Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[shunyadragon]

This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

From: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see how intelligent design has anything to do with science.

 

[james dixon]

I don't see how intelligent design has anything to do with science.

Science is the study of intelligent design.

 

[Valjean]

Science is the study of intelligent design.

Science is an investigative modality and so far it hasn't found any need for an intelligence.

 

[sun rise]

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I agree. ID is theology not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is the study of intelligent design.

In reality no. Intelligent Design is a proposed proposition or hypothesis that our physical existence is Created by an Intelligent Source. The claim by those that believe in 'Intelligent Design' is that scientific methods can falsify, confirm or demonstrate ID.

Your goal is to demonstrate how scientific methodology can falsify ID. Simplistic assertion do NOT satisfy the standards to science.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Science is the study of intelligent design.

Just as history is the study of the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just as history is the study of the Bible.

Does not equate. Historians study the whole history of civilized humanity usually considered at the beginning of written records, based on archaeological, historical documents and other evidence. Historians do study the Bible as a compilation of books set in history, just as they do all ancient documents set in history.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does not equate. Historians study the whole history of civilized humanity usually considered at the beginning of written records, based on archaeological, historical documents and other evidence. Historians do study the Bible as a compilation of books set in history, just as they do all ancient documents set in history.

Does equate.

Science is not an exclusive study of ID just as history is not an exclusive study of the Bible.

 

[socharlie]

This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

From: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

science has no answers on how Big Bang came about, what was before BB, how life originated , what is consciousness, so, ID has advantage.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

science has no answers on how Big Bang came about, what was before BB, how life originated , what is consciousness, so, ID has advantage.

actually, physicists have proposed a number of different models of what was "before" the big bang, and how it came about. Some of them may eventually be falsifiable proposals; many are not testable even in theory.

Biologists and chemists have proposed a number of ideas about how life originated. Again, some may be testable and falsifiable.

Again, neurologists, psychologists, physicists, computer scientists, and others have offered many theories about what consciousness is, and have been testing the different proposals to see if any can be tested and falsified. Not all of them can be, but many are.

So, what advantage does ID have? It has the advantage of proposing something that cannot be tested or falsified. It makes no unique or testable hypotheses. It is a "just-so story" that ranks up there with How the Leopard Got His Spots.

If you truly believe that ID is science, then you need to make specific testable, falsifiable proposals. Otherwise, it is not science.

 

[socharlie]

actually, physicists have proposed a number of different models of what was "before" the big bang, and how it came about. Some of them may eventually be falsifiable proposals; many are not testable even in theory.

Biologists and chemists have proposed a number of ideas about how life originated. Again, some may be testable and falsifiable.

Again, neurologists, psychologists, physicists, computer scientists, and others have offered many theories about what consciousness is, and have been testing the different proposals to see if any can be tested and falsified. Not all of them can be, but many are.

So, what advantage does ID have? It has the advantage of proposing something that cannot be tested or falsified. It makes no unique or testable hypotheses. It is a "just-so story" that ranks up there with How the Leopard Got His Spots.

If you truly believe that ID is science, then you need to make specific testable, falsifiable proposals. Otherwise, it is not science.

there is no firm concession in science, ID has answers. ID is not science. Science study physical world, by definition. ID has metaphysical origin.

 

[David T]

This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

From: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

Well put. Besides shunyadragon I find it all just "look at me" and irrelevant anyway especially in context to religion.

 

[siti]

I'm not sure I agree with the methodological naturalism/philosophical naturalism division - and I am certain that such a division is neither simple or clear cut enough to be useful in the context of separating science from ID. For instance, whilst I can quite see how a devout believer could 'do' science (i.e. experiments) without the need to take a creator into account, I don't see how such a believer could conscientiously present meaningful 'conclusions' - e.g. about a naturalistic evolutionary account of human origins - whilst simultaneously holding a theological concept of supernatural special creation in mind. In drawing conclusions, you're either a naturalist or you're not - I think. And if you're just doing experiments and not drawing conclusions then you're probably a technician rather than a scientist.

Intelligent Design is a theological concept not a scientific one - it is a top-down deduction based on the assumption that the perceived 'order' of things (cosmos) could not have emerged except by the deliberate action of an intelligent and necessarily supernatural creator. This may or may not be true - but there is absolutely, certainly and without any shadow of doubt, no scientific experiment that could ever be done to establish this even as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Science simply does not do top-down deduction, that is not its business - it does bottom-up induction based on the analysis of observed bits of the world. Its a different process altogether.

The methodological naturalism of science is not an option - it is forced on us because we cannot observe anything but the natural. ID does not fail to be science because it has abandoned methodological naturalism - it hasn't and never will be able to do that because it will never be able to actually observe anything other than the natural. Rather, ID fails to be science because it deduces a conclusion that cannot possibly - even in theory - be induced from observation and analysis.

My own view is that if science ever has anything to say about God per se it will be because we have discovered by inductive scientific reasoning what Spinoza had deduced philosophically centuries earlier - that on the grandest scales there is no genuine distinction between God and Nature - deus sive natura - as he put it. And if we do ever discover that, then that will spell one of two possible interpretations: either an increasingly anorexic theology will have slimmed down sufficiently to become a legitimate part of science - or science will have killed off theology for good. I guess we'll still be left with a choice of which interpretation suits us best.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

there is no firm concession in science, ID has answers. ID is not science. Science study physical world, by definition. ID has metaphysical origin.

"Firm concession?" What does that mean?

I agree, however, that ID is not science, and it provides metaphysical answers without verifiable evidence.

 

[socharlie]

"Firm concession?" What does that mean?

I agree, however, that ID is not science, and it provides metaphysical answers without verifiable evidence.

I do not agree with "without verifiable evidence" statement. many just do not have tools to verify evidence.
the action of conceding, granting, or yielding something.
synonyms: admission · acknowledgment · acceptance · recognition ·
[more]

 

[siti]

I do not agree with "without verifiable evidence" statement. many just do not have tools to verify evidence.

If you don't have the tools to verify the evidence it cannot possibly be science.

 

[leibowde84]

Science is the study of intelligent design.

What evidence are you basing this on? What is your reasoning for believing this?

 

[leibowde84]

In reality no. Intelligent Design is a proposed proposition or hypothesis that our physical existence is Created by an Intelligent Source. The claim by those that believe in 'Intelligent Design' is that scientific methods can falsify, confirm or demonstrate ID.

Your goal is to demonstrate how scientific methodology can falsify ID. Simplistic assertion do satisfy the standards to science.

Well-put.

 

[socharlie]

If you don't have the tools to verify the evidence it cannot possibly be science.

it is not science it is metaphysics.