Search This Blog

Friday, December 17, 2010

Methodological Naturalism, the artificial intrusion of religion into science. Is there, indeed, No Exit?

Atheism is a religion and Darwinism is a key doctrine of atheism.  I have added the youtube page of philos71 to my links list and am enlisting him via youtube to help me with this post.



I recently commnented as follows:

"Reasoning would come to see design in the organism, acknowledge it, and move ahead.  The Law of Biogenesis would be accepted still as yet another testable hypothesis that had been proclaimed as law and shall remain until overturned.

The search for truth that is science must be driven by evidence and both inductive and deductive reasoning must be applied.  I agree with all of that.

The trouble is that if you artificially include methodological naturalism, which is a metaphysical concept, into science it is just as inhibiting as forcing scientists to inject methodological supernaturalism into science.  In that case, a way to show that God is ultimately the cause of the fall of leaves from deciduous trees in the autumn would have to be included in every paper submitted for review.  Would not such a thing be absurd?

Yet that is what methodological naturalism is, an absurd metaphysical limitation placed on science!  There is no better argument for imposing the supernatural or the natural on science.

Real science studies what is and tries to use logic and deduction to determine how and why and what application these findings can have in real life.  Neither natural nor supernatural tags should be imposed upon science.  If and when science comes to the supernatural as a First Cause for the Universe or life or information, this does not stop or inhibit scientific research in the least.  It is merely distasteful to those who dislike, fear or hate God.

We know that methodological naturalism was not a part of science until Darwinism became the ruling paradigm.   In fact the existence of God as Creator was fundamental to the devising of the scientific method in the first place.   Believers in God expected that the Universe could be understood logically.   Those who wish to exclude the supernatural from science and give credit to accidents and random forces for all life and matter and time and systems are borrowing God to get started and then casting Him aside afterwards.

A random Universe would have random processes and forces.   It would be unpredictable.  Darwinist thought takes us back to the thinking of those Greeks who attributed every drop of rain and every puff of wind as being part of an argument or interaction between semi-human "gods" whose names were derived from, for the most part, their own ancestry.   Some pagan cultures consider the wind and the rain and, what the heck, trees to be gods requiring appeasement and yet acting in arbitrary ways.

Methodological supernaturalism requires that all forces and events be caused by supernatural agents.   That is a viewpoint that is obviously wrong to my readers.   We are not, as scientists, going to say there was a blizzard in Chicago because God doesn't like Rahm Emmanuel.   When a recent AGW meeting was cancelled due to heavy snow and intense cold, that was ironically funny but to say that God did it is not a scientific statement.   God did not cause Hurricane Katrina to be a disaster, it was a combination of atmospheric conditions and an infrastructure that was not up to standards, in part because politicians had re-routed or pocketed money meant to bolster the dikes and levees in the New Orleans area.   We can see by inspection and reasoning that this is so.

Methodological naturalism requires all forces and events to be caused by natural agents.  This is also obviously wrong.  The long list of great scientists who helped bring the Western World from Middle-Ages superstition to 17th Century scientific examination would almost unanimously agree with me."  

Now allow me to take your intellect on a trip to see a play.  You have heard Philos expound upon atheism as it sees the world and how Darwinism gives blind chance the same place in their worldview as a Christian would give God.  Chance is the creative, designing force by which all things came to be.  This is what you have left when you dissect Darwinism to see what is within it.

Perhaps you are familiar with the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre?  He was a socialist, a philosopher who was famous for his refusal to accept a Nobel Prize in literature.  You may be familiar with the famous line of his play, "No Exit", which was written in 1944 while he was supposedly involved in the French resistance against Germany; "Hell is other people."

In the play, a Valet leads three people into a room with no windows and no mirrors, one at a time, and locking the one door behind him after each entrance.   The room is supposed to be Hell and the punishment turns out to be an unending existence for each of the thee people with the other two, whom they come to despise and, during the play, their obvious distaste for themselves is also on display.  Four characters in all are identified in the play but most dialogue involves the three in the room.  In the end, as the main character asks to be let out, the door is opened but not one of the three within the room are willing to leave to face the unknown or to in some way give satisfaction to any of the others.

