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, 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 ...
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 previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 next last
To: tacticalogic
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.
To: ColdWater
Not a problem. Sometimes judging statements according to who’s saying them contributes to arguments getting personal.
62
posted on
10/24/2009 12:46:34 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Not a problem. Sometimes judging statements according to whos saying them contributes to arguments getting personal.True.
63
posted on
10/24/2009 12:52:19 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: ColdWater; Alamo-Girl
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.
64
posted on
10/24/2009 1:01:55 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
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.
65
posted on
10/24/2009 1:05:22 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: ColdWater; Alamo-Girl
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."
66
posted on
10/24/2009 1:29:04 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
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.
67
posted on
10/24/2009 1:41:03 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: betty boop
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.
68
posted on
10/24/2009 1:42:23 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: betty boop
They just see intelligence in Nature.They see evolution in nature punctuated with intervening ID events.
69
posted on
10/24/2009 1:44:09 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: 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?
70
posted on
10/24/2009 1:46:19 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: ColdWater; Alamo-Girl
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.
71
posted on
10/24/2009 2:19:07 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
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?
72
posted on
10/24/2009 2:22:30 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: betty boop
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.
73
posted on
10/24/2009 2:31:41 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: ColdWater
They are looking for proofs of the Intelligent Designer. What is the difference between the ID and God? Good question, Cold Water. :^)
74
posted on
10/24/2009 2:35:39 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
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.
75
posted on
10/24/2009 2:40:42 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: betty boop; ColdWater
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.
To: GodGunsGuts; betty boop
He doesnt 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?
77
posted on
10/24/2009 2:56:31 PM PDT
by
ColdWater
("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
To: ColdWater; betty boop
==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.
To: GodGunsGuts; ColdWater; Alamo-Girl
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.
79
posted on
10/24/2009 3:27:58 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
Brother, as in Christian brother?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson