles are still alive and available for interview, are they?

1. I repeat - reading and understanding Scripture and Tradition will help you understand the credibility of both. Will you be converted? I didn’t make that claim.

Okay, we’re getting nowhere with this. You claim that reading the whole thing makes the impossible possible, I contend that a claim of miracle needs to be supported by more than just the words stating that it happened. In no other record of history do you need to read the whole thing for subsections to become valid.

1. Are you kidding me? Many atheists first attack is to trash Scripture and Tradition. You have done it yourself in various posts.

I’ve never claimed that the bible is wholly inaccurate. And I’ve never seen an atheist post that makes that claim either. All I’ve said is that the extraordinary claims documented within it need more evidence than being written down.

But when we get down to it it does not stand. So again, what is the % of truth found there? 10% 90% Someday you are going to have to assign it or you remain irrational.

I’ve told you, I can’t even begin to assign it until you define your assessment criteria. My reading of the first two chapters of Genesis reveal a 100% lack of provable facts.

1. The Bible written as a self confirming book? What is your evidence that the writers had this intent?

Where did I claim that was their intent? However, the bible undeniably confirms its own truth, and it didn’t write itself.

 

[wanstronian]

1. ID the science -
   Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
   

                                     Yes. The scientific method is  commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations,  hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with  the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified  information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural  object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists  then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if  they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable  form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by  experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they  require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find  irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures  were designed.

Right - so an ID site claims that ID is a scientific theory. A bit like the bible claims that the bible is true. Guess that about wraps it up.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has found any example of irreducible complexity that can’t be explained scientifically. And even if such an example was found, a lack of explanation doesn’t automatically make “God did it” true.

What do you disagree with here?

Well, the fallacious logic, for a start. “Intelligent entities create CSI. Designed objects contain CSI. Therefore all objects that contain CSI are designed by intelligent entities.” Whoops!! Put this hat on, go stand in the corner for an hour. Then, write, “I must learn basic logic” three hundred times on tablets of stone.

1. What - have you been reading science? Here is one - need more? ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. **Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ** The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between http://creation.com/article/2891/#Naturalism”]origin and operational science

—Ed.].’Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.Not everything a scientist says is science. You’ve quoted a scientist - a single scientist, by the way - who is expressing an opinion on a certain aspect of science. Hardly a resounding demolition of secular scientific endeavour!

 

[wanstronian]

Oops - no predictive power? It certainly has predictive power. In fact many of the predictions are being verified right now.

Here are a few:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

Only they haven’t - IDers just say they have. Can you give an example? Not the Bacterial Flagellum, I hope!

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

Er… all ID is doing here, is recognising existing factual information and claiming that ID predicts it. Do you even understand what predictive means in the context of science? A clue - It doesn’t mean manipulating your hypothesis to fit with already known facts.

Time, space, matter and information. The word… information. God breathed the word (information). The language/code of DNA is information. Language, symbols, maps, instructions do not occur in nature. They always come from a mind. A sender, receiver and a key is required.

Yawn… yes - same old nonsense. Mere conjecture. No evidence. Just assertion. Fallacy of composition, among others. Nothing to see here.

Yes IDvolution is taking in account of established fact. Thank you . This is a big admission.

Not at all - ID has to take account of established fact. The raison d’être of ID is to take account of established facts, while still attempting to give God a place. It’s embarassing!

We can wait until more evidence mounts. Science won’t say much about this anyway.

No, science is not in the habit of commenting on non-science.

The reasoning of IDvolution is philosophical taking into account the truth of Revelation and the truth of correct scientific reasoning.

Exactly - same nonsense, different label. Still no sign of evidence.

There are limits to the explanatory power of evolution. The Edge of Evolution show the limits. The scale looks something like a thermometer scaled 1-100. Evolution explanatory power 10-15% - unknown - 10%, the remainder ID.

And some reviews:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/behes_edge_of_evolution_part_i.php
powells.com/review/2007_06_14.html
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

Message seems to be that Behe, like all IDers and creationists, is very fond of making assertions and trying to pick holes in scientific theories, while completely unable to provide a credible alternative.

Are you going to answer my questions? Or even acknowledge that I’ve asked them, and repeated my request for you to address them? If not, then I think we’re done on this thread. Looking forward to you presenting your evidence for ID in the other thread, like you offered.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you think I don’t enjoy all the advantages of a physical existence?

You are missing the point. The question - which is well beyond the scope of science - is whether human beings are no more than higher primates…

True. That is a question which is currently beyond the scope of any discipline if verifiable and objective answers are required.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Precursor units - “units” used in other systems and organisms point to common design. The evo claim is they have evolved several times. Calculate the odds of that.

One in one.

 

[Moonstruck888]

True. That is a question which is currently beyond the scope of any discipline if verifiable and objective answers are required.

It’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Human Beings are primates.

Even if Tony’s (in my opinion slightly crazed) surmise that we could be part Primate and part Supernatural Transdimensional Hyperbeing (hithertoforth shortened to the acronym SuTH) were to be taken seriously, it is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence, and it still would not alter the fact that human beings are Primates, that we have evolved from Primates, that we share a common ancestor with all of today’s Primates and that anything that is ever descended from us will be a Primate, albeit possibly also a SuTH.

 

[wanstronian]

We are not in the “back fence” section. This is philosophy, and the question is, “Should science be secular.”

I do not feel free here to respond on evolution, per the rules.

We’re not discussing evolution, we’re discussing the pseudo-science that is ID.

Or ‘IDvolution’ as Buffalo seems to want to insist on calling it. I’m not sure what the difference is, if any.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Human Beings are primates.

Even if Tony’s (in my opinion slightly crazed) surmise that we could be part Primate and part Supernatural Transdimensional Hyperbeing (hithertoforth shortened to the acronym SuTH) were to be taken seriously, it is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence, and it still would not alter the fact that human beings are Primates, that we have evolved from Primates, that we share a common ancestor with all of today’s Primates and that anything that is ever descended from us will be a Primate, albeit possibly also a SuTH.

No argument from me!