Posted on 12/22/2005 6:09:22 PM PST by KingofZion
FYI, first principles are not falsifiable.
Testability (falsifiability = possibility of not passing the test) applies to theories (and laws and hypotheses; ie to generalizations and deductions), not to first principles.
Not true. You are adding qualifications to the definition of "theory" that render it suitable to your personal views. Maybe it is because you do not like the idea that there is so much organized matter behaving according to predictable laws that you must define intelligent design out of the realm of scientific inquiry.
Besides, science is capable of recognizing the presence of organized matter, and the theory of intelligent design could easily be falsified by an overwhelming presence of disorganized matter and the absence of predictable laws.
Yes, that is why first principles are not falsifiable.
One step further. There is no science without first principles.
ID has already been falsified by an overwhelming presence of facts on the other side. ID has already been exposed as a "scientific" fraud. That is the whole point of the judge's decision. The only basis for ID is religion. Period.
I find it amusing that the churchgoers are so adament in their defense of this religious creation. Most of the great scientists of the last 2 centuries believed in God and were no anti-religion. They just understood the maxim: leave unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's....
Religion and Science can peacefully co-exist, but religion cannot be taught in a government-funded classroom under the guise of being "science." Thank you founding fathers for the 1st Amendment.
Religion is not the only basis for ID. It just happens to fit the concept. One does not need religion to recognize the extent of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. It is wishful thinking to assert that ID has been "falsified" by science. Neither ID not evolution in the wide sense can be falsified.
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history." -- Sir Isaac Newton
Here are some comments from other men intimately famliar with scientific method;
Albert Einstein -- "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."Alexander MacAlister, Biologist, Physiologist. He was Professor of Anatomy at Cambridge for many years. -- "It has been my experience that the disbelief in the revelation that God has given...is more prevalent among what I may call the camp followers of science than amongst those to whom science is the business of their lives."
Isaac Newton -- "This beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...."
John Herschel, Astronomer. The son of William Herschel, he discovered over 500 nebulae. -- "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths come on high and contained in the sacred writings."
John Polkinghorne, Physicist -- "By God's grace, we need hearts enlightened by the Lord Jesus Christ to understand reality."
Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph. The Morse code is named after him. The first message on the telegraph was: "What hath God wrought!" -- "The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God's remedy for fallen man are more appreciated, and the future is illumined with hope and joy."
Alexander Polyakov, Physics Professor. -- "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
William Thompson Kelvin, Physical Scientist, Mathematician, Inventor. Degrees Kelvin named after him. He held 21 honorary doctorate degrees. -- "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."
Wernher von Braun -- "One of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of spiritual creator."
Nothing happens without a cause.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -- John 1:1
Of course they are. I am not confusing them.
I am stating that it is completely irrational and even psychotic for a scientist to hold a belief in God the Creator and then refuse to accept that God is relevant to science and Creation.
With God as the ultimate force, He must have a place in science since all paths will ultimately lead to Him.
I am a scientist, an engineer, a technologist and have been in R&D since 1983.
Just because God is the prime force does not mean we stop the science, raise our arms in the air and simply say "God did it" and stop the investigation. Quite the contrary, God encourages me to look deeper and gain more understanding about the workings of nature and to hypothesize how it all was achieved.
God is not magic. To some degree I believe we can understand how he did things. He put into place a system of natural laws that we have yet to come close to understanding.
God was a motivating force for Einstein's science as well, as he said "I want to know His (God's) thoughts. The rest are details."
So to exclude the idea that God was behind creation is irrational, and wholly unscientific. In science we do not rule out any possible solutions simply because our religion prevents us from believing in it. That is what atheists do. They automatically rule out God because their own beliefs cannot handle the concept.
God created us. We scientists must find out how He makes it all work, such as we can
Tell me what science states that a system with initial conditions, @t=0, has zero energy yet suddenly at t=1 millisec, explodes into a system with all the energy contained by our current universe, without any external energy applied?
That formula does not exist. It is nonsensical. There was a creative force for our universe. Energy came from somewhere for some reason outside the bounds of our currently defined universe.
Do you know that science has lately discovered that up to 10, possibly 11, dimensions may exist? We live in only 4 of them.
Can you tell me that in the remaining 6 dimensions there may not be an intelligence? If we have intelligence in our current 4 dimensions, why would it be inconceivable that the other 6 not also have intelligence?
Can you tell me that the source of the energy in our current 4 dimensions may not have originated from any of the other 6? No. It is the only possible source of the energy that we know of now.
Can you tell me that the intelligence (that is more likely than not to exist) in the other 6 dimensions was not responsible for our universe? Nor can I. But I certainly cannot rule it out. It must remain a hypothesis until more advanced science can test it out.
Tell me an ID does not exist in the other 6 dimensions and I will call you a fool, and I will certainly call you very unscientific. An ID may not exist in those other 6 dimensions, but you cannot scientifically exclude the hypothesis.
BTW: It is believed that those other 6 dimensions include additional dimensions of time. Thus, time would comprise a surface, or even a 3-dimensional space in which it is possible to move about, forward and back, and sideways. That would be consistent with the Bible however, so we cannot allow "science" to conceive of such possibilities, can we?
BTW2: In those other dimensions of time, should life of some form exist, then it would be eternal life, though it may have zero dimensions in mass (i.e. spirit). (another Biblical reference).
BTW3: Magnetic and electric fields (also strong, weak) have zero dimensions in mass. They have no matter. Those fields, in a way, do not exist in our 3 dimensions of space, but they do effect matter that does exist in our dimensions. We know of the fields only because we can measure their effects on matter. They can be said to be of the same form as "spirits". No mass but able to affect matter, and able to carry information.
"God is a spirit" said Jesus Christ.
No God-fearing scientist has just thrown his hands up in the air and said "nevermind, God did it" so there is nothing more for us to learn.
We scientists who believe in ID do not stop the science, as you imply.
Just because "God did it" does not mean science is over.
I'm just getting back to this.
Can you point me to links to Behe's actual testimony? I've done searches and only find articles with snippets of his testimony, some of which seem to me to be distorted summaries. I like to read source material. Are the trial transcripts somewhere here on FR.
Also, what did you think of how I framed his argument - whether or not I quoted Behe accurately?
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.