Skip to comments.The problem with naturalism, the problem with empiricism
Posted on 10/23/2009 8:51:50 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For all of history, the fundamental issue in the creation-evolution conflict has been philosophical presuppositions, not empirical evidence or brute facts. Creationists have been pointing this out for many years, with varying degrees of effectiveness. To their credit, the modern Intelligent Design movement has recognized this same point, and for almost twenty years now, has explicitly made philosophical argumentation central in the debate over Darwinism. Phillip Johnson played an important role in bringing the philosophy of naturalism out into the open and onto the dissecting table with his best-selling Darwin on Trial, the book usually credited with launching the modern ID movement.1 Distinctions between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism became key points of debate.2 Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter has added to this understanding by authoring several books focused on the history of Darwinism and design.3 His latest work, Sciences Blind Spot, turns the tables completely on naturalism, this time in the realm of history, arguing that Darwinism is religious and ID is empirical. This thesis is not new in the ID literature, but Hunters way of saying it is.
Bacon vs Descartes
Hunter begins with a trip back in history...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
For those of you who are interested, ICR has a brand new book out in which 14 major scholars analyze the linguistic, theological, and chronological issues regarding the initial chapters of Genesis. You can check it out, here:
All the best—GGG
Here we go again...
Journey of Crackpots
Institute for Crackpot Research.
Not exactly a credible resource.
We love you pal. The young have no idea who Francis Bacon was. They have no clue of Novum Organon.
The old saying” Its never a good idea to get into an argument with a fool because the bystanders won’t be able to fuigure out who the foll is!”
Bless you for trying. NVNG but after all is over, you might as well urinate into the face of a hurricane.
A POX on the OBUMMER lurkers!!!!!!!!!!!!
Caddis thye younger
you sound like a democrat.
Why didn’t you go straight to “Nazi”???
It’s what you were thinking...
And xcamel never has anything constructive to say either...
Is about as closed minded, one sided, and myopic as a freeper can get.
Descartes was wrong about some things, but his skepticism and logic were admirable. By questioning the existence of everything, including himself, he “reset” Western thought, freeing it from the iron bands of Aristotlean dogma. He also established an invincible, rational basis for faith by pointing out the leap of faith required by empiricism, i.e. that we cannot demonstrate empirically that sensory information (and thus ‘empirical’ evidence) corresponds to reality in any meaningful way. By proving that our observations of reality rest upon a leap of faith (i.e. that what we see, hear, etc., is “real”), Descartes, Rationalist supreme, did away with the notion that the leap of faith required to believe in God is in any way unscientific. Thus, demonstrated Descartes, all systems of thought, including the empirical,ultimately are faith-based.
Science is possible only because we live in an ordered universe which complies with simple mathematical laws. The job of the scientist is to study, catalogue and relate the orderliness in nature, not to question its origin, But theologians have long argued that the order in the physical world is evidence for God. If this is true, then science and religion acquire a common purpose in revealing God's work.
Somehow I missed this one. Excellent, excellent reply, mjp!!!
....because when you cannot argue using "science"...you must rely on "philosophy"...
There is no such thing as a philosophy-free science. If you think there is, I would love for you to try and describe it.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying the workings of the human body.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying the immune system.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying hormone interactions.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying insect biology.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying human development.
....ain’t no philosophy in studying neural interactions.
Yeah....philosophy is EVERYWHERE....hang onto that to explain why your theological philosphy cannot explain itself through scientific means.
Oh really. Does it require logic to make progress in any of those fields?
==hang onto that to explain why your theological philosphy cannot explain itself through scientific means.
Can science justify itself through scientific means?
Ah! You are a democrat!
Thanks for the ping!
Thank you for posting this fine article, GGG!
“Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement as the latest and greatest weapon against unbelief”
It always amazes me that YEC’ers would embrace a movement that believes that man evolved over hundreds of millions of years and a movement that believes that God may be dead.
Jeepers, you lost me there, ColdWater. YECers are part of the "God is dead" movement??? I don't think they embrace the theory that man evolved over hundreds of million years.
Your description applies better to Neo-Darwinists than to YEC theorists. Or so it seems to me.
Did I miss something?
From your post:
"Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement ..."
It would be a rational strategy if ID was being used as a Trojan horse, meant to be torn down and burned once inside the gates.
Well so what?
From my post? I don't recall writing that line...though I think it's very likely true.
Well so what?
You welcome a movement that has declared that God must be dead since there is no evidence for his existence in the last few hundred million years?
You posted it from the article.
The YEC'ers have even stated that they will tear down and burn their OEC and theistic evolutionary allies once they defeat Darwinism.
What on earth are you talking about?
When did I "welcome a movement?" Especially one that declares God "dead?"
I don't need "empirical evidence" for God. His "existence" is "evident" to me daily, from non-empirical sources.
I was a little careless. Not that I know that you do NOT welcome the ID movement, I will not state otherwise.
Point me to a source that corroborates this allegation?
Several FR's have stated in the past that NO one that believes other than their YEC belief is a Christian and they will have to be dealt with in the future as non-Christians.
I’m not into “movements.” But I do care about interesting science....
So you're the source?
You have been on these threads for years and are not aware that YEC'ers consider anyone that does not accept their YEC philosophy to be non-Christians?
No. Ask any YEC'er. Except GGG. He is an anomaly. He even states that God is the Intelligent Designer, unlike Metmom.
Someone might have expressed that sentiment, but you can't attribute it to all of them.
It's ugly when a single person mentions the Inquisitions and suddenly that's "what the Evos say". It doesn't get any prettier coming from the other direction.
It was several. Give me a YECer and we can ask him.
Lots of them. http://www.yecheadquarters.org/oec.html
Actually, that thought never occurred to me. But if what you say is true, then all I can say is they would be wrong.
But such considerations aren't scientific, they are theological. Why do you dwell on them?
I don't dwell on them. I was reponded to your posts that quoted the article that Christians welcomed the ID movement and which you said was most likely true.
But earlier you wrote, "Not that I know that you do NOT welcome the ID movement, I will not state otherwise...." How did you get from there to your positive assertion that I embrace the "movement" as "most likely true?"
What a muddle!
I stated that I would not state that you supported the ID movement. Isn’t that your position?
I support science, not "movements." Having said that, I think that ID's claim that certain phenomena in nature can best be explained in terms of an intelligent cause holds water (so to speak).
Ah! I see the confusion. I was not saying that you said the ID movement was true. I was saying that you said the statement 'Christians embrace the ID movement' was most likely true.
The problem is, anybody can register a website, throw up some content, and claim to speak for others. That doesn't make it so. It's just a valid as representing Dawkins as speaking for everyone who's not a YEC.
Show some evidence to the otherwise, please.