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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.