Skip to comments.What Is Science?
Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I gather then the Prof. Todd has trouble with the scientific status of archaeology, which is often concerned with distinguishing which things found in a dig were intelligently designed and which were not.
What if the universe is a product of just one God interfering in the universe?
Isn't this the essence of ID?
Isn't this a contradiction of everything else that follows in the essay?
It appears that the essay was not intelligently designed.
Thanks for the ping!
That would be “principal” scientific fields.
Hi Litekeeper. I notice that you have yet to respond to my request for your rationale regarding the beliefs we have been discussing. In any event, you may find this article interesting.
“God does not publish science textbooks.”
Science is a closed system, in which by using the rules of science, an experiment can be conducted to achieve the same results by anyone else, anywhere or any time else, and achieve the same results, as long as they follow the established rules. It very carefully eliminates factors that might influence the experiment, that are outside of the rules of the experiment.
As such, it is little different than playing chess. If you follow the rules, then you have played a game of chess, nothing more. If you do not follow the rules, while you have done something, it is not played a game of chess. Even if you used a chess board and chess pieces, it is still not chess.
By being reproducible, science is rewarded credibility to its experiments. This credibility is incorrectly interpolated and extrapolated to things outside of science. While they might appear to still follow the rules, they are not scientific, per se.
There is no place for God within a scientific experiment, any more than saying that “God permits me to use my pawns like Rooks”, because neither God, nor God’s influence is reproducible by other people, in other times and in other places, on demand. Therefore God cannot be included as a variable or constant in a scientific experiment.
This is not to say that God does not act as a variable or a constant in scientific experiments, just that God is not in the rules of science.
Therefore, Intelligent Design accomplishes nothing. It does not follow the rules of science, and should not be taught to students in a science class, *not* because it is not true, but because it does not, and cannot, follow the rules of science.
If students and their parents therefore abhor science, in principle they should be allowed to avoid it in their child’s school instruction. And if they steadfastly hold this belief, then the study of science is unimportant to them as such.
But there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom. If it is taught separately in an Intelligent Design class, that likewise is acceptable. But only on the strict basis that it is not scientific, because it does not obey the rules of science.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
“Isn’t this the essence of ID?”
You’re confusion ID with deistic evolution which is interference.
You always say that. The Bible says otherwise though. If evolution is true, the God of the Bible is a liar.
The Bible says nothing of the kind. It is allegorical in places, including Genesis.
You are talking about operational science, not historical science. Historical science is based on inference, whether it be creation or evolution.
Says you. Who gets to decide what’s literal and what’s allegory? Society? Seriously, this is the very definition of Humanism which is the essence of Marxism.
I gather he also has trouble with the scientific status of genetic engineering, which is squarely within the context of his comment.
And that’s another thing. It’s easy to say evolution is compatible with Christianity if what you mean by that is where they conflict evolution is right and the bible is cute stories.
God gave us a brain to identify allegory as we gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. He’d be very disappointed if we didn’t use that brain.
A question for you: Is the bible exhaustive? That is, does it include everything that happened in ancient times?
“What Is Science?”
Nothing like a biased anti-science website to write an article trying to define science ...
Why do you find it pious to deny the capacity for rational thought that we all agree God gave us?
“Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, ... were believers in a recently created earth. “
Bacon rejected the Bible itself as a basis of scientific knowledge.
Rational thought leads to discussions and questions and conflicts. People of weak faith cannot withstand that experience.
“But there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom.”
Then there is no place for MY money in a science classroom.
No it’s not exhaustive but what God does cover, he’s right about.
“God gave us a brain to identify allegory as we gain a greater understanding of the natural universe.”
That’s the essence of Humanism.
“...there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom...”
I would agree, except to the extent that evolution IS intelligent design!
You label ideas, then vilify them. No, it’s not humanism.
500 years ago, you would have referred to my position in support of heliocentrism as humanism, and then you would have burned me at the stake. The bad news is that your faith remains as weak today. The good news is that you’re out of matches.
“No its not exhaustive but what God does cover, hes right about.”
Is it conceivable that any of what is not in the Bible may shed additional light on what is in the book?
I think this is a revealing assertion right out of the gate and couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
Scientists themselves haven't agreed on what "is or isn't science", let alone the "rules of science" (whatever that is), from the outset of whatever it was that science can call it's beginnings to this present day. And there's simply no credible evidence that things will change tomorrow on this front.
They (and no one else btw,) can agree on what is or isn't scientific, or what constitutes "science" let alone pseudo-science, alchemy, etc. etc. etc.
Look at manmade global warming for starters...people, including scientists, call that a cult, pseudo-science, etc. on this very board daily!
Science is about as open a system as there can possibly be!
Scientists have studied and performed scientific experiments on prayer for instance, and have probably received YOUR tax money to do it, and nothing could possibly be more subjective!
Scientists come up with wild ideas about multiverses, string theories and again, get govt money to come up with them!
When someone tells you science is closed, what they really mean is closed to everyone but godless secularist NEA liberals who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers.
Everyone else has been 'Expelled'.
There's no room for intelligence and/or design in science simply because they say so.
NOT based on evidence, or anything else but merely because they're under the misassumption someone gave them and them alone the keys to science!
No one did, of course.
The humble view would be: the process by which man continually proves himself wrong.
The one thing science always adheres to is pragmatism. Any idea that can be tested is useful, and any idea that limits the questions that can be asked is useless.
The idea that an unspecified agent having unspecified capabilities did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places for unspecified reasons, pretty much puts an end to inquiry.
The idea that processes and phenomena are the same from era to era at least leads to testable conjectures.
Your comment is unscientific. Here's why.
You've made two huge assumptions, both of which are offered to support your pre-determined result. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is not how one would describe a "scientific" process.
First, you are committing the cardinal scientific error of a priori excluding a valid hypothesis from the realm of scientific study.
Second, you assume that "intelligent design" = God. You've made it into a religious issue, rather than a scientific one. The truth is that an "intelligent design" hypothesis need not be a proxy for "God did it".
Both of your errors can be spotted just by considering the field of genetic engineering. It is quite obviously a field in which biological development must be considered in the context of the intelligent designers who are doing the engineering.
If science is about explaining phenomena, how would a scientist correctly explain a genetically engineered organism (say, insulin-producing bacteria) without reference to an intelligent designer? The answer is: accurate "science" cannot exclude a "design" hypothesis in this case. In fact, the design hypothesis would be appropriate and valid in this case.
Likewise, it's easy to see that it is not necessary to hypothesize "God" in order to hypothesize "design."
Liberals always operate under the misguided assumption that someone somehow appointed them the gate-keepers of what is or isn't science; so it comes as no surprise that they and they alone think they have the keys and unique understanding of what is or isn't allegorical in the Bible.
What I love are these “open minded scientists” who claim that they will “pursue the truth wherever it leads”...
unless of course, it leads to them facing the Creator.
Yup, but that something crawled out of a soup of mud, by itself, forming itself, with no purpose, for no reason, by complete chance, with no intelligent cause or design, should be given ga-jillions MORE years to be "proven" without question.
You'll see. :0
Everybody, please give a warm welcome to Buck W. (aka buckw), DC’s newest troll.
I’m very much looking forward to your peer-reviewed paper demonstrating the world’s first ID hypothesis and the world’s first ID predictive and testable statements.
Isn’t claiming that the ID’er isn’t a deity sort of blasphemous? Or at least a lie?
Let's not use the word "God" then. Let's just say omniscient, omnipotent agent, having no specific properties, methods, motives, or times or places of action.
Indeed, and then they go to extraordinary lengths to contort themselves into pretzels while excusing multiverse theory, or string theory...or even subjective scientific studies and experiments about prayer.
Apparently in their world science is off limits to God, unless it’s a one way street of course, as they and they alone see fit, because they’re soooo much brighter. LOL
Yup, sounds like a good description of the big bang, abiogenesis, and the ToE all rolled into one.
Singularity came from somewhere before there was any somewhere to be, then for some unknown reason expanded to fill all known space in a trillion-trillionth of a second, meaning it traveled faster than the speed of light to do so, somehow established its own laws, goes on to organize itself into an orderly system in violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which it previously established for itself), to produce an orderly universe which somewhere, somehow, gave rise to sentient life.
All on its own.
And now scientists know all the why's and wherefore's and can explain all the reasons that it happened.
Yup, makes perfect sense..../s
So now that we have all the reasons, how does that not put an end to inquiry?
I thought that not knowing the reasons was why people investigated things. Silly me....
LOL! You're not making a scientific argument -- you're arguing like the worst kind of creationist! There is no need other than your own biases to assume all of those omnis and unspecifics. "Intelligent design" is real, as can be seen by reference to the multi-billion dollar industry built around the techniques of genetic engineering.
To spot your error, it is simply necessary to point to a specific example of intelligent design: genetically-engineered insulin-producing bacteria.
A scientist might wonder why a bacterium should produce insulin. He'd undoubtedly sequence the DNA of the bacterium and, using existing techiques, he would undoubtedly detect the human insulin gene that causes the effect.
He might ask a further question: how did a human insulin gene end up there? Was it somehow transferred into the genome of some other organism?
To answer that question, the scientist might well undertake an inspection/comparison of the gene sequences of the insulin-producing bacterium, in hopes of finding its closest match. Again, this is a currently-available technique. The comparison would, of course, show a very sharp and localized difference within a genome that was otherwise the same between two different "species" of bacteria.
