Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The problem with naturalism, the problem with empiricism
Journal of Creation ^ | Lael Weinberger

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, Science’s 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 Hunter’s way of saying it is.

Bacon vs Descartes

Hunter begins with a trip back in history...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; history; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; philosophy; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 10/23/2009 8:51:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!

—also—

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:

http://www.icr.org/

All the best—GGG


2 posted on 10/23/2009 8:56:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; Tax Government; Wacka; humblegunner; allmendream; Buck W.; Ira_Louvin; Gumlegs; ...

Here we go again...

Journey of Crackpots
&
Institute for Crackpot Research.

Not exactly a credible resource.


3 posted on 10/23/2009 9:05:43 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


4 posted on 10/23/2009 9:19:41 AM PDT by palmerizedCaddis (There is a place left on earth where some folks can still walk on water!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

you sound like a democrat.


5 posted on 10/23/2009 9:20:35 AM PDT by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

Why didn’t you go straight to “Nazi”???
It’s what you were thinking...


6 posted on 10/23/2009 9:28:25 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

And xcamel never has anything constructive to say either...


7 posted on 10/23/2009 9:28:50 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Funny, your posting history

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:brandtmichaels/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Is about as closed minded, one sided, and myopic as a freeper can get.

8 posted on 10/23/2009 9:35:39 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: palmerizedCaddis

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.


9 posted on 10/23/2009 10:10:40 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
To become empirical seems to require the Christian to exchange his principles for uncertainty.

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.

10 posted on 10/23/2009 10:20:14 AM PDT by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp

Somehow I missed this one. Excellent, excellent reply, mjp!!!


11 posted on 10/23/2009 10:45:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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

....because when you cannot argue using "science"...you must rely on "philosophy"...

12 posted on 10/23/2009 11:51:21 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

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.


13 posted on 10/23/2009 12:00:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Physiology
Immunology
Endocrinology
Entomology
Developmental Biology
Neurobiology

....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.

Genetics
Population genetics
cell bio

Yeah....philosophy is EVERYWHERE....hang onto that to explain why your theological philosphy cannot explain itself through scientific means.


14 posted on 10/23/2009 12:39:11 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Oh really. Does it require logic to make progress in any of those fields?


15 posted on 10/23/2009 12:41:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

==hang onto that to explain why your theological philosphy cannot explain itself through scientific means.

PS

Can science justify itself through scientific means?


16 posted on 10/23/2009 1:08:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Ah! You are a democrat!


17 posted on 10/23/2009 5:34:37 PM PDT by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


18 posted on 10/23/2009 8:46:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl
Intelligent Design represents moderate empiricism today, Hunter says. It rules out nothing a priori, and is dedicated to considering all the evidence. The Darwinists are bothered ... because they cannot understand an approach which is so radically different from their own, an approach without a firm rationalistic structure. But this is precisely ID’s strength. ‘Unfortunately’, Hunter writes, ‘there is a common misunderstanding that intelligent design is opposed to all naturalistic explanations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Intelligent design is opposed, however, to simple-minded, dogmatic blinders when we are dealing with complex problems.’

Thank you for posting this fine article, GGG!

19 posted on 10/24/2009 10:49:30 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“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.


20 posted on 10/24/2009 10:57:05 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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?

21 posted on 10/24/2009 11:24:45 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Did I miss something?

Yes.

22 posted on 10/24/2009 11:27:08 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What?


23 posted on 10/24/2009 11:29:32 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I don't think they embrace the theory that man evolved over hundreds of million years.

From your post:

"Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement ..."

24 posted on 10/24/2009 11:30:02 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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.

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.

25 posted on 10/24/2009 11:31:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
"Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement ..."

Well — so what?

26 posted on 10/24/2009 11:31:40 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
From your post: "Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement ..."

From my post? I don't recall writing that line...though I think it's very likely true.

27 posted on 10/24/2009 11:33:46 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"Many Christians have welcomed the ID movement ..."

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?

28 posted on 10/24/2009 11:35:23 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
From my post? I don't recall writing that line...though I think it's very likely true.

You posted it from the article.

29 posted on 10/24/2009 11:36:11 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; betty boop
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.

The YEC'ers have even stated that they will tear down and burn their OEC and theistic evolutionary allies once they defeat Darwinism.

30 posted on 10/24/2009 11:39:00 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; Alamo-Girl
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?

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.

31 posted on 10/24/2009 11:40:14 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
When did I "welcome a movement?" Especially one that declares God "dead?"

I was a little careless. Not that I know that you do NOT welcome the ID movement, I will not state otherwise.

32 posted on 10/24/2009 11:41:56 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
The YEC'ers have even stated that they will tear down and burn their OEC and theistic evolutionary allies once they defeat Darwinism.

Oh really???

Point me to a source that corroborates this allegation?

33 posted on 10/24/2009 11:42:01 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Oh really??? 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.

34 posted on 10/24/2009 11:44:20 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I’m not into “movements.” But I do care about interesting science....


35 posted on 10/24/2009 11:44:21 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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.

So you're the source?

36 posted on 10/24/2009 11:45:38 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Point me to a source that corroborates this allegation?

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?

37 posted on 10/24/2009 11:46:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; metmom
So you're the source?

No. Ask any YEC'er. Except GGG. He is an anomaly. He even states that God is the Intelligent Designer, unlike Metmom.

38 posted on 10/24/2009 11:48:22 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
The YEC'ers have even stated that they will tear down and burn their OEC and theistic evolutionary allies once they defeat Darwinism.

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.

39 posted on 10/24/2009 11:49:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Someone might have expressed that sentiment, but you can't attribute it to all of them.

It was several. Give me a YECer and we can ask him.

40 posted on 10/24/2009 11:56:27 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Someone might have expressed that sentiment, but you can't attribute it to all of them.

Lots of them. http://www.yecheadquarters.org/oec.html

41 posted on 10/24/2009 11:58:56 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; metmom
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?

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?

42 posted on 10/24/2009 12:01:12 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
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.

43 posted on 10/24/2009 12:02:49 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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!

44 posted on 10/24/2009 12:07:38 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I stated that I would not state that you supported the ID movement. Isn’t that your position?


45 posted on 10/24/2009 12:12:33 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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).

46 posted on 10/24/2009 12:16:45 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
How did you get from there to your positive assertion that I embrace the "movement" as "most likely true?" What a muddle!

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.

47 posted on 10/24/2009 12:18:13 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
intelligent cause

God?

48 posted on 10/24/2009 12:19:13 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Lots of them. http://www.yecheadquarters.org/oec.html

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.

49 posted on 10/24/2009 12:22:57 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The problem is, anybody can register a website, throw up some content, and claim to speak for others. That doesn't make it so.

Show some evidence to the otherwise, please.

50 posted on 10/24/2009 12:24:38 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson