The Folly of Modern Science

[Systematic]

There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

[Dalek Prime]

Says who?

All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.

[thedoc]

There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

Can you name anything that has been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.

"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.

Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.

[Dalek Prime]

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.

"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.

Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.

Good to see you, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Good to see you, IC.

Thank you. Nice to see you too.

[Harbal]

Good to see you, IC.

Thank you. Nice to see you too.

Fortunately, I can't see either of you.

[Melchior]

What? I don't understand this post.

[Dalek Prime]

What? I don't understand this post.

Harbal is being cleverly literal.

[Systematic]

Says who?

All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.

I know how science is done. I was more concerned about the thinking that goes into science.

[Dalek Prime]

Says who?

All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.

I know how science is done. I was more concerned about the thinking that goes into science.

I might agree that egos can get in the way, as in any endeavour, or where funds may be better spent.

[Systematic]

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.

"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.

Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.

Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."

No problem...it's easy to do.

The matter of how Creation came to exist is one question; the matter of whether or not there was a why for that is another, as I'm sure you realize. The first is merely mechanical, meaning "by what method did this take place?" The second is teleological, meaning "for what purpose was this established?" The Atheist is going to find your second question mystifying, since neither a Big Bang nor a putative infinite succession of universes is capable of purpose.

However, as you rightly point out, "complexity" --if by that you mean complex and designed, rather than, say haphazardly piled together, would constitute physical, scientific indication of God. For any actual design found in nature would immediately point to a question of purpose. Things are always "designed" for a purpose, a teleological goal, a "why". "Design" is not, by definition, a word we apply to accidents, whether local or cosmic.

This is why Atheism must simply refuse the scientific observation of design in nature. Only in this way may it thus continue to claim there is no natural evidence for a Designer; but if design exists and is observable, then they're just sticking their fingers in their ears and humming, so to speak. The design doesn't go away just because one refuses to acknowledge it.

[Systematic]

Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."

No problem...it's easy to do.

The matter of how Creation came to exist is one question; the matter of whether or not there was a why for that is another, as I'm sure you realize. The first is merely mechanical, meaning "by what method did this take place?" The second is teleological, meaning "for what purpose was this established?" The Atheist is going to find your second question mystifying, since neither a Big Bang nor a putative infinite succession of universes is capable of purpose.

However, as you rightly point out, "complexity" --if by that you mean complex and designed, rather than, say haphazardly piled together, would constitute physical, scientific indication of God. For any actual design found in nature would immediately point to a question of purpose. Things are always "designed" for a purpose, a teleological goal, a "why". "Design" is not, by definition, a word we apply to accidents, whether local or cosmic.

This is why Atheism must simply refuse the scientific observation of design in nature. Only in this way may it thus continue to claim there is no natural evidence for a Designer; but if design exists and is observable, then they're just sticking their fingers in their ears and humming, so to speak. The design doesn't go away just because one refuses to acknowledge it.

OK, you are sort of getting what I mean. I'm not saying that there is a god or not. I was actually implying that there was not for the sake of the typical scientist. But that's not important right now.

What I am saying is this: science can do experiments and observe, but in order to cross over into theoretical knowledge, there is this extra step--interpretation. And not every interpretation is created equal. So they should be open to diverse interpretations even if they are accustomed to one or a few. EDIT: Some of their theories are imperfect. For example special relativity doesn't fit with quantum mechanics.

I think I might be getting into the territory of education in this topic. Too bad. And I'll tell you why "too bad". Modern schools are often authoritarian. You agree with the professor, or you get a bad grade and fail. So basically you probably get at least some resonant ignorance (i.e. their professor was told by their professor was told by their professor, and so on).

[Impenitent]

There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.

I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.

Can you name anything that has been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

"proof" at night?

-Imp