Now allow that scene to represent scientific research in the 21st Century.  Three people are in the room and in this case they represent the Creationist, the Intelligent Design proponent and the Darwinist.  They have forgotten how they came into the room and have to deduce how they came to be there.  In the room there are no mirrors or windows and the light is always on.   There is one book (The Book) in the room.  The Valet in the play will be referred to as The Carpenter in my version of the play.

The Creationist reads The Book that tells him that there is a door and he therefore believes in the door.   He believes the door is locked but that there is a person (The Carpenter) who can open the door.   This is analogous to God, who has created all things and now the Universe is obedient to the Laws of Thermodynamics, in which nothing is now being created or destroyed.  The Creationist is confident that the door, having opened in the past, will open again to allow him to leave the room and accompany The Carpenter to another life outside the room.   The Book he has in his possession tells him so, and since The Book is correct concerning the door, he believes it likely that the rest of the book is also true.  That The Carpenter built the room and the door and put all three people into the room seems quite logical to him.  His careful examination of the room confirms this belief.  Everything in the room appears to have been made by someone and it is logical to give the credit to The Carpenter.

The ID proponent has examined the room and found no windows or opening of any kind but one possibility, what appears to be a part of the wall that was designed to serve as a door.   He is unable to open that door but can, by examination, determine that it appears to be a door and seems to be the only possible explanation for how the three could have entered the room.  He may at that point begin to wonder about The Book and whether The Carpenter had fashioned both the room and the door, but he is quite certain that the door is there and so there is an obvious way to see that the three had entered the room.  Both he and the Creationist agree that there is certainly a door and that is how they came to be in the room.  Both he and the Creationist agree that the room and its contents were made by someone.  He may even decide to read The Book and believe that there was a Carpenter who made both room and door and in fact put all three people within it as well.

The Darwinist refuses to look at or consider the door.  He ignores The Book.  He concludes that all three of the people and every object within the room had by chance spontaneously appeared in the room.   He studies the walls and furniture carefully and begins composing stories by which reflections of the light off of a decoration might have energized dust in the furniture into taking the shape and form of the people who are now there.   He carefully examines everything BUT the door.  He refuses to admit the possibility of a door.   He spends his time writing ceaselessly in a journal a wide variety of stories concerning how each part of the room, including the people, must have popped into existence from nothing out of nowhere.   Thereby he is able to satisfy himself that he doesn't have to be concerned about The Book or the door or The Carpenter, since he refuses to acknowledge that they exist.

At the end of the play, the door opens and The Carpenter appears, inviting the Creationist to come out.  If the Intelligent Design proponent has come to believe what is within The Book, he will also follow and go with The Carpenter and the Creationist out the door and beyond.   After the door slams shut, the Darwinist realizes that it was real, that The Book was true and that the Carpenter was the builder of the room.  But he is helpless to unlock the now-sealed door and in fear he realizes that the room is getting hotter and the smell of smoke is in the air...

Curtain.



I am willing to assert that Darwinism is an 19th Century concept that is infantile in its view of the world.  Hutton could only look at a weathered stone fence and an outcropping of rock and speculate on an Earth that has been acted upon by forces for untold millenia.   We know better than that now.   Our Sun would not be friendly to life for untold millions of years, the Moon's orbit would not sustain itself for untold millions of years and the sedimentary rocks were formed by catastrophic water events.   The vast majority of fossils are a testament to instant anaerobic burial.

