Nevertheless, science finds useful generalizations that can be tested and applied by anyone. That is why science doesn't attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes. It's a self-imposed limitation.
That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena. If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation. You and your friend have wisely placed your discussion in the religion forum. However, if you venture out of your self-imposed world and make declarations about what is or is not valid in the domain of science, you need to prepare yourself for criticism. I assure you that not many would be as polite as I attempt to be.
But it is also true that we see the domain of science (that which is governed by physical laws, physical causation and physical constants) as a reduction of "all that there is." It is also true that we cannot make a metaphysical naturalist (atheist) see what we see.
Methodological naturalism is a self-imposed boundary of science, in particular biology. I do not believe that imposition was either necessary or prudent. All of science should be more like physics in my view - only declaring postulates appropriate to the theory at hand.
Boundaries do not apply to the Creator.
That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena.
As long as you're dealing with material, physical aspects of history inasmuch as it is subject to analysis by the scientific method, that is a possibility, BUT all it can do is indicate what appears to have happened. Any other investigation of historical evidence qualifies more as forensic investigation and analysis.
If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.
Which is it? Is it science that has the self-imposed limitations or *the other side*?
Science is a subset of reality. How can all of reality be a subset of the study of the physical, material realm?
[[That is why science doesn’t attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes.]]
They don’t? Macroevolutionists are cosntantly appealing to biolgically impossible events that must have occured trillions of times- I’d call that a pretty supernatural event. As well, the fact that these supposed critical significant changes beat out all natural odds somehow trillions upon thrillions of times, and evaded natural laws indicates the beleif i nthe process is an appeal to hte supernatural.
At least for now, Macroevolution most certainly is an appeal to hte supernatural, and in order to chip away the supernatural, they must show conditions which were severely different i nthe past, consitent for billions of years, didn’t vary, etc, and they must chip away at hte established evidnece that species no logner diverge from their own kinds, and they must chip away at the evidnece which shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional creatures, on and on it goes- in short, they must chip away at natural laws and constants, in order to show conditions and events which now violate several key scientific and natural laws, was somehow different in the past- Until then, and only until they can do so, they are appealing to a process which was supernatural to the best of our knowledge based o nthe evidence we’ve gathered so far.
Scientists in the lab manipulating genetic information are performing supernatural events by causing genes to violate natural laws and conditions. They are supernaturally causing genes to perform duties they could NOT do naturally and without intellgient intervention
[[ If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.]]
There’s no need to get personal with snide snobbish remarks simply because someone doesn’t beleive the way you do. BB and Alamo and others ARE participating in scientific investigations by examining the very premiss of htis thread’s articles reasonably. IF you know of a manner in which information can arise to the level of metainfo in a purely naturalistic manner, then present it here for discussion- otherwise, simply dismissing this discussion by insinuating it isn’t a participation in scientific thought is simply an avoidance tactic meant to demean and belittle those bringing evidences to the table for discussions. These aren’t opinions JS- they are scientific principles hwich are being discussed, and we CAN come to reasonable conclusions abotu hte quesitons beign asked based on the evidences of chemistry and biology being presented. Just because they don’t include naturalistic conclusions, doesn’t mean they are ‘anti-science’ ‘psuedo-science’ or any other label yuou might think of. If you don’t wish to particpate, that’s fine- but leave hte petty snide comments out.