The problem with naturalism, the problem with empiricism

Journal of Creation ^ | Lael Weinberger

[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...

[ColdWater]

I really don't have a problem with that.

I am open minded and understand and respect his position. He does not understand nor respect my position.

[tacticalogic]

Not a problem. Sometimes judging statements according to who’s saying them contributes to arguments getting personal.

[ColdWater]

Not a problem. Sometimes judging statements according to who’s saying them contributes to arguments getting personal.

True.

[betty boop]

God?

I thought I'd already made it plain that God is not, and cannot be, an object for science.

But if I were to put on my "theologian hat," I'd say: YES.

[ColdWater]

I thought I'd already made it plain that God is not, and cannot be, an object for science.

I agree. But that is EXACTLY what the ID movement is doing.

[betty boop]

I agree. But that is EXACTLY what the ID movement is doing.

But why do you say that? The so-called "ID movement" is officially on the record as saying that they are "agnostic" with regard to questions of First Cause. They just see intelligence in Nature. They want to explore it. As far as I know, no one in the ID school promotes God as First Cause. For they know that God is not and cannot be a scientific question.

They are looking at "what is," not "what caused it."

[ColdWater]

But why do you say that? The so-called "ID movement" is officially on the record as saying that they are "agnostic" with regard to questions of First Cause. They just see intelligence in Nature. They want to explore it. As far as I know, no one in the ID school promotes God as First Cause. For they know that God is not and cannot be a scientific question.

Uh, they are on oath as saying that most probably the "ID" is dead since there has been no evidence of his interaction in the universe in the last few hundred million years.

[ColdWater]

As far as I know, no one in the ID Evolutionary school promotes God as First Cause. For they know that God is not and cannot be a scientific question.

[ColdWater]

They just see intelligence in Nature.

They see evolution in nature punctuated with intervening ID events.

[ColdWater]

As far as I know, no one in the ID school promotes God as First Cause. For they know that God is not and cannot be a scientific question.

What is the difference between the ID Intelligent Designer and God?

[betty boop]

Uh, they are on oath as saying that most probably the "ID" is dead since there has been no evidence of his interaction in the universe in the last few hundred million years.

Uh, you continue to miss my point. ID is not looking for "proofs" of God. Rather it is looking at the natural world, and has noticed that it seems to be lawful in its conduct, ordered. That is, it shows all the hallmarks of intelligence in the coordinated disposition of its parts, which together constitute the whole of which they are parts, and at the same time cannot be understood as parts absent the idea of an intelligible whole.

[ColdWater]

Uh, you continue to miss my point. ID is not looking for "proofs" of God.

They are looking for proofs of the Intelligent Designer. What is the difference between the ID and God?

[ColdWater]

Uh, you continue to miss my point. ID Evolution is not looking for "proofs" of God. Rather it is looking at the natural world, and has noticed that it seems to be lawful in its conduct, ordered. That is, it shows all the hallmarks of intelligence in the coordinated disposition of its parts, which together constitute the whole of which they are parts, and at the same time cannot be understood as parts absent the idea of an intelligible whole.

[betty boop]

They are looking for proofs of the Intelligent Designer. What is the difference between the ID and God?

Good question, Cold Water. :^)

[ColdWater]

God’s work is in all of creation. ID is wrong because they say that God, er the IDer, does nothing most of the time and then comes along and BANG, creates the eye like it was something he just thought of after having man’s ancestors go around for millions of years blind. It is wrong to look for God’s work in the complex for it is everywhere. Just take the ‘simple’ grain of sand.

[GodGunsGuts]

He doesn’t get that from me, or any other creationists that I know of on FR. In my experience, CW tends to make stuff up as he goes along.

[ColdWater]

He doesn’t get that from me, or any other creationists that I know of on FR.

What is "that" you are referring to?

In my experience, CW tends to make stuff up as he goes along.

Name something you have seen in your experience that I made up. Or did you just make that up?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Name something you have seen in your experience that I made up

You just said that “YEC’ers consider anyone that does not accept their YEC philosophy to be non-Christians?” You made that one up out of thin air. As such, you have once again been caught fabricating. Normally I try to ignore your disruptive behavior. The only reason I am wasting one minute of my time on you is to expose yet another one of your many lies.

[betty boop]

In my experience, CW tends to make stuff up as he goes along.

Well maybe he just can't help himself.

Still he is our brother.

[GodGunsGuts]

Brother, as in Christian brother?