I’ve been ruminating on this one for a little while, trying to let your points soak in. Maybe the clarification below will bring us to an understanding, or maybe it’s just a problem of definitions that we’ll never reconcile. Anyway, I’ve quoted you as always, but for readability I’ve included some of my own previous quotes. In such cases, I’ve drawn a line between the two quotations—those above are mine, while yours are below.
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.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that because Newton added what we today would consider unscientific statements into his writings on science, that he would (and we SHOULD) consider those statements to be PART OF his science? I don’t think the facts support that view. I don’t dispute the writings, but there is a clear divide between the experimental science (“natural philosophy”) and the religious philosophy (“moral philosophy”) within the same document.
Keep in mind that Newton was writing in a time when church and state were yet still intertwined. Academic pursuits were greatly supported by the powerful church organization, which obviously would not have taken offense to a bit of their philosophy sprinkled into the conclusions (and indeed were known to encourage such).
Darwinism changed the rules? When exactly did this happen? Why do you attribute the change solely to Darwinism?
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
What an odd question. Newton practiced experimental science, which makes him a scientist. He also promoted Christian philosophy (among other things). That makes him a Christian. As with any man, one can hang many labels on him. His distinction from contemporary ID lies in the fact that he did not promote religious ideas AS science, even when they were offered among his writings of “experimental philosophy.”
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.
While I’ll admit that it’s a sweeping generalization, there’s plenty of evidence to support my description of IDers as a group. The Dover trial transcript is a good place to start. If you dispute that, all you need to provide is convincing evidence to the contrary.
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.”
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I accept natural selection as the answer to every biological question. While it is powerful, there are other forces at work in the world too. That’s really just a distraction from my god-of-the-gaps quip, which still stands. Wherever they can find a gap in the current explanation of origins of a biological system, and IDer will be there to say, “God… er, um, The Designer was here!”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
D-i-v-o-r-c-e. (With apologies to Tammy Wynette.) I’ve read the quotes. They are not science (or “experimental philosophy”) nor are they claimed to be. Read some of Newton’s work directly and you’ll see a very distinct difference between his evangelism and his mathematics. The two are easily separable by the reader, even though Newton put them in the same books, which wasn’t against the custom.
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?
Was Dawkins making a scientific argument for ID? If not, why on earth would you call him an IDer? This gets to the root of our discussion: Just because he’s a scientist doesn’t mean everything he says is scientific. Same goes for Newton.
Oh, and my question wasn’t about IDers in general; it was specifically directed to you. I’m aware that some IDers publicly claim to be open to the possibility of a non-deity designer, but curiously this claim didn’t appear before 1987. Just as curious, no ID proponent has given an ounce of effort towards investigating a non-deity designer. If the designer might be non-supernatural, then it should be subject to observation and experiment, no?
”Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself!”
--------------------------------------
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation.
One is explicit about that causation, and the other isn’t (lately). By arguing that Newton’s statements are a form of ID science, and that the modern form of ID cannot be separated from Newton, you’ve actually made the religious connection for me! Lucky for you, I’m trying to break that connection by showing that Newton’s evangelism wasn’t intended as science.
”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.
Easy, I read what the man wrote. I didn’t find anything about metaphysical or occult qualities being deduced from evidence, though there’s plenty of opinion about them. Don’t agree? Just show me where he does say we can deduce metaphysical and/or occult qualities from evidence (notice I didn’t write “lack of evidence”).
A few of his statements to chew on:
“Physics, beware of metaphysics!”
“Such occult qualities put a stop to the improvement of natural philosophy, and therefore of late years have been rejected. To tell us that every species of things is endowed with an occult specific quality by which it acts and produces manifest effects, is to tell us nothing.”
That pretty much sums up anti-ID sentiment, and he did it 200 years before ID existed.
But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence.
Good. We are in agreement, then.
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.
Are you claiming that’s a scientific inference from the evidence? I’d call it one scientist’s philosophical inference. Put that quote in context and you’ll see that he’s speculating about the effect of a perfected “Natural Philosophy” upon “Moral Philosophy”.
The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes.
OK, so we’re looking for a cause. Check. That’s the essence of scientific inquiry. I’ve got not problem with your second sentence, either, but I’m a bit confused that you feel the need to mention it. Where has anyone said mere “time and chance” is a cause? Are you still feeling offended by straw-man arguments, because I’d swear it’s starting to smell like a barn here.
Now, where’s the rest? Where’s the positive case for attributing a Designer as the cause? Your presentation is nothing more than a gap of understanding. Are you proposing we fill it with something?
”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.
Huh? I don’t follow you here. Darwinism merely presents an explanation that best fits the facts as we have them. Your Designer isn’t addressed because evidence of Him is absent. How is that an argument against Him? All it says about Him is that if He was here He didn’t leave any footprints. If you’ve got evidence of those footprints, then by all means, let’s have it.
