What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Gregory_Olson]

QUOTE=Hee_Zen;12543229]Well, by your method, you just **defined **God into existence. Now all you need to do is to **demonstrate **God’s existence. But beware, God is assumed to interact with the physical reality (just like angels and demons - remember the exorcists?), and as such this interaction is a legitimate target for the “empirical” or “scientific” method. The usual excuse, namely that God is too elusive, he can detect if someone wishes to test him and will make sure that his presence stays undetected and everything “looks like” as if there were no God, well, this excuse is wearing too thin by now.

Trent Horn does a good job on this:
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/prayer-science-and-the-existence-of-god

Basically, any attempt to apply the scientic method to the physical effect of prayer, sacraments, exorcisms, etc. becomes impossible in practice because not even a small percentage of possible variables can be accounted for.

I’ll even go further… As the number of Saints, Angels, and Church penitents praying for any given person on Earth approaches infinity, the difference that any prayer group on Earth could make in addition to this should approach zero. If the Church is correct, the heavenly host is unimaginably great in number, so the best hypothesis should be: if Christianity is correct, then the measurable difference of a prayer group should be close to zero. Unfortunately this must now be thrown out the window, because the Church also teaches that God can answer or not answer any prayer he pleases; i.e., any given prayer can range anywhere between 0 and infinity in measurable (or non-measurable) effectiveness.

But really, please read the article; Trent Horn does a much better job than I do.

A miracle might be a more likely thing to apply the scientific method to… The only problem is, all one has to rely on is the evidence of eyewitness who are often willing to die defending what they saw, and unfortunately, if a true miracle were to happen to you, you would more likely fall to your knees in worship like them than whip out your scientific instruments.

-Greg

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, he is wrong. While we do not know all the details yet, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to an origin of life by natural causes, as I review in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org.

Of course, natural causes are not ‘godless’ causes, but secondary causes created by God.

As much as I agree with you on most everything you write, I have to take exception here.

I’ve read Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. He might, indeed, be wrong. However, what hasn’t materialized is a cogent account for where he goes wrong.

Most of the criticism centers on “that’s not science” or from the point of view that theistic evolution does not need to venture into explaining how God originated life, merely that he did.

What hasn’t been demonstrated is why Meyer is wrong and where his errors are. It is not sufficient to cite ideological differences to demonstrate that the other argument is faulty, it is necessary to refute the argument. That is sorely lacking, as far as treatments of Meyer go.

Feser probably gets closest to showing where ID might be mistaken, but he doesn’t take on Meyer’s arguments directly. His is more a critique of the approach from a metaphysical standpoint.

I think Meyer does a superb job breaking down the issues with “evolution” as a theoretical approach and holding evolutionists - both Darwinian and theistic - accountable for providing a more robust account if either are going to be taken seriously. Sure, he might be wrong, but no one has yet shown where and why he is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course God intelligently designed evolution – He designed the very special laws of nature that allow evolution to happen (not just biological, but also the physical evolution of the universe and chemical evolution at the origin of life). But He doesn’t have to interfere with the laws of nature, which He created in the first place, for evolution to happen. God didn’t have to ‘swoosh down from heaven’ to build the first cell (or any subsequent cell, for that matter). Thus, no biological ‘Intelligent Design’ required.

And no, seeing things that way has nothing to do with either agreeing with the atheist establishment or submitting to scientism. It is simply following the scientific evidence.

Well then, of course you don’t believe in miracles of any kind, because that would be God interfering with the laws of nature?

There was no Resurrection?

There is no Eucharist?

There was no parting of the Sea for Moses?

There was no virgin birth?

All because God never interferes with the laws of nature?

God never “swooshes down from heaven”?

Doesn’t sound very Catholic to me!

 

[Al_Moritz]

As much as I agree with you on most everything you write, I have to take exception here.

I’ve read Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. He might, indeed, be wrong. However, what hasn’t materialized is a cogent account for where he goes wrong.

Well, while my article doesn’t specifically address Meyer’s complaints, you might want to read it to see where the real science leads.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well then, of course you don’t believe in miracles of any kind, because that would be God interfering with the laws of nature?

There was no Resurrection?

There is no Eucharist?

There was no parting of the Sea for Moses?

There was no virgin birth?

All because God never interferes with the laws of nature?

God never “swooshes down from heaven”?

Doesn’t sound very Catholic to me!

That of course is all nonsense. I didn’t claim that God never interferes with the laws of nature. But evolution is a process where He doesn’t have to.

As I said above “but He doesn’t have to interfere with the laws of nature, which He created in the first place, for evolution to happen”. Nowhere in that post did I mention miracles, which I obviously believe in.

In fact, who do you think is the greater God? A God who performs miracles only when he wants to, on his own free will and on his terms, or a God who performs miracles also when he has to because the laws of nature are not sufficient on their own to allow the full unfolding of his creation? I hope you allow the view that the former is the greater God, the God that I believe in.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And by the way, Charlemagne and Peter, where does all this resistance against biological evolution by laws of nature alone come from? None of the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents appears to have any problem with the physical evolution of the universe, the idea that stars, galaxies and planets all formed just by the God-given laws of nature.

So the resistance against scientific evidence appears to be curiously selective.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And by the way, Charlemagne and Peter, where does all this resistance against biological evolution by laws of nature alone come from? None of the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents appears to have any problem with the physical evolution of the universe, the idea that stars, galaxies and planets all formed just by the God-given laws of nature.

So the resistance against scientific evidence appears to be curiously selective.

No sir. Your own refusal to see the possibility of the first appearance of life as a miracle is curiously selective, since you clearly allow now as a Catholic that God does “swoosh down.”

Abiogenesis, for your information, is not a moment of biological evolution, as you just said it was. When the first life form began to exist, there was no life to evolve from, so that evolution plane won’t fly at the point of abiogenesis.

But we are not supposed to discuss evolution, though you have made it a point to insist on doing so when the subject of intelligent design came up and whether intelligent design can be regarded as a subject of scientific inquiry.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Abiogenesis, for your information, is not a moment of biological evolution, as you just said it was. When the first life form began to exist, there was no life to evolve from, so that evolution plane won’t fly at the point of abiogenesis…

Actually, my last post was not directed at resistance to abiogenesis alone, aqnd in a prior post (the second from above on this page) I clearly specified that “chemical evolution” (not biological evolution) stood at the origin of life. Never mind (shrug).

 

[Peter_Plato]

That of course is all nonsense. I didn’t claim that God never interferes with the laws of nature. But evolution is a process where He doesn’t have to.

As I said above “but He doesn’t have to interfere with the laws of nature, which He created in the first place, for evolution to happen”. Nowhere in that post did I mention miracles, which I obviously believe in.

In fact, who do you think is the greater God? A God who performs miracles only when he wants to, on his own free will and on his terms, or a God who performs miracles also when he has to because the laws of nature are not sufficient on their own to allow the full unfolding of his creation? I hope you allow the view that the former is the greater God, the God that I believe in.

This is where I question the inference. It may be that God “interfered” with the laws of nature NOT because “he had to,” but simply because he chose to, just as he chooses to create unique individuals at conception NOT because he has to but because he chooses to. Perhaps he set up the entire unfolding of creation as a malleable process (potter and clay and all that) and chooses to improvise with the unfolding of the universe and with life just as he chooses to improvise with the uniqueness of every human soul he creates.

There is nothing about your accounting of what God can and cannot do that restricts him from freely improvising as he chooses at any place in the creative process. We cannot claim God is more powerful or greater merely because he sticks to the initial score as compared to his improvising as he chooses. It seems to me that our claiming he must act one way or the other merely to meet our expectations of greatness misses out on the fact that God is completely free to do as he chooses and need not live by our expectations of greatness.

In fact, musicianship debunks your either/or case. We do not claim musical geniuses MUST play by the original sheet music to demonstrate greatness. Certainly, they are able to play the music as written, but they are not restricted to it. In fact, it is a mark of their genius that “forming” the music as they play moment by moment as determined by their creative genius that makes them great. Why not so with God?

This does not mean that God can or does go off madly in all directions and is free to create cacophony if he chooses. No, just as musical genius is not genius merely by creating disharmonious or discordant sounds, the real greatness of genius is in styling and creating as the piece is played not merely in perfectly replicating the scripted notations.

 

[Al_Moritz]

This is where I question the inference. It may be that God “interfered” with the laws of nature NOT because “he had to,” but simply because he chose to, just as he chooses to create unique individuals at conception NOT because he has to but because he chooses to. Perhaps he set up the entire unfolding of creation as a malleable process (potter and clay and all that) and chooses to improvise with the unfolding of the universe and with life just as he chooses to improvise with the uniqueness of every human soul he creates.

There is nothing about your accounting of what God can and cannot do that restricts him from freely improvising as he chooses at any place in the creative process. We cannot claim God is more powerful or greater merely because he sticks to the initial score as compared to his improvising as he chooses. It seems to me that our claiming he must act one way or the other merely to meet our expectations of greatness misses out on the fact that God is completely free to do as he chooses and need not live by our expectations of greatness.

In fact, musicianship debunks your either/or case. We do not claim musical geniuses MUST play by the original sheet music to demonstrate greatness. Certainly, they are able to play the music as written, but they are not restricted to it. In fact, it is a mark of their genius that “forming” the music as they play moment by moment as determined by their creative genius that makes them great. Why not so with God?

