Replies

Revelation 13:15 predicts that man will at some point "give life". That is a remarkable claim that in its day might have been seen as undermining the Creator as well as being humanly impossible. It is consistent with a biblical version of ID. Man has not but may at some future point "create life". If so, ID is testable.

That would be an observation consistent with your interpretation of the book of Revelation, but are you saying that such an observation would be best explained by your interpretation?

ID and creationism assert that complexity of life and its particular order are such that they cannot arise without intelligent intervention.

Why is this assertion made, though? What observations form the basis of this assertion?

To find one instance of life spontaneously self-organizing would falsify this premise.

But the premise thus far lacks justification.

It would not prove that life was not created by God, but it would prove that is not the only possible way life could have come to exist.

Which means that it would, in fact, not falsify Biblical creationism because you could still assert that life was created by God even if it could have come about through another means. A falsification criteria is a hypothetical observation that, if made, would demonstrate that intelligent design is impossible, not simply that another mechanism is possible.

It is asserted in the Greek scriptures as I am sure you are well aware.

Asserting the existence of living witnesses is not the same as demonstrating the existence of living witnesses. You are offering nothing but empty assertions and calling it evidence. That is not how science works.

the evidence is experiential to those who experience it.

So how would a neutral observer test for it?

Math is outside the realm of nature.

Math is a construct used as a tool.

Is math now unscientific?

Math is a tool used by science, though it is not inherently scientific in itself.

Real experiences can be subjective.

I do not argue that point, however subjective experiences do not amount to scientific evidence.

Further, do you put the same demands on what you accept as scientific?

Yes.

Do you need to experience all scientific phenomena by observing it for yourself?

No, however the ability for anyone with the requisite sensory organs to be able to make the same observations under the same conditions is a requirement for science.

Or do you, like we all do, accept the word of those who have observed them?

I accept the word of scientists because thus far the scientific method has proven reliable. If I wished to replicate the observations of scientists, I could follow their documented procedures to do so. I do not need to rely on nothing more than someone's "feelings" to have confidence in a claim; I can look at the independent research of multiple individuals producing the same results, and -- if I so desire -- I could replicate those results on my own.

You are asserting that your religious beliefs are true and calling that science. Science doesn't work that way, and your methodology is no more valid than a Muslim or a Hindu claiming that their particular religious beliefs are true and claiming that their personal experiences with respect to their religion stands as scientific evidence.

"are you saying that such an observation would be best explained by your interpretation?"

I am not asserting that this particular prophecy was intended to be a test for ID. I am saying my understanding of the Bible, creationism and ID particularly, lead me to propose this test.

I do not expect to be proved wrong, but it is a possibility. If so, it would be as earth shattering to my version of ID as finding Precambrian human fossils would for evolution.

"Why is this assertion made, though? What observations form the basis of this assertion?"

This is purely a philosophic question. Why do scientists prefer one proposition over any other? Elegance? Simplicity? Intuition? If you can answer that question, you will have broken significant new ground in the philosophy of science.

But to the point, there is no viable explanation for origins of life other than ID. There is no evidence of any self organizing principle which would cause nonliving matter to arrange into living cells in the same sense the periodic table is self organizing. Until such mechanisms are discovered, the origins of life are the subject of speculation.

"But the premise thus far lacks justification."

The absence of a scientific basis for self organizing life forms is a justification. Beyond that I fail to see a need to justify an axiomatic premise (i.e. the existence of a Creator, creation itself not being an axiom). It only needs to be demonstrated that ID is one possible explanation of the origins of life (in order to be useful, not to qualify as science).

"it would, in fact, not falsify Biblical creationism because you could still assert that life was created by God even if it could have come about through another means."

It would falsify my interpretation of biblical creationism, and ID particularly. Others may claim to believe the Bible and disagree with my drawing the line in the sand where I do. It would prove me and many others wrong. All I need is to see is a realistically naturally occurring environment which spawns the simplest living cells, and I will concede that I am wrong.

My assertion is not merely that life could be created through divine intervention in the natural realm (a view which cannot be disproved), it is that life can ONLY exist as the result of intelligent intervention. The scientific strength of this statement is that it is universal.

"A falsification criteria is a hypothetical observation that, if made, would demonstrate that intelligent design is impossible, not simply that another mechanism is possible."

