Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
Actually I was reading a lot about him a few weeks ago, about the time I made the comments about Christianity's influence on modern science. And, the fact that he made no mention of the supernatural is a pretty good indication that he made no mention of excluding it as a potential causal force-- especially considering that he was a Muslim with a creation framework for beliefs. I think you'll need to dig around elsewhere to validate your philosophical boundaries on science.
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
No. He said basically that the allowance of supernatural causation wasn't science. Every accepted founder of our modern scientific discipline worked within this framework (of supernatural causal allowance), spoke of this causation in their scientific writings, and many even used their scientific writings as a platform for Christian apologetics.
You'll have to dig elsewhere...
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Then he should revisit ID's claims. I have the books from almost all of them. Their contention is that natural selection is incapable of producing the awesome variety of life we see today. neo-Darwinism says that it is. That is a dualism. If ID proves itself correct, it will have disproved neo-Darwinism. If it doesn't then it hasn't. But to claim that there is no dualism is asinine.
(Further, at the very least, Dembski is offering a testable mathematical model for positive ID claims. Is it valid? I don't know. I start reading his first book today and plan to continue through to his most recent stuff. But it is a positive model that should be testable. So, your point is at least slightly misdirected.)
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
i.e. he described a dualism after claiming it doesn't exist. Then he claims that ID is refuted after claiming that it is not refutable (thus isn't science). I'm amazed. ID critics seem to love cake, because they want to keep it and eat it too.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Because it is widely accepted does not mean that it isn't one philosophical acceptance over another. It isn't scientific. It isn't empirical. It is just an argument to the masses/authority and is a non-point. I remind you again that science got along very well for centuries before the definition was changed to protect the "new" blood of academia. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that science was defined as trying to refute and continually test itself. That doesn't happen with today's pet axiom. It is protected at all costs. And THAT is what is unscientific.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
I wish you would quit equivocating and make sure that we stay honest when dealing with ID's claims. They are not trying to disprove "evolution". (If you take the time to read the body of their work, you'll see that they accept "evolution".) They are claiming that natural selection is incapable of producing the incredible variety of life that we see today. Disproving that natural selection (the blind, non-rational process) is capable of such production of variation either proves design or sends neo-Darwinists back to the drawing board for a new blind, non-rational process, sans rational intent. Either is appropriate if natural selection is disproved. The question is whether it is disprovable under the current paradigm when science is defined in such a way that the tautology is protected.
And, again... ID is proposing a mathematical model for testing design. Please stop claiming that it is nothing but negative argumentation. (Behe only asks that they prove a positive when they actually require that he prove a negative. Who is being more sensible?)
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).
Is that what it says? I won't beat what you will surely figure is yet another dead horse, since I covered most of this above. I will recap, though...
The redefinition of science is very recent, as science goes, so the current assertion of the definition is nothing more than an a priori philosophical acceptance that is neither empirical nor scientific. It is a... preference.
The judge claimed a positive lack of duality between ID and the neo-Darwin establishment. But ID's claims, if true, would disprove neo-Darwinian establishment. It is a true duality.
After claiming the lack of duality, the judge described the duality. You are free to read in an "even if it was" clause if you desire. I found none. In any case, it is irrelevant since the duality exists. Further in the point, the judge claimed that ID is refuted after insinuating that it is irrefutable. You too claimed it refuted after claiming it irrefutable (untestable, non-science). Further, after claiming that "evolution" (let's properly call it "natural selection" that is in question, and not "evolution"-- anyway...) After claiming that proving evolution is a too much to ask, you have stated that evolution (i.e. natural selection as the mechanism of creating the vast varieties of life on Earth) is proven and thus disproves ID claims (again... after claiming it wasn't a duality?).
There is a duality. Defining science against supernatural causation isn't science. (For the record, ID is careful to not specify who the designer is. Just that it was a designer. It may be alien, supernatural...? ID doesn't try to say.) ID is not refuted. And you (and the judge) have done noting more than argue to authority.
Sorry, you're overreaching your authority...
Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
Actually I was reading a lot about him a few weeks ago, about the time I made the comments about Christianity's influence on modern science. And, the fact that he made no mention of the supernatural is a pretty good indication that he made no mention of excluding it as a potential causal force-- especially considering that he was a Muslim with a creation framework for beliefs. I think you'll need to dig around elsewhere to validate your philosophical boundaries on science.
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
No. He said basically that the allowance of supernatural causation wasn't science. Every accepted founder of our modern scientific discipline worked within this framework (of supernatural causal allowance), spoke of this causation in their scientific writings, and many even used their scientific writings as a platform for Christian apologetics.
You'll have to dig elsewhere...
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Then he should revisit ID's claims. I have the books from almost all of them. Their contention is that natural selection is incapable of producing the awesome variety of life we see today. neo-Darwinism says that it is. That is a dualism. If ID proves itself correct, it will have disproved neo-Darwinism. If it doesn't then it hasn't. But to claim that there is no dualism is asinine.
(Further, at the very least, Dembski is offering a testable mathematical model for positive ID claims. Is it valid? I don't know. I start reading his first book today and plan to continue through to his most recent stuff. But it is a positive model that should be testable. So, your point is at least slightly misdirected.)
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
i.e. he described a dualism after claiming it doesn't exist. Then he claims that ID is refuted after claiming that it is not refutable (thus isn't science). I'm amazed. ID critics seem to love cake, because they want to keep it and eat it too.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Because it is widely accepted does not mean that it isn't one philosophical acceptance over another. It isn't scientific. It isn't empirical. It is just an argument to the masses/authority and is a non-point. I remind you again that science got along very well for centuries before the definition was changed to protect the "new" blood of academia. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that science was defined as trying to refute and continually test itself. That doesn't happen with today's pet axiom. It is protected at all costs. And THAT is what is unscientific.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
I wish you would quit equivocating and make sure that we stay honest when dealing with ID's claims. They are not trying to disprove "evolution". (If you take the time to read the body of their work, you'll see that they accept "evolution".) They are claiming that natural selection is incapable of producing the incredible variety of life that we see today. Disproving that natural selection (the blind, non-rational process) is capable of such production of variation either proves design or sends neo-Darwinists back to the drawing board for a new blind, non-rational process, sans rational intent. Either is appropriate if natural selection is disproved. The question is whether it is disprovable under the current paradigm when science is defined in such a way that the tautology is protected.
And, again... ID is proposing a mathematical model for testing design. Please stop claiming that it is nothing but negative argumentation. (Behe only asks that they prove a positive when they actually require that he prove a negative. Who is being more sensible?)
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).
Is that what it says? I won't beat what you will surely figure is yet another dead horse, since I covered most of this above. I will recap, though...
The redefinition of science is very recent, as science goes, so the current assertion of the definition is nothing more than an a priori philosophical acceptance that is neither empirical nor scientific. It is a... preference.
The judge claimed a positive lack of duality between ID and the neo-Darwin establishment. But ID's claims, if true, would disprove neo-Darwinian establishment. It is a true duality.
After claiming the lack of duality, the judge described the duality. You are free to read in an "even if it was" clause if you desire. I found none. In any case, it is irrelevant since the duality exists. Further in the point, the judge claimed that ID is refuted after insinuating that it is irrefutable. You too claimed it refuted after claiming it irrefutable (untestable, non-science). Further, after claiming that "evolution" (let's properly call it "natural selection" that is in question, and not "evolution"-- anyway...) After claiming that proving evolution is a too much to ask, you have stated that evolution (i.e. natural selection as the mechanism of creating the vast varieties of life on Earth) is proven and thus disproves ID claims (again... after claiming it wasn't a duality?).
There is a duality. Defining science against supernatural causation isn't science. (For the record, ID is careful to not specify who the designer is. Just that it was a designer. It may be alien, supernatural...? ID doesn't try to say.) ID is not refuted. And you (and the judge) have done noting more than argue to authority.
Sorry, that's where it stands.