I don’t recall any edits to my original post or subsequent replies. Aside from minor spelling repairs, I try to flag all edits with inline “Update” clarification for just this reason.
My interpretation:
Newton: I've reached the limit of what current science can tell me. Here are some religious statements that I use to provide a comforting explanation (note: no science claimed or implied).
ID pseudoscience: Since science has no detailed explanation for [insert pet biological system here], we must therefore conclude that God... er, scratch that... some intelligent designer (wink, wink) must be responsible, even though there's no positive evidence for that conclusion.
Except for the fact that Newton made such comments in his scientific writings, and outside quotes from his contemporaries show that they understood exactly what his beliefs, methods and purposes were. I’m not asking you to beg the question and squeeze in your current redefinition of science. I’m asking you to recognize the definition of science/scientist in use before Darwinism changed the rules.
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
Newton: Science has the capacity to tell us about the natural universe. Mechanistic explanations don't apply beyond the natural universe.
ID Pseudoscience: The current scientific explanations of biological diversity are in conflict with our intuitions and/or religious beliefs, therefore we reject those explanations in favor of an unscientific one. (note: your ID statement is completely divorced from Newton's sentiment. Newton's "first cause" has no connection to ID's god-of-the-gaps.
Wow. Nice job inserting a straw man into the mix with ID. It’s almost offensive how you lump the group, insert desired motive, and dismiss. Seems par for the course. I also find it ironic that you continue to claim ID as a god-of-the gaps, yet accept the neoDarwinian answer to any question that, “natural selection did it.”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
As an aside, what makes you think ID's proposed designer is "the ultimate cause"? Why rule out a super-advanced race of beings dropping the seeds of life on the earth?
They don’t. I find it interesting that Dawkins doesn’t either. So, now that Dawkins in an IDer (see his interview at the end of "Expelled..."), is ID science?
” One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s.”
Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself! Your ID movement excludes (well, publicly at least) from science such explicit religious statements as Newton's, yet you seem eager to include Newton's creationism as part of his science. So, according to your statement above, would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation. ID is not dogmatic about who or what that may be. I actually made the point myself when I said, “It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.”
Come now, dear sir. Be true to my points.
He most certainly did NOT say that metaphysical or occult qualities could be deduced from the evidence.
He didn’t? Wow, I’m not sure how you could possible make that assertion. He did say that hypothesis (of whichever variety) has no place in the philosophy of science when not deduced from the evidence. But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence. He made no distinction. That’s my point. He just said that what is inferred from the evidence should be rendered as particular.
Now, I find it disconcerting what you’re willing to put in a dead man’s mouth after he obviously made such a particular inference: “what is the first cause, what power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him," so that "our duty towards him, as well as that towards one another will appear to us by the light of nature.
Let's see if I have the argument straight: a type of biological complexity (human intelligence) is the only known cause of manufactured complexity, therefore a supernatural intelligent agency must be responsible for biological complexity. It's a non sequitur, as I'd like to think Newton would agree.
Wow. That was pretty cool. I have this nagging feeling that I’ve seen it before and answered it, but it’s still cool every time I see it.
No. The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes. Now, as cool as yours was, I have a cool one too.
Darwin wrote: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Life and Letters 1:315-16).
There's that false dualism rearing its ugly head again! Neo-Darwinism does not propose a negative argument against a designer, it simply refuses to address supernatural causes that can't be observed or otherwise verified.
Um… I’s sorry, but that’s just plain untrue. You’ve made that assertion before, and I won’t let you get away with it this time either. You’ve actually defended the Darwinian claim on here before, and now you claim that it’s not made. You can’t have it both ways. If Darwinism can claim that what we have now was the result of an unguided, blind process, then it can’t deny the veracity of ID claiming that it wasn’t such a blind, unguided process.
Current science does not claim that a guiding hand wasn't involved, just that if it existed it left no evidence behind.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there. Actually, while some of the official descriptions have been edited, every textbook I’ve seen and every evolutionist I read continues to claim that the processes are blind and unguided. In their actual writings, they don’t seem to spli this hair that you continue to try to split. I’m sorry, but it’s wearing a bit thin. If you are so sold out on evolution, then trust it and present it as it is commonly posed.
Neo-Darwinism gives voice to these absolutes? Please show me where a journal or textbook says that god does not exist, or absolutely did not have had a hand in biological development. The absence of mentioning a supernatural possibility is not the same as claiming an absence of the supernatural.
Oh, please stop being coy. You are the one that has been on here defining “blind” for us. As a matter of fact, you’re the one that spent an entire thread educating me on what was meant by evolution being “undirected”. I’ll refresh your memory:
“But the directions you cite are predetermined, and your travel is directed towards a compass point as a goal. Evolution has no predetermined goal, just survival. That can take a population in many directions, depending on the conditions.”
That was you, dogg. I’m sorry, but you’re in severe danger of losing credibility if you insist on playing this as coy as you are.
I’ve got no problem with someone using science to promote (or criticize) a particular religion, provided that it’s good science. The object is still religion, which by definition rests firmly on faith.
I would vehemently disagree with that. The Christian religion is based on faith and historical evidence left by God-become-man, leaving His fingerprint in our history. But that’s not an evolutionary subject, so I won’t digress.
It seems I've made the time. :)
I don’t recall any edits to my original post or subsequent replies. Aside from minor spelling repairs, I try to flag all edits with inline “Update” clarification for just this reason.