To look at the outside of organisms and speculate that they evolved from simpler organisms was fine back then.  But now that we can see and analyze DNA and see how features are passed on and where on the DNA such features are located has proven to us that this is not true.   The ridiculous fairy tales foisted upon the unschooled about the evolution of the eye, for instance, are ridiculous in that the trilobite eyes are among the most sophisticated of vision systems ever discovered.  A look within organisms shows design and information that cannot have happened by chance.   Cannot.  It is impossible.  Any statistician who is honest with himself and us would agree.   We live in one Universe that is expanding from a beginning and is going to end in heat death if God does not first intervene.   The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we had a cause and the only cause that is logical is a Creator God. 

If you examined a 1965 Mustang, it would be apparent that it is an automobile and, at first, it might not look much different from a brand new Mustang.   The styling is not dissimilar, both have four wheels and they have doors and so on.  But if you popped the hood?  A 1965 Mustang with a 289 engine had a Holley carburetor and that carb was adjusted by screws and operated by simple mechanical means.  Levers and springs are seen.  The ignition would include a separate solenoid and if the distributer cap was to be removed, the points would be revealed to be made for manual manipulation.  One would set the gap with a special tool and one would use a dwell meter to check on the settings and the timing.   I learned to play with those settings to get a bit more horsepower from my particular 289 when I was still a teenager.   That particular model had a solenoid that would easily go bad and often you would rap it with a wrench and then try to start the car again and it would work!  Cool!   But if that happened I knew I would have to break down and buy and install a new solenoid before it failed completely.

Today's cars have onboard computers and the way the engines fire and the timing and the method of fuel injection has changed radically in 45 years.   Little of what I learned working on my Mustang back in the day applies to modern automobiles.  I've had to adjust my thinking and troubleshoot newer cars in new ways.  Usually I just have to take them to my buddy who owns a repair shop where he has computer analyzers and updated internet connectivity to the latest information for every automobile on the road by which he can find and fix problems or give us the sad news that our car is on the downside of usefulness and would be best sold or traded in.   If Bill Knight was still doing mechanical work on cars with 1960's knowledge and information, he would very soon be out of business. 

Since I was a child radio has gone from AM to FM to online streaming.   Automobiles have gone from flathead to V8 to a wide variety of computer-controlled systems.  Recorded music has gone from vinyl to tape (analog) to CD and MP3 and other digital formats.  Prop-engined airplanes were the majority of the fleets of commercial airlines.   They are almost entirely jets now.  Television was black and white and mostly performed live, broadcast from large towers and accessed by mostly rooftop antennas.   Now that is all digital as well via cable or internet or satellite.   I have a dish on my roof to receive my signals.   I have a wireless router providing internet access within my home although a few nodes are on ethernet connections.

Yet science continues to try to teach origins with 19th Century ideas and terminology as a basis for understanding organisms.  It can only be for religious reasons that this is so!   How so many scientists could possibly be so STUPID is otherwise incomprehensible, if they were not trapped within a worldview that is unsustainable as knowledge of organisms and science in general advances.  Why are Darwinists still mired in the past?



Is there evidence for God?



Will you abandon reason...or religion? Atheism is a religion. Darwinism is part of that religion. Darwinism is an incomprehensible mishmash of just-so stories that try desperately to fit the round peg of naturalism into the square hole of a well-designed, information-packed world of living beings and it is a sad failure as a philosophy.

35 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"We know that methodological naturalism was not a part of science until Darwinism became the ruling paradigm."

Nonsense.

I must say, I'm disappointed, Radar. You choose to waste a post on this heap of recycled doubletalk, when there's (what seems to be) a genuine case of religious discrimination in the news today? Very disappointing indeed.

Anonymous said...

Shorter Radar: black is white and up is down.

Atheism is a religion (not).
Methodological naturalism is a metaphysical concept (not).
Methodological naturalism is an artificial intrusion of religion into science (not).

Wouldn't be hard to fisk this pile of nonsense top to bottom, line by line, but why bother. The example that Jon Woolf has pointed out also makes clear how willingly disinformed Radar chooses to be on simple matters of fact.

Lying for Jesus is not a noble pursuit, Radar.

Anonymous said...