Having found the difference, the big question: how did this change take place?
The correct explanation for the development of these particular bacteria is, of course, that an intelligent designer did it. A person who was conversant with recombinant DNA techniques would recognize what appears to be the signature of genetic engineering in the available evidence. That being the case, he would be seriously irresponsible to dismiss "intelligent designers" among his potential hypotheses.
There are, of course, a variety of ways that genes can be tranferred between organisms. The scientific problem is to select the most likely one as "the proper" explanation. What is the most likely mechanism for transferring a very specific human gene -- and nothing else -- to a bacterium?
Simple: genetic engineering.
Now to dispense with your "argument."
1. Does genetic engineering require omniscience or omnipotence? Clearly not, because humans (who are obviously capable of doing it) are neither.
2. Was there any reason we needed know the "properties" of the agents in order to conclude from the evidence that genetic engineering was most likely responsible for the phenomenon? No.
3. Methods: we did base our conclusion on our own knowlege of methods -- but then, there is no scientific requirement for an agent to not use things we know about.
4. Did we need to know the agent's motives to detect the property, and to make a conclusion of "intelligent design?" No.
4. Did we need to know times or places at which the change took place? No.
And thus your "argument" collapses under the weight of its own flawed assumptions.
So now that we have all the reasons, how does that not put an end to inquiry?
I thought that not knowing the reasons was why people investigated things. Silly me....
It’s not that they know, it’s that they know no one else is worthy of knowing (because they’re terrified of the results).
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that Intelligent Design is not a valid hypothesis. You couldn't be more wrong.
While there are many thousands of peer-reviewed papers dealing with intelligent design, I will instead point you to the Yahoo! page that proves it is not just a scientific oddity, but in fact a hypothesis with serious commercial implications. I give you the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index.
The point being: Intelligent Design is a fact -- it's called "biotechnology."
Good example. It's easy to spot human engineered life forms because their genomes don't fit the nested hierarchy required of common descent.
So the only designers we know of and can observe at work do not produce organisms that look like the result of a long series of incremental changes.
So why would the Designer eschew common design practices and limit himself to small incremental changes that are consistent with common descent?
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
As I do with every single “anti-evolution” quote from creationist writings, I looked this up.
Now, it’s not an easy one to find because it only appears in two places: 50 different creationist websites and Nature Magazines archives from 1999. And those archives cost money to peruse... unless you happen to have an account like me.
As someone wrote earlier, Dr. Todd is but one voice and he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants. This quote (and it is, indeed, a direct quote... for once) was part of a longer letter to Nature regarding the science curriculum debate in Kansas 10 years ago.
For those of you interested how how/why Dr. Todd wrote this, here’s a bit more context.
“...Creationists, according to Johnson, do not doubt that DNA encodes the features of an organism or that changes in DNA (mutations) give rise to variation in those features which are subject to selective pres- sures in nature. Mainstream creationists also accept that genetic and phenotypic changes could result in speciation. They consider evolution as a plausible model to account for the natural history of living things, but they see a great distinction between the empirically proven elements of evolution (micro-evolution) and the expla nation of speciation and origins of life (macro-evolution). Students in Kansas will still be required to learn the former, but it will be left to local school districts to decide whether they are required to learn the latter.
The lesson to be learned from the events in Kansas is that science educators every- where must do a better job of teaching evo- lution. It must be made clear that the evi- dence supporting the mechanism of evolu tion is empirical and proven, but that speci ation and natural history are derived from the admittedly weaker evidence of observa tion. The fact that one cannot reproduce the experiment does not diminish the validity of macro-evolution, but the observed phenomena supporting the theo ry must be presented more clearly.
Additionally, one must question the interpretations of the observed phenomena and discuss the weaknesses of the model. Honest scientists are far more inspiring than defensive ones who scoff arrogantly at the masses and fear that discussing the problems of macro-evolutionary theory will weaken general acceptance of it. On the contrary, free debate is more likely to encourage the curious to seek solutions. Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolu tion, has not disproved Gods existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.”
Scott C. Todd
Let me ask why it is (and when it was and by whom it was determined) that science could only BE science if it’s somehow natural?
After all, tax money funds scientists to study multiverse theory, string theory, and even scientific study into response to prayer. (As far as I know)
Omniscience would be required to know all the adaptations that would be required as a result of environmental changes, preditor/prey arms races, and so forth. If all that is front loaded, it could only be done by an agent that knows the future.
Their world is off limits to God, unless that god can be crammed into their predictable, naturalistic little box, where He does nothing unexpected nor out of the ordinary.
It's so much more comfortable when God answers to you, rather than you answering to God.
None of that is true. Give me a break.
Your unique perspective on what ID is will come as a surprise to Dr. Behe and his supporters.