If you’ll check my previous arguments against a Designer, you’ll find them to be against a specific claim of Designer intervention, and NOT against the existence of a Designer. There’s a big difference.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there.
The dance is as straight-forward as a mechanistic waltz. “Religious implications” are in the eye of the beholder. True science is silent on those questions. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t be? If scientific conclusions conflict with your religion, you’ll have to decide where you come down. This harkens back to Newton’s ideas about planetary motion. Where do you think he’d land on that one were he alive today?
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.
That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component. That is not the same as saying there couldn’t be one, just that there’s no evidence suggesting one was directly responsible for the thing being explained, and no gaps in the explanation (yet found) that require one (please note that I did not say there aren’t gaps).
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.
What would you have them do? Should they write, “Here’s an explanation of nature in completely scientific terms. Now, remember kids, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural or unobservable or occult, so don’t forget about the Big Man upstairs. He could’ve done all this with a snap of His fingers and we’d be none the wiser.” Would that help you sleep at night?
If the scientific explanations offend your religious beliefs, that’s a personal dilemma only you can resolve. The scientific method has a clear line of demarcation that it can’t cross. Unfortunately, some personal religious beliefs cross that line the other way, which produces conflict. Newton’s beliefs about planetary motion are an example. Are you just as upset about physics textbooks that describe solar system movements in purely mechanistic terms without allowing for a Designer’s intervention to keep everything in line?
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”.
You used the word “absolutes.” Nothing about scientific explanations is absolute. My description you quote is about currently accepted scientific concepts. It wasn’t that long ago when they weren’t even considered. In the future they may be discarded. If you can’t grasp that, you need to revisit your concept of science.
Alright, we’ve slogged through a bunch of stuff here. I’ve offended with straw men and been questioned on reading comprehension. I’ve desecrated the dead and been called a liar. I’m a sell-out for evolution and losing credibility through deliberate coyness. You know what? I’m fine with all that. I’m trying (though sometimes failing) to keep my discourse on the issue at hand.
I’ve been accused of “begging the question” multiple times, but what I really would like are some answers. Here are just a few I’m still waiting for:
- Why would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? Please show me just a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before the Edwards v. Aguillard case.
- Do YOU think it’s a scientific conclusion to equate ID's proposed designer and "the ultimate cause"?
- Would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
- Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?
Took a little more time myself
I’ve been ruminating on this one for a little while, trying to let your points soak in. Maybe the clarification below will bring us to an understanding, or maybe it’s just a problem of definitions that we’ll never reconcile. Anyway, I’ve quoted you as always, but for readability I’ve included some of my own previous quotes. In such cases, I’ve drawn a line between the two quotations—those above are mine, while yours are below.
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.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that because Newton added what we today would consider unscientific statements into his writings on science, that he would (and we SHOULD) consider those statements to be PART OF his science? I don’t think the facts support that view. I don’t dispute the writings, but there is a clear divide between the experimental science (“natural philosophy”) and the religious philosophy (“moral philosophy”) within the same document.
Keep in mind that Newton was writing in a time when church and state were yet still intertwined. Academic pursuits were greatly supported by the powerful church organization, which obviously would not have taken offense to a bit of their philosophy sprinkled into the conclusions (and indeed were known to encourage such).
Darwinism changed the rules? When exactly did this happen? Why do you attribute the change solely to Darwinism?
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
What an odd question. Newton practiced experimental science, which makes him a scientist. He also promoted Christian philosophy (among other things). That makes him a Christian. As with any man, one can hang many labels on him. His distinction from contemporary ID lies in the fact that he did not promote religious ideas AS science, even when they were offered among his writings of “experimental philosophy.”
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.
While I’ll admit that it’s a sweeping generalization, there’s plenty of evidence to support my description of IDers as a group. The Dover trial transcript is a good place to start. If you dispute that, all you need to provide is convincing evidence to the contrary.
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.”
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I accept natural selection as the answer to every biological question. While it is powerful, there are other forces at work in the world too. That’s really just a distraction from my god-of-the-gaps quip, which still stands. Wherever they can find a gap in the current explanation of origins of a biological system, and IDer will be there to say, “God… er, um, The Designer was here!”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
D-i-v-o-r-c-e. (With apologies to Tammy Wynette.) I’ve read the quotes. They are not science (or “experimental philosophy”) nor are they claimed to be. Read some of Newton’s work directly and you’ll see a very distinct difference between his evangelism and his mathematics. The two are easily separable by the reader, even though Newton put them in the same books, which wasn’t against the custom.
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?
Was Dawkins making a scientific argument for ID? If not, why on earth would you call him an IDer? This gets to the root of our discussion: Just because he’s a scientist doesn’t mean everything he says is scientific. Same goes for Newton.