My interpretation:
Newton: I've reached the limit of what current science can tell me. Here are some religious statements that I use to provide a comforting explanation (note: no science claimed or implied).
ID pseudoscience: Since science has no detailed explanation for [insert pet biological system here], we must therefore conclude that God... er, scratch that... some intelligent designer (wink, wink) must be responsible, even though there's no positive evidence for that conclusion.
Except for the fact that Newton made such comments in his scientific writings, and outside quotes from his contemporaries show that they understood exactly what his beliefs, methods and purposes were. I’m not asking you to beg the question and squeeze in your current redefinition of science. I’m asking you to recognize the definition of science/scientist in use before Darwinism changed the rules.
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
Newton: Science has the capacity to tell us about the natural universe. Mechanistic explanations don't apply beyond the natural universe.
ID Pseudoscience: The current scientific explanations of biological diversity are in conflict with our intuitions and/or religious beliefs, therefore we reject those explanations in favor of an unscientific one. (note: your ID statement is completely divorced from Newton's sentiment. Newton's "first cause" has no connection to ID's god-of-the-gaps.
Wow. Nice job inserting a straw man into the mix with ID. It’s almost offensive how you lump the group, insert desired motive, and dismiss. Seems par for the course. I also find it ironic that you continue to claim ID as a god-of-the gaps, yet accept the neoDarwinian answer to any question that, “natural selection did it.”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
As an aside, what makes you think ID's proposed designer is "the ultimate cause"? Why rule out a super-advanced race of beings dropping the seeds of life on the earth?
They don’t. I find it interesting that Dawkins doesn’t either. So, now that Dawkins in an IDer (see his interview at the end of "Expelled..."), is ID science?
” One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s.”
Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself! Your ID movement excludes (well, publicly at least) from science such explicit religious statements as Newton's, yet you seem eager to include Newton's creationism as part of his science. So, according to your statement above, would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation. ID is not dogmatic about who or what that may be. I actually made the point myself when I said, “It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.”
Come now, dear sir. Be true to my points.
He most certainly did NOT say that metaphysical or occult qualities could be deduced from the evidence.
He didn’t? Wow, I’m not sure how you could possible make that assertion. He did say that hypothesis (of whichever variety) has no place in the philosophy of science when not deduced from the evidence. But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence. He made no distinction. That’s my point. He just said that what is inferred from the evidence should be rendered as particular.
Now, I find it disconcerting what you’re willing to put in a dead man’s mouth after he obviously made such a particular inference: “what is the first cause, what power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him," so that "our duty towards him, as well as that towards one another will appear to us by the light of nature.
Let's see if I have the argument straight: a type of biological complexity (human intelligence) is the only known cause of manufactured complexity, therefore a supernatural intelligent agency must be responsible for biological complexity. It's a non sequitur, as I'd like to think Newton would agree.
Wow. That was pretty cool. I have this nagging feeling that I’ve seen it before and answered it, but it’s still cool every time I see it.
No. The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes. Now, as cool as yours was, I have a cool one too.
Darwin wrote: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Life and Letters 1:315-16).
Mull that one over. For now, I’ll stop there because we’ve already covered this, and I’d like to stay close to our topic at hand. In fairness, I’ll post this topic in its own http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/nother-rational-response-ration... " post so we can give it more attention.
There's that false dualism rearing its ugly head again! Neo-Darwinism does not propose a negative argument against a designer, it simply refuses to address supernatural causes that can't be observed or otherwise verified.
Um… I’s sorry, but that’s just plain untrue. You’ve made that assertion before, and I won’t let you get away with it this time either. You’ve actually defended the Darwinian claim on here before, and now you claim that it’s not made. You can’t have it both ways. If Darwinism can claim that what we have now was the result of an unguided, blind process, then it can’t deny the veracity of ID claiming that it wasn’t such a blind, unguided process.
Current science does not claim that a guiding hand wasn't involved, just that if it existed it left no evidence behind.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there. Actually, while some of the official descriptions have been edited, every textbook I’ve seen and every evolutionist I read continues to claim that the processes are blind and unguided. In their actual writings, they don’t seem to spli this hair that you continue to try to split. I’m sorry, but it’s wearing a bit thin. If you are so sold out on evolution, then trust it and present it as it is commonly posed.
Neo-Darwinism gives voice to these absolutes? Please show me where a journal or textbook says that god does not exist, or absolutely did not have had a hand in biological development. The absence of mentioning a supernatural possibility is not the same as claiming an absence of the supernatural.
Oh, please stop being coy. You are the one that has been on here defining “blind” for us. As a matter of fact, you’re the one that spent an entire thread educating me on what was meant by evolution being “undirected”. I’ll refresh your memory:
“But the directions you cite are predetermined, and your travel is directed towards a compass point as a goal. Evolution has no predetermined goal, just survival. That can take a population in many directions, depending on the conditions.”
That was you, dogg. I’m sorry, but you’re in severe danger of losing credibility if you insist on playing this as coy as you are.
I’ve got no problem with someone using science to promote (or criticize) a particular religion, provided that it’s good science. The object is still religion, which by definition rests firmly on faith.
I would vehemently disagree with that. The Christian religion is based on faith and historical evidence left by God-become-man, leaving His fingerprint in our history. But that’s not an evolutionary subject, so I won’t digress.
Take care, bro...