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

To: truthfinder9
The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

Ok, I'll bite. How does one incorporate a reference to the supernatural in a scientific inquiry? Just stick a little parenthetical in saying "here a miracle occurs" and hope no one notices?

7 posted on 09/30/2005 2:19:03 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: atlaw

How does one incorporate a reference to the supernatural in a scientific inquiry?

That is NOT what intelligent design theory is all about. We are NOT talking about a SUPERNATURAL designer. But a designer. Once one goes beyond nature into supernature you are beyond the realm of science. But ID scientists DO NOT make any assumptions about the nature of the designer but make the assumption that molecular machines appear to be designed - hence there is most likely a designer of some intelligence behind these machines. The designer may be dead - some being or beings who has died or the designer could be supernatural - a deity. But the nature of the designer is NOT what is at issue - it is whether molecular machines, DNA and its program are designed or not designed based on information theory and other scientific assumptions about when something is designed verses when something has come about by blind luck.


17 posted on 09/30/2005 2:26:58 PM PDT by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: atlaw
How does one incorporate a reference to the supernatural in a scientific inquiry?

Say, hypothetically, that some "supernatural" force causes giant talking stalks of broccoli to get up and start mowing your lawn for free. Is it your view that science would be inherently incapable of taking note of that event?

To put the question more seriously, as long as something has an observable effect on the real world, what's to prevent it from being reachable through scientific investigation?

21 posted on 09/30/2005 2:28:42 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: atlaw

"Just stick a little parenthetical in saying "here a miracle occurs" and hope no one notices?"

Actually, given the probabilities involved in the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory that is pretty much what evolutionary scientist have done.


54 posted on 09/30/2005 2:52:10 PM PDT by Busywhiskers ("...moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society." --Judge Edith H. Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: atlaw
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

The jerk says he's not a scientist, then he proves it by falsifying the premise of science.

325 posted on 10/01/2005 5:27:39 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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