alacarte - This exclusion of religion from science is what is called the enlightenment, and subsequently secularism.
JFK_Lib - Ah, dont put words in my mouth! Heheheh. I did not say that. The reference is to the *institutions* of science, and not science itself (also known previously as 'natural philosophy'). I completely subscribe to Descartes model of giving science primacy in the natural world, but not a singular dictatorship.
New scientific theory is being developed that examines the 'footprints' of things beyond science that science cannot pursue beyond noting the 'footprint' itself. The footprint is not 'magic' and is completely within the realm of scientific investigation while its implications are not. I am comfortable with that since I am open to the idea of an open universe. If you are not, then that choice was a philosophical one and not a scientific one as science in all its interpretations is incapable of self-validation but must rest on philosophical axioms.
alacarte - But suggesting that there is no natural explanation, despite there not being a precedent, is very bad.
JFK_Lib - Well, I would say that a negative cannot be proven easily. How long did it take to prove that one does not need more than 4 colors for a flat 2 dimensional map or that trisecting an angle with only compass and straight edge was not possible?
I find the entire topic fascinating and want to read more about it and see it discussed by people frar more knowlegable than I am, but the critics seem determined to handle the controversy via censorship rather than open discussion involving all sides. What a shame.
alacarte - You are essentially saying that, since CURRENTLY there is no rock solid argument for diversification, there never will be, so we must assume there is some other force at work.
JFK_Lib - No, I am saying that *I* think that not all diversification is completely explicable by Darwinistic Evolution. It is not uniform, gradual and without catastrophic events. Maybe it is also not entirely free from some other forces as well, but I agree it drives the vast majority of speciation from what I can tell, and most creationists I know accept this as 'micro evolution'.
I think it very likely that God stacked the cosmological deck for human life from the first instant of the Big Bang and hasnt touched a thing since, in terms of natural process. I do believe He has intervened in the material universe for specific purposes entirely unrelated to the development of life, but not to sustain an ongoing process.
alacarte - Two, let us say you succeed in redefining science to allow for the supernatural. You suddenly change science from being the realm of the objective, to the subjective. Now everyone and their dog can make ludicrous, unscientific claims and call it science.
JFK_Lib - Perhaps I am not expressing myself well. I am not saying that I think that science can prove the supranatural. I think that it can prove 'footprints' of things supranatural (beyond this natural universe) and the Weak Anthropic Principle is one such theory as it posits parallel universes that are plainly 'supranatural to this universe.
But can scientific method be used to prove the supranatural? I would say no as such is beyond the repeatability that proper science demands.
Secondly, I do not think that concieving of the supranatural as 'real' is counter to science at all. Much of what we know is not derived from science but by eye-witness testimony, experience, empathy, etc. So it is easily comprehensable to imagine how one can have knowlege that is beyond the ability of science to affirm or deny. Therefore, Scientists should be willing to tolerate theists in their midst if the theists methodology is indeed valid.
alacarte - Wrong, until string theory or parallel universes can be proven, they are just as much the realm of fantasy as your leprechauns. So yes, right now string theory is not much better than magic as an explanation, but your temporally challenged argument is flawed.
alacarte - The difference here is that those theories have a scientific approach, and research may one day lead to them becoming substantial (just like germ theory 100 years ago). Leprechauns and deities are supernatural, hence not real, and not subject to scienctific testing. Very different than string theory.
JFK_Lib - So is string theory fantasy or not? The definition of fantasy I am familiar with says that it pertains to things that can never be real, so we again have semantic differences as well as philosophical ones.
Also, what is the difference in hypothesizing the existance of a parallel universe in which all is peace and joy and love, and a parallel universe where everything is dead and fallen into one great big huge black hole and yet another where some species ahs evolved into a single nearly omnipotent being, a singular consciousness that is virtually omniscient as well?
Which if these three are 'supernatural' to you?
I dont think the concept of an eternal Creator is 'supernatural' or 'magic' at all but very logical and conforms with my life experiences quite well. He is supranatural (beyond our universe), but not supernatural (alien to our universe). Leprachauns are supernatural as they are admited by just about everyone to be alien to the real world, but not so God.
alacarte - They object to the non-sequitur that if evolution cannot account for the diversity of life, the conclusion must be the supernatural. Allowing things like ID into scientific debates would deprecate science back to being philosophy, nothing but talk, with no progress, no results.
JFK_Lib - My understanding is that ID does not assert that there must be a supranatural explanation, but that there must be apparent design. I think it is possible to have 'apparent design' without having a designer for the immediate case. We can have design flow from higher level design in a quite natural way, for example, when we have a secondary process on a surrounding environment form any man-made system. That secondary process may have every feature of a designed process and yet not be specirfically designed.
alacarte - Also, there has been no 'purge of theists' from the scientific community, unless you speak of the enlightenment.
