Replies

Should science now refuse to drink from its own cup? Science can and should, IMHO, like mathematics, address the non-corporeal.

When new instruments are invented, science uses them. Examples: the compass, the telescope, the microscope, etc. I know of not a single instance of science refusing to investigate when it had the tools for conducting an investigation. There are, unfortunately, historical (and current) examples of areas of research being closed to science by political or ecclesiastical authorities.

As I said back in post 1,779 (and everal times in the past): A scientist, using scientific methods, can't do deity-research in the lab -- or anywhere else. There's no DeoScope, no DeoMeter, no deity scales or tools of any kind for a scientist to work with. But if you can come up with a DeoScope, you may be certain that scientists will use it.

Thank you for your reply!

me: Should science now refuse to drink from its own cup? Science can and should, IMHO, like mathematics, address the non-corporeal.

you: When new instruments are invented, science uses them. Examples: the compass, the telescope, the microscope, etc. I know of not a single instance of science refusing to investigate when it had the tools for conducting an investigation. There are, unfortunately, historical (and current) examples of areas of research being closed to science by political or ecclesiastical authorities.

The science dealing with which is a better explanation - undirected processes or intelligent cause - involves explaining the past much like archeology, anthropology and Egyptology.

Evidence for such historical science is incomplete though certainly whatever evidence exists can be and is measured in a variety of ways. But the scientist in all these disciplines must reach to tools other than measurement to fill in the gaps and offer an explanation – tools such as analysis, modeling, reasoning and the ilk.

Personally, I find evolution to be even closer to cosmology than to other historical sciences because certain features and components can be more strictly tested against other observations or under laboratory conditions.

Conversely, I find evolution to be completely opposite of cosmology in that there are many theories of cosmology which accept the evidence but have alternative explanations for the gaps and big picture --- whereas evolution is taken as a paradigm which does not allow alternative explanations for the gaps or the big picture.

There's no DeoScope, no DeoMeter, no deity scales or tools of any kind for a scientist to work with. But if you can come up with a DeoScope, you may be certain that scientists will use it.

Again I aver that the intelligent design hypothesis - unlike creationism of every type - has no basis in theology at all, it stipulates no designer and it accepts the evidence such as age of the universe, that mutations occur, and that natural selection happens.

Like alternative cosmologies, it differs from evolution theory in explaining the gaps and big picture: asserting that certain features of life v non-life/death in nature are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.

But unlike alternative cosmologies, it is dismissed out-of-hand by those who hold to evolution as a paradigm.