This does not mean that God can or does go off madly in all directions and is free to create cacophony if he chooses. No, just as musical genius is not genius merely by creating disharmonious or discordant sounds, the real greatness of genius is in styling and creating as the piece is played not merely in perfectly replicating the scripted notations.

Granted, you have a good argument here as to how God could choose to act. Yet the scientific evidence clearly points a certain way.

And again, why this resistance about abiogenesis and biological evolution simply following fixed laws of nature, ordained by God, when there seems to be no resistance to this idea when it comes to the physical evolution of the universe?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Granted, you have a good argument here as to how God could choose to act. Yet the scientific evidence clearly points a certain way.

And again, why this resistance about abiogenesis and biological evolution simply following fixed laws of nature, ordained by God, when there seems to be no resistance to this idea when it comes to the physical evolution of the universe?

I might ask it the other way. You have no problem with God fine tuning (aka meddling with) the universe through fixing and coordinating the cosmological constants, why a hesitation, in principle, to a similar fixing and coordination of genetic code or its pecursor?

I think Meyer has an interesting point when he shows the sequence of nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule has no biochemical or physical explanation. That is, there is nothing in the chemical bonding of nucleotide bases to the spine that explains their ordering or sequencing, yet that sequencing is critical for life to exist and carry on. If he is correct, then what can explain the sequencing that is so crucial to determining replication and genetic makeup?

The only way to counter Meyer’s claim is to provide a physical or chemical account for the sequencing of the bases along the molecule. It is insufficient to argue “that’s not science.” He has made a scientifically falsifiable claim. Physics and chemistry do not account for the ordering. Science must prove that such an account is at least possible, or Meyer has made a case that science has reached another insoluble problem that points outside of the scope of science, just as the Big Bang as the genesis of matter, energy, space and time points beyond the scope of science.

Has Meyer posited such a problem? Science needs to show the solution before he can be dismissed, not merely dismiss him on the pretext that he’s not doing science. He is doing philosophy of science and thereby highlighting a possible, plausible and, perhaps, actual limitation of science.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I might ask it the other way. You have no problem with God fine tuning (aka meddling with) the universe through fixing and coordinating the cosmological constants, why a hesitation, in principle, to a similar fixing and coordination of genetic code or its precursor?

Well, then you would have to label creation itself as ‘meddling’, which makes no sense.

I think Meyer has an interesting point when he shows the sequence of nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule has no biochemical or physical explanation. That is, there is nothing in the chemical bonding of nucleotide bases to the spine that explains their ordering or sequencing, yet that sequencing is critical for life to exist and carry on. If he is correct, then what can explain the sequencing that is so crucial to determining replication and genetic makeup?

The only way to counter Meyer’s claim is to provide a physical or chemical account for the sequencing of the bases along the molecule. It is insufficient to argue “that’s not science.” He has made a scientifically falsifiable claim. Physics and chemistry do not account for the ordering. Science must prove that such an account is at least possible, or Meyer has made a case that science has reached another insoluble problem that points outside of the scope of science, just as the Big Bang as the genesis of matter, energy, space and time points beyond the scope of science.

Has Meyer posited such a problem? Science needs to show the solution before he can be dismissed, not merely dismiss him on the pretext that he’s not doing science. He is doing philosophy of science and thereby highlighting a possible, plausible and actual limitation of science.

Again, you should read my article on abiogenesis and study the science of evolution more deeply. I simply fail to see the problems Meyer sees, and this is certainly not because I am uninformed (I am, by the way, a biochemist).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Granted, you have a good argument here as to how God could choose to act. Yet the scientific evidence clearly points a certain way.

I suppose that science ought to be open to the creative genius of reality, just as music theory seeks to understand and, in some sense, formalize the nature of music, without assuming that music, itself, is some fixed construct. Music theory evolves by being attuned to (name removed by moderator)ut from the creative geniuses that “evolve” music. To think that the universe is some staid construct that was created wholly at its origin by a crafted watchmaker, is to presume something about the kind of thing the universe is - a crafted piece or machine that was built once and left to do its thing as it winds down to oblivion.

What if the universe is not that kind of thing at all? What if it is more like a musical piece being played moment by moment by the infinitely skilled Musician who is free to improvise as HIS genius determines?

The “fear” of science has been that allowing such an entity will simply make the endeavor of science dependent upon the capricious nature of such a god. But I don’t think that is a necessary implication. Perhaps, science ought to be concerned with the ultimate nature of reality rather than restricting itself to the ultimate nature of physical reality. Perhaps, Reality has a few lessons in store for the scientists who want to dictate to Reality the nature they think it must have based upon the discernible limitations that are apparent within merely observable physical reality.