JFK_Lib - No I am talking about an increasing intolerance of theists whether they are old Earth Creationists fully subscribing to biological evolution or theistic evolutionists that completely concede natural truth to science but still believe in God. There was such a case of an editor at Scientific American and I know of an evangelical Marxist (believe it or not) who is better known at the university as a Marxist than an evangelical because he does not want to be subjected to the persecution that he witnesses against Christians on a regular basis. He has told me that sometimes it makes him upset to hear all the remarks along the line of 'He is a Christian; what a moron!' But he feels that he is serving a purpose just to remain in academe.
alacarte - Many scientists are christians, so in fact there has been no purge of anybody. There has been a purge of dumb, and consistently wrong supernatural explanations for natural problems. Look back through history, sneezing is caused by evil spirits, natural disasters are god-sent, if you got sick it was god's will... The list is endless, and all those supernatural explanations have been proven wrong, and a natural explanation has been established.
JFK_Lib - Providence has not been disproven, but only the notion that there were no natural explanation has been. God sends the rain by a totally natural process, but it is still He who sends it.
But lets not for get that other naturalistic theories have been similarly disproven, like the spontaneous generation of life, that atheists at one time subscribed to for purely Epicurean reasons.
alacarte - So now you want to displace a naturalistic explanation, cease research ont he subject and defer the conclusion to the supernatural?
JFK_Lib - Not at all, I simply want to get uber-secular scientists to recognise the limits of scientific knowlege and back off the censorship on new theories untill more debate and evidence have come in.
Alacarte - I'm afraid you do appeal to scientific authority whether you know it or not. When you tell your children the earth revolves around the sun, you appeal to authority. For all I know, the sun orbits the earth, have you ever manually mapped the stars? Traced their trajectories and empirically concluded the earth orbits the sun and not vice-versa? I haven't, because if every person re-discovered all mans knowledge for themselves, we'd never have time for progress. We pick and choose our battles and for the rest, we digress to authority.
JFK_Lib - That is called 'prejudice' and it is helpful in most cases. Why should anyone have to re-invent the wheel? But also it is a preconcieved limit that we place on our minds, that sometimes prevents us from seeing the larger picture. So, yes, I have explained in detail to my children why we believe the Earth is round, the sun is the center of the earths orbit as well. If I had the time I could fly them to the Tropic of Cancer on the Summer Solstice and show them the suns shadow at noon, then fly them north to make new observations and then calculate the Earths diameter. But understanding the concept is the key and going to such effort is unnecesary.
Alacarte - Other than the US, christianity has been on the decline in the western world. And is islam not the fastest growing religion?
JFK_Lib - Other than the US and Europe, what is left of the Western world? Maybe Australia and New Zealand? It suffices to say that religion of every variety is in decline in Europe and why shouldnt it be when the population of Europe itself is in decline and apparently can find no reason to survive anyway?
But in the Third World Christianity is booming,and of course here in the US as well. AFter a short crisis in the near future, I think Christianity in Europe will have a sudden revival. And Islam is the second fastest growing religion in the Third World, behind Christianity, IIRC. When one brings Europe, that Sick Continent, into the calculations, then Islam is first.
But Europe isnt much good for anything these days, and they are about to experience some serious unemployment, maybe 25%+ as the Euro becomes the currency of choice and this drives European exports way up in price and their industries into the ground. Also, as the US withdraws, Europe is going ot have to start shouldering the costs for its own defense a lot more, and this will drive yet more unemployment for them. This econoimic crisis, coupled with a crisis of single men in China will be devastating to the world economy, methinks.
alacarte - To summarize, you oppose the current paradigm for science, not because it hasn't served us well for 300 years, but because it leaves no room for your beliefs.
JFK_Lib - As a theistic evolutionist, it leaves plenty of room for my beliefs, I promise you. It is only since the aberation of secular supremacism became totally dominant in science over the last few decades and have begun to purge theists of any stripe that I differ. Science can only affirm the natural, repeatable and objective; it cannot affirm or deny that which lies beyond its scope, nor even its own philosophical foundations.
alacarte - Fortunately, although there is massive public support for your side, the scientific community is less persuaded by emotion and mythology.
JFK_Lib - Oh, I think we can make that statement much stronger (scientific community is blind to...) and still be within the realm of validity. Also, I think some of this generations best minds are being divirted into other disciplines because of this hatred of all things Christian. What a shame.
alacarte - BTW, did you write this? Not that I think you are incapable, it is just different than your other posts. Regardless it is very good.
JFK_Lib - Thank you. I wrote it all, but the themes are kind of general and I would not be surprised if similar things have not been written before by many others.
JFK_Lib - New scientific theory is being developed that examines the 'footprints' of things beyond science that science cannot pursue beyond noting the 'footprint' itself. The footprint is not 'magic' and is completely within the realm of scientific investigation while its implications are not.
Alacarte - Here rests the crux of this entire debate. The scientific community rejects this notion of 'footprints,' where ID'ers do not.
JFK_Lib - How long did it take to prove that one does not need more than 4 colors for a flat 2 dimensional map or that trisecting an angle with only compass and straight edge was not possible?
Alacarte - Are you suggesting there is something unnatural about the albeit interesting, but purely mathematical problems you mention? Just because it is not logical to our simple minds does not make it any less natural than 2+2.