And the 2 LOT argument...really, radar? It seems most creationists have abandoned this argument because of how ridiculously wrong it is. Repeating it over and over won't make it true. And it is so utterly stupid, it make looking into your other claims seem like a complete waste of time. If someone can't grasp the basics of the 2LOT, then what is the point?

Radar, focus on a topic. Spend a week on a narrow topic. Really flesh the ideas. Jon has posted lists of questions. But I'm sure you won't. Any deeper discussion of a topics really hurts the creationist movement.


lava

Anonymous said...

lava, what topic has Radar not focused on? Deeper discussion hurts creationist cause???

Jon, recycled double talk? Religious discrimination?

Anon, lying for Jesus? How does one lie for Jesus?

I think you guys just ran out of rationality (excuses).

DebB

radar said...

My commenters are now just lying.

Of course atheism is a religion. The Seventh Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that atheism is a religion and earlier, in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion. Look it up for yourself.

Methodological Naturalism is a worldview concept and therefore metaphysical. It was never part of the scientific method. To say that only natural causes could be responsible for all things is a religious statement, not a scientific statement. It is an atheistic worldview that has been artificially input into science and many scientists reject this intrustion of religion into science.

Darwinists have succeeded in artificially injecting their religion into science. Now high priests and priestesses of Darwinism such as Eugenie Scott spend their days defending their religious beliefs by trying to shut the mouths of naysayers and hide uncomfortable facts from ignorant ears.

Darwinism today is five per cent science and ninety-five per cent propaganda...and I am being conservative when I say that. Everything Darwin predicted about his hypothesis that could falsify it has happened.

Jon Woolf and Anonymous are both either willingly ignorant about the history of science or they are lying. I am presenting historical truths about science that are uncomfortable to Darwinists but then most truth is uncomfortable to Darwinists.

Readers, I have already shown you that Woolf and Anonymous speak with forked tongues. Do your own research. What did Roger Bacon believe and how did he do research? Francis Bacon? Isaac Newton? James Clerk Maxwell? You will find that the scientific greats of the past acknowledged God as Creator and made their investigations with that thought as their default setting. They expected that God had set up systems and forces that could be understood and predicted. These are facts of history.

Anonymous said...

Radar, thank you for conceding that courts are authoritative in judging such matters. This would then also conclusively settle the matter of creationism being taught in school, with the Dover court case having put an end to it once and for all.

You're making real progress these days, even if you seem to stumble on it unwittingly.

Anonymous said...

"How does one lie for Jesus?"

By doing what Radar does in almost every post: presenting untruths and shoddy logic and science in the hope that it will attract readers to the Christian faith.

In my opinion it's misguided, and I think people like Paul Pavao stand a much better chance of persuading people to the Christian faith.

Anonymous said...

"Methodological Naturalism is a worldview concept and therefore metaphysical. It was never part of the scientific method. To say that only natural causes could be responsible for all things is a religious statement, not a scientific statement. It is an atheistic worldview that has been artificially input into science and many scientists reject this intrustion of religion into science."

Now that the phrase "methodological naturalism" has entered your mental processes, one would think that you'd made some progress in your understanding. Unfortunately you've somehow overlooked its cousin "metaphysical naturalism", with which you so clearly confuse it here.

Metaphysical naturalism says that only natural causes could be responsible for all things. Methodological naturalism says that only natural causes can be scientifically investigated.

Methodological naturalism is not an atheistic concept, since it is practiced by scientists of all faiths (including the ones you name here), and quite effectively so. Nobody has ever devised a better basis for science.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists have succeeded in artificially injecting their religion into science."

Golly, was Francis Bacon a Darwinist?

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism today is five per cent science and ninety-five per cent propaganda...and I am being conservative when I say that."

Since you restrict your reading to creationist propaganda, I can see how you might have gotten that impression. You should broaden your information input.

"Everything Darwin predicted about his hypothesis that could falsify it has happened."

Name one. Be specific.