This is a common problem with evolution and natural history in general. You must distinguish between a historical event (or set of events) and a scientific law. You must logically distinguish between a singular existential statement and a universal existential statement.

It is not my job to attempt to make a falsifiable test for a historical event. Either something happened or it did not. For ID to be true, the law would be that living things must originate from other living things or be intelligently assembled from nonliving things. No ad hoc exceptions. For me, ID stands or falls on this basis.

"Asserting the existence of living witnesses is not the same as demonstrating the existence of living witnesses."

The living witnesses of Christ's death and resurrection had empirical evidence of these historical events.

1 John 1:1-3

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have examined, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;)
That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the resurrection does not claim to be a scientific law which can be recreated in a laboratory. It is a historical event which science does not contradict. Science could have contradicted it by producing the body of Jesus. It cannot because there is no corpse to produce. He is alive.

"So how would a neutral observer test for it?"

Anyone who obeys the gospel will experience it firsthand. If anyone is willing to do the commands of Christ, that person will know experientially Who He is and Who His Father is. That person will see them. Those who reject His sayings remain in darkness and cannot see Him or the Father.

Do you want to observe? The essential nature of science is a willingness to be proved wrong. Are you willing to expose your deeds to the light of the teachings of Christ? Are you willing to evaluate the quality of your deeds by the criteria of Christ's words? If you are willing to come to the light and have your deeds evaluated as good or evil, you will see. Anyone who prefers and loves moral darkness will not see because they cannot.

"No, however the ability for anyone with the requisite sensory organs to be able to make the same observations under the same conditions is a requirement for science."

Again, you fail to distinguish between historical facts and scientific laws. The above standard cannot be applied to evolution. The claims of natural history cannot be recreated in a lab. Even if they could there would not be enough time to ever carry out a useful experiment.

You are preferring to believe the accuracy of supposed historic events which took place billions of years ago with no eye witnesses based on extrapolations from incomplete physical evidence using inductive reasoning. But you doubt the veracity of eye witness claims to an event just a few centuries ago backed by the most substantial historical documents of that time.

"Math is a construct used as a tool... Math is a tool used by science, though it is not inherently scientific in itself."

That fails to address the issue. You are exempting math from an arbitrary rule of demarcation, but describing what math does to justify it being an exception to the rule. You need to modify the rule to accommodate math, or abandon math. You cannot have it both ways. Otherwise I can plug anything into your statement: "Religious faith is a tool used by scientists... Or, a cock-a-doodle-doo is a tool used by scientists." If the supernatural becomes useful, does that then qualify it for the realm of science? Utility is also a subjective matter.

"I accept the word of scientists because thus far the scientific method has proved reliable. If I wished to replicate the observations of scientists, I could follow their documented procedures to do so. I do not need to rely on nothing more than someone's 'feelings' to have confidence in a claim; I can look at the independent research of multiple individuals producing the same results, and -- if I so desire -- I could replicate those results on my own."

Then you accept the scientific claims of others on the basis of rational faith. If you do not test them yourself, it is faith. If you are unwilling to have your beliefs tested it is dogma. How many scientific theories have you tested? How many times have you used the scientific method to formulate and test a theory? Have you developed any theories of your own this way? How do you KNOW it really works the way it is described in the text books?

I am not saying these things are untrue, just asking why you believe them to be true. (Hint: Consider rational faith as the answer to the postulate.)

"You are asserting that your religious beliefs are true and calling that science."

Actually I am arguing against calling ID and creationism "unscientific". Biblical faith is not equivalent to science. But it is also not unscientific. The distinction is important. The history of Abraham Lincoln's presidency is not science, but it is not unscientific (necessarily). My point is to show these things do not contradict science. In a nutshell, truth is bigger than science.

"Muslim or a Hindu claiming that their particular religious beliefs are true and claiming that their personal experiences with respect to their religion stands as scientific evidence."

Red herring. If you have such experiences, they are relevant and valid. But you are not claiming that. You are saying other claims of different experiences prove mine are not valid. I cannot disprove their experience to you or prove them. I cannot prove my own experiences to you. You must choose to accept or reject their claims based on rational faith - the same way you accept scientific theories.