JFK_Lib - I think it very likely that God stacked the cosmological deck for human life from the first instant of the Big Bang and hasnt touched a thing since, in terms of natural process. I do believe He has intervened in the material universe for specific purposes entirely unrelated to the development of life, but not to sustain an ongoing process.
Alacarte - Lot's of people 'think' they were abducted by aliens, without proof, it is just their opinion, no matter how many of them there are.
JFK_Lib - I think that it can prove 'footprints' of things supranatural...
Alacarte - What you call footprints, scientists simply call gaps in our current understanding.
JFK_Lib - Much of what we know is not derived from science but by eye-witness testimony, experience, empathy, etc.
Alacarte - I think we should define 'real.' Real is something we all share, an element of the natural world. NOT an individuals 'perception' of that reality. The things you mention, eye-witness testimony, experience and empathy are not objective 'reality,' they are the subjective reality of one individual. ie, eye-witness testimony can be completely different for two people who witnessed the same event. But if those two same people run into a brick wall, they will get hurt whether they believe the wall exists or not. Hence, the wall is 'real,' their memory of events are their own reality. Same with empathy, something I think is funny, you might think is sad. Our emotional responses were different, and highly subject to our individual persons. Science defines our natural world, the things that everyone shares, regardless of their own prejudices.
JFK_Lib - So is string theory fantasy or not? The definition of fantasy I am familiar with says that it pertains to things that can never be real, so we again have semantic differences as well as philosophical ones.
Alacarte - For now it is fantasy, yes. It is possible unicorns and goblins exist too. And yes, it is possible that god designed all this. Right now, all these ideas fall under the category of fantasy. The difference is that currently there is valid scientific research going into string theory, and maybe someday it will be reality. Or, it will be decided it is not possible and it will remain fantasy, like cold fusion. ID has NO body of research. You are complaining that the scientific community won't take you seriously. Well if the theory is so truly scientific, why aren't you working on it? Why are there no predictions or tests? Why do you need the scientific community? If your solution to the origin of life is so great, why are you so eager to share the glory? Why not publish your own work elsewhere? I think we both know the reason there is no body of research for ID is the same reason there is no body for unicorns.
JFK_Lib - Also, what is the difference in hypothesizing the existance of a parallel universe in which all is peace and joy and love, and a parallel universe where everything is dead and fallen into one great big huge black hole and yet another where some species ahs evolved into a single nearly omnipotent being, a singular consciousness that is virtually omniscient as well?
Alacarte - There is no difference! They are all possible, and they are all currently theory (in the conversational sense). The difference is that one of them has a legitimate body of research, and may one day become reality. What is so hard about this? Christians know that no matter how much research they do, god will never be anything more than a possibility. Which is why the ID movement is nothing more than a mob trying to coerce scientists into making an exception and accepting an irrational theory. If there was anything 'scientific' about ID, you wouldn't be trying to redefine science!
JFK_Lib - Leprachauns are supernatural as they are admited by just about everyone to be alien to the real world, but not so God.
Alacarte - Let me get this straight, leprechauns don't exist because most people agree they don't. But god does exist because most people agree he does? Then you wonder why you are shunned by scientists?
JFK_Lib - Providence has not been disproven, but only the notion that there were no natural explanation has been. God sends the rain by a totally natural process, but it is still He who sends it.
Alacarte - Providence? I'm pretty good with christianity, but I have no idea what you refer to. But I am sure that it was not 'proven' that there are no natural explanations, since that is impossible.
JFK_Lib - ...subjected to the persecution that he witnesses against Christians on a regular basis. He has told me that sometimes it makes him upset to hear all the remarks along the line of 'He is a Christian; what a moron!'
Alacarte - It is unfortunate he gets treated that way. But given that he thinks they all deserve to burn in a lake of fire for eternity, it only seems fair. Like I said, lots of scientists are christians. But whether a scientist came up with "leprechauns musta dunnit," or "god musta dunnit" as a conclusion, he would get run out of the building, and rightfully so! I know you agree with the leprechaun scenario, and I see no difference between the two.
Ok, your next 4 paragraphs are just a rant on how crappy europeans are, so I'm not going to respond to them. You should consider laying off the fox news for a bit...
JFK_Lib - It is only since the aberation of secular supremacism became totally dominant in science over the last few decades and have begun to purge theists of any stripe that I differ. Science can only affirm the natural, repeatable and objective; it cannot affirm or deny that which lies beyond its scope, nor even its own philosophical foundations.
Alacarte - I assume you mean secular humanism, I am proud to tell you those are my boys. ;) I get the impression secular humanists are the only group of people on the planet fundy christians hate more than muslims...
What do you mean last couple of decades? You make it sound as though before now, we were accepting the supernatural as a possible cause for natural phenomena, not true. Perhaps this 'purge' you speak of has been happening, but I suspect it's more the fact that people who understand how the world really works are less susceptable to believe in mythology. Certainly the proportion of atheists in my engineering department compared to back home in rural hicks-ville is off the chart.