Or do you just have the usual gamut of logical fallacies? Arguments from incredulity and the like? Sorry, no dice, they don't falsify Darwin's theory of evolution.

Anonymous said...

"Readers, I have already shown you that Woolf and Anonymous speak with forked tongues."

You did? How?

"Do your own research. What did Roger Bacon believe and how did he do research? Francis Bacon? Isaac Newton? James Clerk Maxwell? You will find that the scientific greats of the past acknowledged God as Creator and made their investigations with that thought as their default setting. They expected that God had set up systems and forces that could be understood and predicted. These are facts of history."

And which method did they use, with amazing consistency?

Methodological naturalism.

Since I'm sure you'll feel the need to disagree, Radar, please name an instance in which they used something other than methodological naturalism in their work.

Methodological naturalism has nothing to do with atheism.

highboy said...

"To say that only natural causes could be responsible for all things is a religious statement, not a scientific statement"

This is correct. There is no way to support such a statement using science. The belief that everything has a natural explanation or cause is just that: a belief, and not even a supported one, since the formation of our universe by definition had an UNnatural cause. It had to.

Anonymous said...

And on the basis of that, highboy, do you understand the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? Your statement is in agreement with methodological naturalism and in disagreement with metaphysical naturalism.

"since the formation of our universe by definition had an UNnatural cause"

Which definition would that be?

highboy said...

"Which definition would that be?"

I think the latter. Maybe. Though when reading both positions it reminded me a lot of philosophy class in college which makes me want to poke my eyeball out.

Anonymous said...

"I think the latter. Maybe. Though when reading both positions it reminded me a lot of philosophy class in college which makes me want to poke my eyeball out."

Sorry, must have missed something here. You said "the formation of our universe by definition had an UNnatural cause", and I was wondering what definition you had in mind. To me that implies that you have one definition in mind that led you to make this statement.

At the very least, can you let me know what you thought "the latter" meant?

Oh and yes, philosophy classes make me want to poke out any number of eyeballs. But wait a minute, didn't you go to a seminary? Did you have anything BUT classes like this?

highboy said...

"orry, must have missed something here. You said "the formation of our universe by definition had an UNnatural cause", and I was wondering what definition you had in mind. To me that implies that you have one definition in mind that led you to make this statement.

At the very least, can you let me know what you thought "the latter" meant?"

I misunderstood you. When you said "which definition" I thought you were asking me to pick between the two terms of naturalism you were discussing, which is why I said "the latter" without much conviction.

As for what I meant, I'm saying that science is the study of the observable natural order. The cause of the formation of our natural order took part outside the realm of natural order because the natural order didn't exist yet. Therefore, whatever the cause of the "big bang" or entertheoryhere had to be unnatural, or supernatural, because it happened outside the realm of the natural order.

"Oh and yes, philosophy classes make me want to poke out any number of eyeballs. But wait a minute, didn't you go to a seminary? Did you have anything BUT classes like this?"

Bible college, and we had classes such as philosophy and ethics yes, but most of the classes were about the Bible and training for ministry. Homilietics, expository preaching, classes on exegesis, etc. The worst class of all was Computer Applications in Ministry which of course every student regardless of major was required to take. I understand why but computer instructors have this habit of going at warp speed, assuming a certain level of computer literacy until I was at the point where I had to tell people "start with how to turn the damn thing on".

highboy said...

Wow, sorry for the rant people. lol.

Anonymous said...

"I misunderstood you. When you said "which definition" I thought you were asking me to pick between the two terms of naturalism you were discussing, which is why I said "the latter" without much conviction."

In hindsight I can see how you could have understood it that way. I'm still curious how you think that the beginning had to be unnatural "by definition". Quite a claim. Far as I can tell, you can't back it up. I'll consider your claim retracted.

"As for what I meant, I'm saying that science is the study of the observable natural order."

A lucid description. Thank you.

"The cause of the formation of our natural order took part outside the realm of natural order because the natural order didn't exist yet."

