Creationism being banned?

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

Well, you pretty much would have to have had your head in the sand for the last 500 years to have avoided those demonstrations.

I think you misunderstood me.  By demonstration, I'm not referring to scientific theories, but rather philosophical naturalism.

Well, then we are into philosophy.  Evolution, being science and not philosophy, is not irrevocably hitched to the wagon of philosophic naturalism.  It is neither evidence for, nor evidence against, that philosophy. 

  In the past 500 years, nothing has been discovered or reasonably demonstrated that should lead one to believe design (especially the intricate sort) is attributable to naturalistic processes as opposed to intelligence sources, or visa versa.  And at some point, faith is involved because we all must use some world view or paradigm to start our investigations or propositional theories.

Right. 

So ID is not just a search for design.   It is specifically a search for design in nature that is not explicable by natural cause of any sort.   Something that stands out as an exception to the ordinary course of nature.  It is not that the ordinary course of nature excludes the possibility of a designer, but that only something exceptional would decisively necessitate a designer.

Right, and I don't think they need to do this.  Instead of trying to prove their case, they should do as the naturalists do and just assume it and move on.

Ah, but in that case they would be creationists---either evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists) or creationists who reject evolution.  Of course, most non IDers think ID is just a political cover for anti-evolutionary creationists anyway.   

[Acumen]

Ah, but in that case they would be creationists---either evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists) or creationists who reject evolution. 

Okay.  And?   

[gluadys]

Ah, but in that case they would be creationists---either evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists) or creationists who reject evolution. 

Okay.  And?   

I don't know.  I guess we'll have to wait for an IDist to comment. 

[Acumen]

Darn!!!!!!

For what it's worth, it's good to have you back.

[SquirleyWurley]

Scientists have shown how natural processes can arrive at complicated design.

Really?  How did they manage this?  How did they know that such processes were merely natural?

What scientists have done is describe in detail, in accord with the evidence, the accumulation of small changes in physiological structure, etc.  They have described and explained many such accumulations of small changes (read Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker'), studied various changes.

For any event which you can explain naturally, you can always posit some invisible unseen force.

Creationists and ID'ers have not shown that there is an intelligence which manages the designs that we do see and can test, or how it operates as distinct from any natural process.

They don't need to.  All they need to do is accept it as a brute fact and move forward.
[/quote]

Sure, but then they should be called religionists or dogmatic philosophers or something like that, and not scientists.  What science can deal with other than natural processes?

[Acumen]

What scientists have done is describe in detail, in accord with the evidence, the accumulation of small changes in physiological structure, etc.  They have described and explained many such accumulations of small changes (read Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker'), studied various changes.

For any event which you can explain naturally, you can always posit some invisible unseen force.

Right, but that doesn't answer the question.  How do you know that any design is merely natural?

Sure, but then they should be called religionists or dogmatic philosophers or something like that, and not scientists.  What science can deal with other than natural processes?

That's a good question, but why do scientists have to presuppose that world processes are exclusively natural?

[SquirleyWurley]

Right, but that doesn't answer the question.  How do you know that any design is merely natural?

Well scientists and religionists and artists and carpenters and the like certainly don't KNOW that structures found in nature are NOT merely natural.  I think it would be interesting to study systems theory and also the psychology/neurology of identification of patterns/structures, and perhaps some of the psychology behind attributing 'intelligent design' could be understood better, and perhaps some of the attributes of human design could be understood better as compared/contrasted with what is found in nature... but humans ARE natural, so their productions, like bird nests and ant hills or the results of wind or soil erosion, can be studied naturally, so we can quite easily circle back to natural explanations even when you speak of human design.

Such attempts at non-natural explanation that we have lead to unresolved conflicts due to the assumptions and diversity of the imagination involved without any adequate way to test one speculation against another.  One group has a feeling or faith about one non-natural explanation, and another disagrees because of different feelings or faith on the question.

That's a good question, but why do scientists have to presuppose that world processes are exclusively natural?

Basically it's as Laplace said, 'ID' isn't needed to do the science they've been doing, doesn't help out the science.

Assuming there may be a miracle involved or invisible intelligent agents, etc., has prevented past peoples from figuring out scientific explanations, or has prevented scientific exploration on certain subjects all together.  The track record is just horrible.

[Acumen]

Well scientists and religionists and artists and carpenters and the like certainly don't KNOW that structures found in nature are NOT merely natural.  I think it would be interesting to study systems theory and also the psychology/neurology of identification of patterns/structures, and perhaps some of the psychology behind attributing 'intelligent design' could be understood better, and perhaps some of the attributes of human design could be understood better as compared/contrasted with what is found in nature...

Again, you're presuming that things found in nature are exclusively natural in order to compare and contrast them to known human design.

but humans ARE natural, so their productions, like bird nests and ant hills or the results of wind or soil erosion, can be studied naturally, so we can quite easily circle back to natural explanations even when you speak of human design.

Again, why assume that humans are exclusively natural?

Basically it's as Laplace said, 'ID' isn't needed to do the science they've been doing, doesn't help out the science.