Oh, and my question wasn’t about IDers in general; it was specifically directed to you. I’m aware that some IDers publicly claim to be open to the possibility of a non-deity designer, but curiously this claim didn’t appear before 1987. Just as curious, no ID proponent has given an ounce of effort towards investigating a non-deity designer. If the designer might be non-supernatural, then it should be subject to observation and experiment, no?
”Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself!”
--------------------------------------
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation.
One is explicit about that causation, and the other isn’t (lately). By arguing that Newton’s statements are a form of ID science, and that the modern form of ID cannot be separated from Newton, you’ve actually made the religious connection for me! Lucky for you, I’m trying to break that connection by showing that Newton’s evangelism wasn’t intended as science.
”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.
Easy, I read what the man wrote. I didn’t find anything about metaphysical or occult qualities being deduced from evidence, though there’s plenty of opinion about them. Don’t agree? Just show me where he does say we can deduce metaphysical and/or occult qualities from evidence (notice I didn’t write “lack of evidence”).
A few of his statements to chew on:
“Physics, beware of metaphysics!”
“Such occult qualities put a stop to the improvement of natural philosophy, and therefore of late years have been rejected. To tell us that every species of things is endowed with an occult specific quality by which it acts and produces manifest effects, is to tell us nothing.”
That pretty much sums up anti-ID sentiment, and he did it 200 years before ID existed.
But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence.
Good. We are in agreement, then.
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.
Are you claiming that’s a scientific inference from the evidence? I’d call it one scientist’s philosophical inference. Put that quote in context and you’ll see that he’s speculating about the effect of a perfected “Natural Philosophy” upon “Moral Philosophy”.
The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes.
OK, so we’re looking for a cause. Check. That’s the essence of scientific inquiry. I’ve got not problem with your second sentence, either, but I’m a bit confused that you feel the need to mention it. Where has anyone said mere “time and chance” is a cause? Are you still feeling offended by straw-man arguments, because I’d swear it’s starting to smell like a barn here.
Now, where’s the rest? Where’s the positive case for attributing a Designer as the cause? Your presentation is nothing more than a gap of understanding. Are you proposing we fill it with something?
”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.
Huh? I don’t follow you here. Darwinism merely presents an explanation that best fits the facts as we have them. Your Designer isn’t addressed because evidence of Him is absent. How is that an argument against Him? All it says about Him is that if He was here He didn’t leave any footprints. If you’ve got evidence of those footprints, then by all means, let’s have it.
If you’ll check my previous arguments against a Designer, you’ll find them to be against a specific claim of Designer intervention, and NOT against the existence of a Designer. There’s a big difference.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there.
The dance is as straight-forward as a mechanistic waltz. “Religious implications” are in the eye of the beholder. True science is silent on those questions. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t be? If scientific conclusions conflict with your religion, you’ll have to decide where you come down. This harkens back to Newton’s ideas about planetary motion. Where do you think he’d land on that one were he alive today?
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.
That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component. That is not the same as saying there couldn’t be one, just that there’s no evidence suggesting one was directly responsible for the thing being explained, and no gaps in the explanation (yet found) that require one (please note that I did not say there aren’t gaps).
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.
What would you have them do? Should they write, “Here’s an explanation of nature in completely scientific terms. Now, remember kids, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural or unobservable or occult, so don’t forget about the Big Man upstairs. He could’ve done all this with a snap of His fingers and we’d be none the wiser.” Would that help you sleep at night?
If the scientific explanations offend your religious beliefs, that’s a personal dilemma only you can resolve. The scientific method has a clear line of demarcation that it can’t cross. Unfortunately, some personal religious beliefs cross that line the other way, which produces conflict. Newton’s beliefs about planetary motion are an example. Are you just as upset about physics textbooks that describe solar system movements in purely mechanistic terms without allowing for a Designer’s intervention to keep everything in line?
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”.
You used the word “absolutes.” Nothing about scientific explanations is absolute. My description you quote is about currently accepted scientific concepts. It wasn’t that long ago when they weren’t even considered. In the future they may be discarded. If you can’t grasp that, you need to revisit your concept of science.
Alright, we’ve slogged through a bunch of stuff here. I’ve offended with straw men and been questioned on reading comprehension. I’ve desecrated the dead and been called a liar. I’m a sell-out for evolution and losing credibility through deliberate coyness. You know what? I’m fine with all that. I’m trying (though sometimes failing) to keep my discourse on the issue at hand.
I’ve been accused of “begging the question” multiple times, but what I really would like are some answers. Here are just a few I’m still waiting for:
- Why would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? Please show me just a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before the Edwards v. Aguillard case.
- Do YOU think it’s a scientific conclusion to equate ID's proposed designer and "the ultimate cause"?
- Would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
- Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?