This statement is based on what exactly? When did the natural order begin to exist, and on what would we base such a notion?

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, whatever the cause of the "big bang" or entertheoryhere had to be unnatural, or supernatural, because it happened outside the realm of the natural order."

You may want to rethink this "had to be unnatural" business. There is "what we know to be natural" and "things we don't understand". The latter part is often assigned to the supernatural, but the trend throughout human history has been for the "things we don't understand" bit to become "what we know to be natural".

The opposite is impossible to prove, as Radar is reluctant to discover.

Creationism is based on the Bible (adherence to one religious text as being absolutely true while dismissing all other religious texts as irrelevant or demonic, all on an entirely unscientific basis) and on a "God of the gaps" concept. Not what one would call a sound foundation, scientific or otherwise, if one could apply an open mind to the matter...

highboy said...

"You may want to rethink this "had to be unnatural" business. There is "what we know to be natural" and "things we don't understand". The latter part is often assigned to the supernatural, but the trend throughout human history has been for the "things we don't understand" bit to become "what we know to be natural"."

From everything we've learned in science, the big bang, or whatever theory you want to ascribe to, was the beginning of the natural order, which is why we can't test or observe anything beyond. Science is the study of the natural order and nature wasn't always ordered. Its not a wild claim at all. Unless you're saying that the big bang was not the beginning of the formation of our observable universe, I fail to see how the cause of such an event fell within the natural order.

Anonymous said...

"From everything we've learned in science, the big bang, or whatever theory you want to ascribe to, was the beginning of the natural order, which is why we can't test or observe anything beyond. "

It's true (at this point) that we can't test or observe anything beyond the Big Bang, but how can we possibly assume that what happened before that was supernatural? It may be perfectly natural, for all we know. Just because we don't know what it is yet doesn't make it supernatural - that's the key "God of the gaps" problem. See above.

highboy said...

"but how can we possibly assume that what happened before that was supernatural? It may be perfectly natural, for all we know."

It can't be natural if nature didn't exist. There was no natural order.

Anonymous said...

How do we know nature didn't exist?

radar said...

I think the courts can rule on whether a religion is a religion but they cannot determine what is truth scientifically.

Every one of you that called me a liar are yourselves liars. I give attributions to my sources and by those sources have shown your so-called "science" of Darwinism to be a complete sham. I am going to go further than that and show that it is a danger to society and detrimental to humanity as a philosophy and as a hindrance to the advancement of human understanding.

Anonymous said...

"Every one of you that called me a liar are yourselves liars."

By calling us liars you are yourself a liar.

This is fun! We could do this forever. But maybe instead we could act like adults. Whaddya say? You seem to be old enough. If you don't feel up to it, maybe a game of "fake it till you make it"?

On the other hand, if you want to continue to accuse one of us of lying, then simply...

NAME THE LIE.

Otherwise retract your allegation.

And if you think you were ever UNFAIRLY accused of lying, by all means show us where and we'll clear that up for you.

"I am going to go further than that and show that it is a danger to society and detrimental to humanity as a philosophy and as a hindrance to the advancement of human understanding."

No future tense needed. You've been trying this for some time and drawn nothing but blanks.

Funny how you aim to hold actual science to standards that you simply want to let fall by the wayside when it comes to creationism. In case you didn't notice, that's why you dropped the ball on information gain/loss and the impossibility of abiogenesis being tested.

highboy said...

"How do we know nature didn't exist?"

The natural order did not exist. The natural order is what is scientifically observable. Definition of natural order: "the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws".

Everything we read about the Big Bang, the consensus is that the natural order, time, space, matter, energy, gravity, did not exist before the big bang. So once again, the cause of the event happened outside the natural order, because there was no natural order UNTIL the Big Bang happened. If the Big Bang is responsible for the formation of our observable natural order, than the cause of the Big Bang simply cannot be within the natural order.

radar said...

Paul Pavao is a compromiser. If he thinks it is for Jesus, he is sadly mistaken.