What I am saying is that if science were considered more along the lines of music theory and open to the possibility that reality itself, including physical reality is not merely inert or fixed but dynamic, that might be more in line with the truth of things. Especially, with the truth that we, ultimately are stewards and not masters of reality - which is the notion that seems to drive scientistic thought these days. The possibility of controlling nature when we have sufficient knowledge is presumed - that may not be the reality, however.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, then you would have to label creation itself as ‘meddling’, which makes no sense.

Again, you should read my article on abiogenesis and study the science of evolution more deeply. I simply fail to see the problems Meyer sees, and this is certainly not because I am uninformed (I am, by the way, a biochemist).

I understand that you are a biochemist and have no doubt that you are a good one. That is why I would appreciate a direct response concerning Meyer’s claim. It is made explicitly, but not exhaustively in this video.

youtu.be/qWKPO5xLZ3o

Start about the 40:00 minute mark where he discusses what chemical bonding or laws of physics can or do explain relative to the nucleotide bases and their sequencing along the spine of the DNA molecule and what these do not account for. Thanks.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Perhaps, science ought to be concerned with the ultimate nature of reality rather than restricting itself to the ultimate nature of physical reality.

No, science by definition uses methodological naturalism, to look for natural causes to natural effects. Philosophy is concerned with the ultimate nature of reality, that is not the business of science.

The other mistake, as we have seen in this thread, is to equivocate ultimate reality with physical reality, something that is neither the business of science either, nor can logically be deduced from it. Naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) is a philosophical choice of worldview, and does not logically follow from science. And like you and I would contend, naturalism is not even the most rational philosophical choice of worldview. After all, while in naturalism the universe is a brute fact, in theism God is anything but that. Rather, He is the ultimate explanation, as you pointed out. See also for example:

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, science by definition uses methodological naturalism, to look for natural causes to natural effects. Philosophy is concerned with the ultimate nature of reality, that is not the business of science.

The other mistake, as we have seen in this thread, is to equivocate ultimate reality with physical reality, something that is neither the business of science, nor can logically be deduced from it. Naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) is a philosophical choice of worldview, and does not logically follow from science. And like you and I would contend, naturalism is not even the most rational philosophical choice of worldview.

Yes, but methodological naturalism only holds true if the philosophical tenets upon which it is based are true and that those tenets further imply that methodological naturalism is the best or only means by which to understand nature. That is, methodological naturalism presumes something about the ultimate character of nature in order to hold itself up as the best method for making sense of nature.

Sure, it has worked quite well up to now, and I am not advocating just disposing of the method, but perhaps there is a point at which the method has to give way to some other more robust one, just as Newtonian physics reached a point of explanatory deficiency and gave way to general relativity, etc., etc.,

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, but methodological naturalism only holds true if the philosophical tenets upon which it is based are true and that those tenets further imply that methodological naturalism is the best or only means by which to understand nature. That is, methodological naturalism presumes something about the ultimate character of nature in order to hold itself up as the best method for making sense of nature.

Sure, it has worked quite well up to now, and I am not advocating just disposing of the method, but perhaps there is a point at which the method has to give way to some other more robust one, just as Newtonian physics reached a point of explanatory deficiency and gave way to general relativity, etc., etc.,

No, methodological naturalism is simply a method. There is nothing to 'hold true"in the absolute sense – i.e. to say that all effects have natural causes. That is not for science to investigate, which by definition looks for natural causes to natural effects.

If you want the ultimate truth about all reality, look for philosophy.

 

[Aloysium]

Working in a branch of applied science, I see science as having to do with how nature works.
Science provides us with an operating manual for matter.
It tells us nothing of what matter is - just what it does.
It does not tell us why it is - just that it is.
It can say how we are to use material substances and processes only to the extent that we get the results we want.
If someone wants to think that what something does is the sum total of what it is, that for example a computer which produces human responses is essentially the same as a human being, they are clearly limiting their thinking.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you want the ultimate truth about all reality, look for philosophy.

True philosophy and theology will not conflict with true science.

If life was planned by God, it had to be intelligently designed.

It didn’t just pop into existence as some say the un verse just popped into existence from nothing.

Peter’s objection still stands.

There’s is no adequate scientific rebuttal to Meyer’s position.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Start about the 40:00 minute mark where he discusses what chemical bonding or laws of physics can or do explain relative to the nucleotide bases and their sequencing along the spine of the DNA molecule and what these do not account for. Thanks.

This is a non-issue. Of course chemical bonding cannot explain the sequence of bases along the spine of the DNA molecule – if it could, life could not work!!! If the information was dependent on the physics of attraction, you could not even get to sufficiently varied information!

Meyer here sets up a straw man that subsequently he tears down – just like atheists set up straw men about God’s nature that they subsequently tear down. Neither is helpful in any way. Honestly, since listening to that passage my esteem of Meyer has dropped even more.

The first self-replicating molecule was generated by random chance, and things evolved from there. Again, please read my article.