Thank you for sharing and teaching me. Like I said we can talk about post 369 about "Signature in the Cell" and depending on the outcome, we may be able to discuss things further.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
If we talk about post 369 I suppose this thread might be just beginning!
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
At this point I will thank you for your time.
I thank you. It takes three to tango on a message board, so ShunyaDragon and Thermos aquaticus are you still in? Maybe Polymath (I'm glad to not see you because usually that means I've made bigger mistakes)?
Stay peaceful, upbeat and sincere Jose Fly.
If this thread is really dead, I will say to myself that I still feel perfectly comfortable in my view and that I think right now if I had to decide as a scientist I would choose ID.
Here is your post you referred to concerning Meyers book.
But hey, see how quickly actual debate got buried? Shouldn't we discuss this!:
You are apparently putting all your marbles on Meyer, an evangelical Christian with a Theist 'Intelligent Design' agenda. Gloves off!!!! I have read his book in the past and reviewed your choice of the chapter. In summary he claims by argument, and not "research" that there is evidence support that the complexity of genetics that he argues cannot come about naturally represents an argument for 'Intelligent Design.'
I previously cited two articles that involved research on steps of the formation of RNA/DNA from inorganic chemicals from per reviewed academic journals.
This what I want to see from Meyer and nothing is forthcoming. They will again be posted in the next posts!
One of the severe weakness in your argument of intelligence from other gallactic civilizations or aliens created us, this only kicks the can down the road. What intelligence the first alien or galactic civilization.
More to come om Meyer and his book.
Last edited:
Thread is not dead. If you would choose ID; First, it would not be based on academic scientific research. Second, it only works from a Theist perspective with a philosophical argument to justify Theism. Claims of other aliens only kicks the can or cat down the road as to who or what created the first alien, or is it elephants all the way down,
I missed them. Will you show me again? I will try to analyze them on my own. I accept your challenge to go alone.
Why assume that you can have creation ex nihilo, either in matter or consciousness? I mean you can. I don't. Isn't kicking the can the same as ex nihilo? Either things came out of things or things came out of nothing; both seem equally problematic but God would be the worst conclusion to this problem. Chance isn't palatable to many scientists however either. However I specified that there could be a mixture; a race crops up somewhere and spreads around.
Last edited:
It may not come from academic scientific research, but like I said creation ex nihilo is as problematic as kicking the can down the road. For this we need a philosophy, and I have an atheist philosophy of my own, but I would be stealing from my customers by sharing too much of it.
Last edited:
I am not a big bang physicist however, and I'm guessing neither are you.
The beginning could be a convenient motive for scientists because then there is an end maybe
I think this is still very early science in history; later it may erupt. Whereas many theists have not considered that their gods might be limited, many scientists have not really considered that their make-up might have involved intelligence.
Until these possibilities have widespread consideration, Intelligent Design can not possibly flourish. IMO.
Until these possibilities have widespread consideration, Intelligent Design can not possibly flourish. IMO.
Would you like to discuss the DNA/RNA from inorganic molecules? Is this about showing consciousness can come from nonconsciousness? I am going it alone for the sake of being trusted. I would be more than happy to keep this thread going.
Often it not so easy. The Rational Wiki definition was only an example but confounding of method with metaphysics is very common. What can falsify the concept of abiogenesis? What can falsify the very basic assumptions that life is merely structure of matter? Or that consciousness is generated of chemicals? These cannot be proven in foreseeable future nor can these be disproved but I know many who consider these as proven facts.
I prefer to use the term ‘science’. We know that a scientific theory is valid and gives correct predictions within its scope.
Religions have different goals and different paradigms. For science, the empirical only is true. For most religions, on the othe other hand, the empirical is a representation. And this knowledge, if correctly applied, is useful to alleviate many personal psychosomatic and societal ills.
I personally do not see conflict between these two goals, which encompass two non-overlapped magisterium but can provide a man a complete way of life.
There are times however, when to counter fundamentalists spreading wrong precepts, scientists must state the facts plainly. One such occasion was in India when an education minister claimed that Darwin was wrong. Many scientists joined together to refute his fundamentalist claims.
YMMV.
Last edited:
I think ShunyaDragon had a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing revelation of his own when he said that Aliens would have to be a theistic argument. In my philosophy I attempt to show these falsities like you just mentioned or rather show that thought and matter go hand in hand. My only way of showing this is that my philosophy is the only possible answer I know to both the laws of nature and to our appeal to not have mysticism in our understanding. For instance, quantum mechanics is not understood so I seek a simple answer that still explains the phenomena. I also got major support from a dead ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. After publication I have found that my views are very, if not completely similar (though modernized) and I marvel at that. (I was not familiar with him before publication).
Last edited:
Bottom line is the Rational Wiki definition is NOT a scientific definition. Be careful trying to raise the fog index between science and the metaphysical
These are within the realm of possible theories and hypothesis for falsification by scientific methods for their physical aspects and properties of our physical existence. Of course there are unanswered questions, but 'Arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy to base an argument on.
Your ignorance is compounding the problem of communication, because science does not prove anything,
That is within the scope of the definition I provided from Tufts University, and not the one you provided from Rational Wiki.
True
False, science does not claim the empirical only is true. That would be a philosophical assumption of ontological naturalism.
I will have to reject this generalization, because different religions and different sects and churches within religions have divergent often conflicting views, Mostly based on the presuppositions of their doctrines and dogma.
OK, but in the Baha'i view not two goals.
Divided in conflicting and divergent views without guidance reverting to ancient world views that cause conflict and science is the step-child in this conflict
Actually only in part. When you quoted the Bible with theistic ramification, and leaning heavily on a Christian evangelical scientist? that has theological 'Intelligent Design,' your cover is blown.
Actually Denton played this shell game up until the Dover trial. Later writings revealed his true intent and identity, 'Intelligent Design' Creation by God.
Last edited:
No my cover is not blown; I just thought that one verse in the Bible was true.