What Bacon practiced was methodological INVESTIGATION with no restrictions on whether the natural or supernatural could be at the end of the investigative process.

Darwinists are left with the ludicrous mess they have now with an attempt to explain how the Universe created itself, a Universe in which nothing is created or destroyed. They have no source for information and yet information is packed into every organism, and with a far more sophisticated coding system than we use in computer technology. They have no explanation for life and lie about Biogenesis, which was a refutation of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. Changing the nomenclature doesn't change the result. Life has never come from non-life and every time we test for it we get the same results. Darwinists like testable, repeatable science? Then Biogenesis should be a favorite for you. But it isn't because science and Darwinism really don't go together well.

Jon Woolf said...

"The Seventh Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that atheism is a religion"

An idiotic decision, like many that have come from the courts in recent years. It makes no logical sense to say that atheism is a religion.

"and earlier, in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion. Look it up for yourself."

I have. You're referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). That case was decided on strict constitutional grounds: the law at issue violated the First and 14th Amendments. Justice Hugo Black did write that "secular humanism" was a religion, but only in a footnote that had no force of law.

"I give attributions to my sources..."

Problem is, many of your sources don't actually say what you think they said, and the rest are creationists who can't be trusted to get the time of day right, much less esoteric details of geology, biology, and anatomy.

"You will find that the scientific greats of the past acknowledged God as Creator and made their investigations with that thought as their default setting."

So what?

Anonymous said...

"Everything we read about the Big Bang, the consensus is that the natural order, time, space, matter, energy, gravity, did not exist before the big bang."

I don't think such an assertion has been made or any evidence suggested for such an assumption. FAIK it's a big "we don't know what existed before the Big Bang".

Incidentally, one of the many lies that Radar peddles on this blog is that the Big Bang theory postulates that the Universe came from nothing instead of from a singularity.

Anonymous said...

"Paul Pavao is a compromiser. If he thinks it is for Jesus, he is sadly mistaken."

I kinda doubt that Jesus or God want you to lie on their behalf, but it's your call.

Anonymous said...

"What Bacon practiced was methodological INVESTIGATION with no restrictions on whether the natural or supernatural could be at the end of the investigative process."

And what exactly would be the difference between "methodological naturalism" and "methodological INVESTIGATION"? See if you can answer the question without confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism for once.

It simply sounds like Bacon subscribed to methodological naturalism while rejecting metaphysical naturalism, that's all.

Anonymous said...

There is no lie about abiogenesis. You can't test for its impossibility, as you yourself realized with your analogy to the law of gravity, though you now want to undo that realization from your mind.

Note that admitting that the impossibility of abiogenesis is untestable is not the same as admitting that abiogenesis by natural means occurred.

Anonymous said...

Information can accumulate through mutation and natural selection. I've never seen you come up with any way to dispute that. Because you can't.

Instead, your comeback is always to jump to the beginning - you argue that the process must have had existing information to "work with". (This is similar to how you try to attack "Darwinism" by critiquing abiogenesis instead.)

It is a good question though - how did the whole thing get started? For that, what is needed is reproduction with variation in its most primitive form. Is it possible for this to arise spontaneously? The evidence re. spontaneous polymerization suggests yes.

The complexity of DNA is not an argument against evolution, BTW. It's perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.

Anonymous said...

Information can accumulate through mutation and natural selection. I've never seen you come up with any way to dispute that. Because you can't.

Instead, your comeback is always to jump to the beginning - you argue that the process must have had existing information to "work with". (This is similar to how you try to attack "Darwinism" by critiquing abiogenesis instead.)

It is a good question though - how did the whole thing get started? For that, what is needed is reproduction with variation in its most primitive form. Is it possible for this to arise spontaneously? The evidence re. spontaneous polymerization suggests yes.

The complexity of DNA is not an argument against evolution, BTW. It's perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.

Anonymous said...

sorry about the double post.