And on the flip side, naturalism isn't needed to do the science either.

Assuming there may be a miracle involved or invisible intelligent agents, etc., has prevented past peoples from figuring out scientific explanations, or has prevented scientific exploration on certain subjects all together.  The track record is just horrible.

I'm not really talking about miracles, unless you define miracles as any divine intervention.

[SquirleyWurley]

Again, you're presuming that things found in nature are exclusively natural in order to compare and contrast them to known human design.

I don't think I am.  It seems to me that human design is 'natural' as well, it's just that we 'think' and have 'intelligence'.  We also have complex nervous systems, brains, language, etc.

Again, why assume that humans are exclusively natural?

Or birds, etc.  But then, what do we gain from the speculation?  We can deal with 'nature' and the 'natural' practically, and we can even try to practically test our guesses and check our evidence when the subject is 'natural', and sometimes we are pretty successful.  You just don't have that track record with other sorts of speculations (supernatural speculations)

And on the flip side, naturalism isn't needed to do the science either.

As in an 'ism' you are correct, no 'ism' is required to do science.  Science isn't an ideology.

It's a practical question.  If you try to introduce invisible spirits into your science, and metaphysical speculations, and religious teaching, you will complicate and confuse yourself and who knows what you will wind up with, but it just doesn't work well for science to add all that in.

I'm not really talking about miracles, unless you define miracles as any divine intervention.

If you can say 'well I believe God made the Big Bang happen' but then you continue to explore the subject and natural causes and natural evidence, looking to see if there is more to the story, looking to see if another case could be better made by natural evidence and argumentation, then you may be able to continue with science.  You might even find that the Big Bang happened differently than you supposed, or that something happened before the Big Bang, etc.

But if you say 'well I believe God made the Big Bang happen' and then you throw your hands up and say "that's that, it's beyond our comprehension, at some point it's faith" or if you refuse to deal with solid natural evidence which looks at the Big Bang (or some other theory) from a different angle, then that's faith in divine intervention PREVENTING an exploration of NATURE and the evidence found in nature, an AVOIDANCE of naturalistic research.

[gluadys]

For any event which you can explain naturally, you can always posit some invisible unseen force.

Right, but that doesn't answer the question.  How do you know that any design is merely natural?

You don't. 

Sure, but then they should be called religionists or dogmatic philosophers or something like that, and not scientists.  What science can deal with other than natural processes?

That's a good question, but why do scientists have to presuppose that world processes are exclusively natural?

They don't have to, and many don't.

However, what scientists do is study observations in nature to determine a) if there is a natural explanation and b) what that natural explanation is.  It is not the business of science to determine what, if any, metaphysical explanation there may be for the same observation.

Whether the natural explanation so discovered is "purely natural" is a question not posed or answered by science. 

[Thorolf]

Maybe not, but wouldn't you agree that science PRESUMES natural causation?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Maybe not, but wouldn't you agree that science PRESUMES natural causation?

Only in the manner that it is the null hypothesis that must be proven wrong.

all

[Thorolf]

Maybe not, but wouldn't you agree that science PRESUMES natural causation?

Only in the manner that it is the null hypothesis that must be proven wrong.

all

So than you agree that it should be considered a legitimate scientific endeavor to attempt to determine whether natural causation is a viable presumptive theory?

[SquirleyWurley]

Isn't it more a matter of the nature of rigorous inquiry into evidence and underlying patterns?

If you go about asking about what regularities you might find in nature, if you go about looking for a more accurate perception of phenomenon, if you see if certain predictions might be made on the basis of a theory due to regularities and patterns, you might talk about natural causes and evidence in the course of such exploration, why not?

What else do you call it?  You find an alleged regularity or underlying pattern, you test your findings, you try to see the evidence more clearly and understand it better, in the process you speak of how a force will effect an object or the effects of a field.

You are looking at nature.  Hence 'natural'

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

So than you agree that it should be considered a legitimate scientific endeavor to attempt to determine whether natural causation is a viable presumptive theory?

I agree that it should be considered a legitimate scientific endeavor to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis of natural causation. 

This is not done by starting with the assumption that there is something, and finding evidence to substantiate it.

It is not done by putting an untested, unverifiable "hypothesis" in science class and presenting it as a viable alternative to established science. 

I am all in favor of ID (or whatever label you want to use) people trying to disprove the null hypothesis.  But unless they are using the scientific method, they are not scientists.  If they are not behaving as scientists, their work is not scientific.  If their work is not scientific, it should not be taught as science.  It can be taught as philosophy or theology, but not science. 

all

[SquirleyWurley]

allthegoodnamesweretaken,

Good post.  All I'd change is that although it involves appropriate methods, it isn't a matter of a particular scientific method, and I don't think we can talk of "THE Scientific Method" -- it's more about rigorously subjecting evidence to tests to weed out theories that don't hold up, and a community of peer review which engages in serious challenge and scrutiny.  It is most definitely a question of doing good science and not presenting anything other than the results of the best of science in a class on science, especially in children's science classes.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

consider it changed