morality consists of a universal moral code- some might argue “Well there are cultures that don’t concider murder/rape etc wrong, so morality is a subjective ideal, however, this is a false argument as those who have come out of such cultural practices have testified that even though it was an accepted norm to commit these attrocities, and everyone encouraged it, something deep inside them told them it was wrong and that they never felt right about it. Philosophers have argued about whether morality was a subjective or objective truth for a long time now, and there is more evidence indicating that it is indeed an objective unioversal moral code and not some drummed up evolutionary process- Dawkins has tried desperately to argue that emotions have ‘evolved’ and that there are genes that control things like selfishenss and morality- however, this simply isn’t the case- Some have also argued that folks with frontal lobe damage aren’t capable of morality, however this is also false, and they know right from wrong still, but choose not to take part in a morally driven society anymore.
I won’t be commenting much further on this, but I wanted to address the accusations that ID isn’t a estifiable science, and to show that the accepted Methodological Naturalism, somethign some suggest is the golden goose of science, is such a narrow tunnel vision that it doesn’t result in objective science.
If an investigator were to try to discover a designer of say a watch, but instead of objectively looking for the designer, were to exclude all people of color, and only look for a white designer thinking that only suc a person could design the watch, then this would not be concidered an objective search, but rather a priori belief that quite frankly blinds the investigator to all evidences along the way that might point to the designer as being someone of a different race.
The same thing holds true for discovering where we came from. If you are going to immediately exclude the possibility that the designer of all the designs we see in nature might be something other than methedological naturalism, then you’ve set yourself up in a position of subjectivity instead of practicing a completely honest system of objective science.
Now, to state that it’s impossible to investigate a supernatural creator is quite frankly reiculous. We have the modern technology to replicate and investigate occurances such as creation by following evidences such as radiation that would be left over from a massive energy utilizing/consuming event, we can study the after effects, calculate and measure the results, and even predict what we should find for evidences. As I mentioned in a post several pages ago, a student has written a thesis on how light wasa produced through a massive event that caused somnolumenscence (sp?). This has been reproduced in labs, and has shown how massive pressure on water can cause the bubbles to produce luminescence.
While God worked outside of the natural laws in some instances, He did utilize natural laws, and we can investigate and conclude with a reasonable amount of credibility, that what we know today can be explained by creation through design.
You might find this astonishing, but science has been investigating the world of science going on the premise that design is present, and they have made many important discoveries going on this premise. Mathemeticians have known for a very long time that there is a mathematical design in nature, and bioscience has known this as well. One doesn’t have to believe their is a spiritual premise to the design in order to investigate the design and come to reasonable and intelligent conclusions.
Being objective means not excluding a reasonable hypothesis simply because one believes in a priori conclusion, but rather investigating ALL angles, exploring ALL plausible leads, and using the science to investigate the very fingerprints of origins. Adopting the idea that a person of color simply couldn’t produce a watch leaves one blind and non objective, and opens them up to practicing a biased 1/2 science that simply isn’t up to the acedemic standards of true objective investigation.
The role of objective science is to concider and scientifically investigate all probable explanations/hypothesis, and to conceed when an hypothesis is problematic enough that another hypothesis is a real enough alternative as to warrent at least an investigation. That’s simply not what we see in regards to ID.
Admittedly, there are many problems with Evolution hypothesis, and not just some podunk minor problems that are of little consequence.
Evolutions god, being nature itself, has some evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far far from conclusive.
ID’s God, Being God Hismelf, has soem evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far from conclusive.
Both sicneces will have both weak and strong scientific evidneces which support their hypothesis, and prop up their models, but neither will have conclusive irrefutable evidence presicesly because they both are investigating the inner workings of phenomena. The hypothesis of descent from common ancestry is a weak proposal based on anectdotal evidences that are subjectively interpreted- ID’s hypothesis the same. There is a mathematical element to everythign we see, and Darwinism simply doesn’t account for the fact that mathematics can’t be accounted for by natural means. It can be argued of course that nature can randomly create mathematically designed systems, however, Darwinism offers no reasonable falsifiable tests to test for this known fact, thereby rendering their hypothesis weakly supported by anectdotal evidences which are subject to subjective interpretations which objiosly vary from one scientist to another. I say ‘weak’ because there are no obvious scientific facts that can concretely and decisively define the phenomena of life origins.
It has been said that evolution provides the best predictabilities, however, while some predictions have been discovered, so have predictions for ID, and even for creation. The predictabilities don’t offer proof of origins for evolution, they simply offer predictabilities for natural selection- not macroevolution. The predictabilities are common sense sinsibilities in regards to natural selection, which as we all know, is a scientific fact that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt.
Design, as we are finding out more and more through careful scinetific analysis, is intelligent in nature, and is a reality, and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it’s presence. Hopefully, they will do this objectively in the future, but so far, all they are offering is a biased and subjectively motivated antagonism to a ligitimate competing hypothsis, and they are using a method that does not have a true objective scientific basis.
Methodological Naturalism is a practice of science that seeks to promote only one way of interpreting the evidences, and seeks to exclude any other hypothesis from any sort of concideration. This practice isn’t science, it is a form of dogmatic religious reasoning.