I was recently taken aback by this comment at the Tblog:
And just what if the scientific methodology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards ID? It is a growing field.Poor guy, he really probably believes that his sentence makes sense. I had to set him straight:
I've blinked at this sentence about four times now, and I am still not able to compute. Will you rephrase? This is nonsensical. It's like me saying, "What if the theology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards atheism?" My "trusted" version of science is the method by which knowledge is gained. ID fails the test of being this version, as it makes many untestable, vague claims. No one has yet posited whether design = front-loading, design = panspermia, design = continuous activity of aliens, etc. Without even a general framework by which we can start to figure out what mechanisms, time frames, etc., these claim concern themselves with, it's a joke to call it "science".
ID does not concern itself with the falsifiable anymore. That's how they like it.
Starting out, their claim about irreducible complexity was falsifiable, but was refuted long ago, in the days of the Modern Synthesis (see here, slides 28-50). Then, they tried to pull goofy math tricks, written in jello, but again failed miserably.
Now, these two failed arguments are all they ever had, regarding some sort of method to the madness...and until something new comes out, they just assert over and over how evil "Darwinism" is (althought evolution /= Darwinism), and pander to those who worship the Great Designer with promises that "general design" has been detected, somewhere, somehow, reassuring them that science provides a solid footing for their faith. And continue to pull the Janus routine of doing all the fundraising to get ID into high school curricula while insisting it's about the science.
Therefore it is not science.
__
end of reply
I would like to mention that the general crux of the post was that atheists have a general standard in expressing trust that science will reveal answers to our most vexing questions about the brain/mind distinction in the future. They (the T-boogers) accuse atheists of having "faith" and yet ridiculing theists for their faith. I set them straight with this comment:
When you say, "we'll find out an answer one day," you are not referring to a methodology by which you intend to show an answer will/can BE found, but rather, faith that somehow, someway, someday answers will just plop into our laps, or we will see God after death.
Teeny little difference, eh?
Also, a distinction ought to be made between the falsifiable and the unfalsifiable. I express no "faith" in the power of reason or science to give anyone answers [concrete ones] to the unfalsifiable. Luckily, the power of methodological naturalism extends far deeper than is required to form a coherent worldview [of naturalism].
________________
Technorati tags: Science, Intelligent Design
ID does not concern itself with the falsifiable anymore. That's how they like it.
Starting out, their claim about irreducible complexity was falsifiable, but was refuted long ago, in the days of the Modern Synthesis (see here, slides 28-50). Then, they tried to pull goofy math tricks, written in jello, but again failed miserably.
Now, these two failed arguments are all they ever had, regarding some sort of method to the madness...and until something new comes out, they just assert over and over how evil "Darwinism" is (althought evolution /= Darwinism), and pander to those who worship the Great Designer with promises that "general design" has been detected, somewhere, somehow, reassuring them that science provides a solid footing for their faith. And continue to pull the Janus routine of doing all the fundraising to get ID into high school curricula while insisting it's about the science.
Therefore it is not science.
__
end of reply
I would like to mention that the general crux of the post was that atheists have a general standard in expressing trust that science will reveal answers to our most vexing questions about the brain/mind distinction in the future. They (the T-boogers) accuse atheists of having "faith" and yet ridiculing theists for their faith. I set them straight with this comment:
Thank you, Steve, for pointing out yet again the double standards that atheists have. If a Christian were to respond to an atheist's argument with, "I don't know, but I believe one day we'll find an answer", the atheists would laugh them out of the building. But then when it's the atheist's turn to say, "I don't know, but I believe one day scientists will figure it out", this is supposed to be rational.Do you agree or disagree that science is a tool whereby we establish reliable knowledge (although perhaps not absolute and universal)? If you agree, then it is rather clear that there is a fundamental disconnect between expressing trust that the method we rely on, which has proven itself so far, will continue to expand in scope and power (as it has shown itself capable of doing for generations now), and trusting in...trust itself.
As Greg Bahnsen put it: "That's the problem. Atheists live by faith."
When you say, "we'll find out an answer one day," you are not referring to a methodology by which you intend to show an answer will/can BE found, but rather, faith that somehow, someway, someday answers will just plop into our laps, or we will see God after death.
Teeny little difference, eh?
Also, a distinction ought to be made between the falsifiable and the unfalsifiable. I express no "faith" in the power of reason or science to give anyone answers [concrete ones] to the unfalsifiable. Luckily, the power of methodological naturalism extends far deeper than is required to form a coherent worldview [of naturalism].
________________
Technorati tags: Science, Intelligent Design
