Posted on 10/18/2008 11:06:30 AM PDT by Soliton
“If one sees the world and the universe with eyes of faith, one can see and appreciate God’s handiwork. If one sees the universe though the lens of scientific reductionism, one can just as easily attribute everything that exists to solely materialistic causes,” Samuel said.
“There are many biologists and scientists who believe in God and in evolution. The two do not need to be seen as opposing,” says Kevin Geedey, an associate professor of biology at Augustana College, Rock Island. “We make changes in the world all the time that cause natural selection on other species.”
He teaches ecology, evolution and aquatic biology and he encourages students in the evolution class to examine the theory of Intelligent Design.
(Excerpt) Read more at qctimes.com ...
I noticed you posted this article on the religion board.
If you approach all science with the premise that there is no God or there’s no way to detect God, all of your findings will validate that premise.
What happens if you approach science with the premise that it is possible to detect God, and then fail to do so?
Seek out new & innovative strategies to prove your starting premise wrong.
BTW, “there is no God” is a valid theory, but it is only a theory. Scientific naturalism fails to even test it. What are scientific naturalists afraid of?
Actually, that's a hypothesis
I knew it right after I posted. A correction was at the tip of my fingers, but I knew someone would be happy to point out my error. I’d already done two responses to the previous post & didn’t wanna be a pest. LOL
I heard the guy on the radio yesterday and found it interesting and courageous. Some of what he had to say sounded implausible, but so does a lot of the evolution theory.
So starting with the premise that science can detect God, it should devise ways to test for God, and if it fails to find Him, it should "seek out new and innovative strategies" to prove that it's original premise was wrong, and it can't detect God?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Science isn’t about trying prove your hypothesis. It’s about trying to disprove it. The evidence that you find along the way should speak for itself.
“Science isn’t about trying prove your hypothesis. It’s about trying to disprove it. The evidence that you find along the way should speak for itself.”Your absolutely right.
So if they start with the premise that they can test for the existence of God, and then fail to come up with any kind of test that will do that, haven't they disproven the original hypothesis?
That is explicitly stated in the article. I posted it on the religion forum because it is a religious article.
Study evolution with an open mind, study Genesis with an open heart, and all will become clear friend.
I'm sure that's how you see it. You could say, it's been tested enough & it's time to move on to other, more useful directions of query. That would be valid, but not if moving on requires that all must use a naturalist starting premise.
As far as I know, there's no naturalistic explanation for the placebo effect, yet it must be taken into account in order for a biological study of humans to have the study be valid.
That would be like saying that a single or even multiple approaches thrown at discovering the laws of gravity could be used to prove that there is no gravity.
If science can't come up with a test for supernatural causes, but can't proceed based on investigation of natural causes, then they're just out of business.
As far as I know, there's no naturalistic explanation for the placebo effect, yet it must be taken into account in order for a biological study of humans to have the study be valid.
I take it you don't differentiate between "soft" sciences like psychology and "hard" sciences like chemistry, and think we can, or at least should be able to quantify things like thought and emotion.
I thought that was the objective. If the results of those tests couldn't have potentially disproven the premise, what was the point of doing them?
Things that were once considered to be supernatural have been pushed into being recognized as natural with the advancement of instruments. When creative minds are unleashed, effort is put into finding & building instruments to explore into realms of new discovery. When you declare something out of bounds, because it is supernatural, you've placed a limit on query.
I take it you don't differentiate between "soft" sciences like psychology and "hard" sciences like chemistry, and think we can, or at least should be able to quantify things like thought and emotion.
I most certainly do differentiate between soft & hard sciences. Placebo effect can be explained chemically, but only after you throw up your hands on the question of the trigger. If the trigger could be discovered, could it be artifically set off?
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.