This is what the majority of your post was about….trying to demonstrate that methodological naturalism precludes ID because, in your opinion, it cannot be ‘observed’ or ‘falsified.’ If there are sections of your last post that you would like me to specifically address, I would be glad to do so.
I also critiqued ID, alluding to complexity breeding less complex things which results in an intelligent designer requiring an intelligent designer ad infinitum.
I was also showing how contradictory you came across by saying ID isn't an argument against evolution when you'd previously made it clear that you treated it as if it was.
I was also explaining how ID can still be believed even if current hypotheses of abiogenesis and the ToE via natural selection were accepted in full.
I was also asking you for an alternative method for falsifying supernatural claims.
I was also asking you to acknowledge the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism instead of lumping them both together.
You are doing a poor job of explaining “why” it is intrinsic to science. This argument that methodological naturalism is the only means for determining life’s origins is faulty… and debatable, even amongst some in the scientific community.
Perhaps you would like to explain how abiogenesis fits into your argument. How can it be ‘observed?’
Perhaps I am doing a poor job of explaining, or perhaps you are doing a poor job of understanding because you start with a strawman assumption.
Please cite where I have claimed that methodological naturalism is the only means for determining life's origin? If you actually bothered to read and understand the point I'm trying to make, then you'd realise that methodological naturalism does not eliminate ID because ID can be the cause of the natural phenomena that causes life's origin.
I'd also like you to cite where amongst the scientific community it is debated that methodological naturalism is the only means to determining life's origin, because the thing is, when doing science, you do not start with the assumption that this method is the only way of determining anything. You would need another method that would determine whether methodological naturalism was the only way of determining things, which if successful, would obviously show it to be false due to that other method being able to determine something.
Exactly how is it that I demonstrated dishonesty, forgetfulness, or indecisiveness? My posts seek merely to clarify the intent of IDT by explaining how it differed from the ToE.
Your posts are all over the place. One minute you're saying that you don't accept the ToE in full and that you see ID as a better explanation, then you're saying that ID isn't a negative argument against evolution
, then you're saying that you employ ID as a negative argument against evolution, and now you seek to clarify the intent of ID by explaining how it differs from the ToE. Make your mind up because the bit I have bolded contradicts the rest.
How I use ID to determine the validity of the ToE and to support my own personal beliefs does nothing to eliminate the actual science behind either.
There is no science behind ID because the conclusion is a violation of the scientific method.
It is a false charge to accuse me of throwing out empiricism. It has its place and is capable of providing us with a basis for establishing a certain level of realism and validity to what we hear, see, smell, taste, and touch.
It is not false because you do throw it out. If you're not throwing it out you'd be able to present empirical evidence for the existence of god, but you've admitted you can't.
Yet, can we actually rely on it to be 100% accurate and/or are we correct in concluding that it precludes rational thinking? Consider the following, written by Dr Gordon H. Clark:
“Empiricism is perhaps a common sense view. It has also been the view of many philosophers. But it faces insuperable objections. In the first place, the senses of men and animals produce conflicting data. Dogs, for example, are supposed to be color blind, but they have sensations of sound when men hear nothing. For that matter, men differ among themselves. Esoteric artists see colors in grass that no common man finds there. Which of these sensations correctly represent the color of the object seen? In some cases the senses contradict each other, as when a stick half submerged looks bent but feels straight. Then there are mirages and other optical illusions. While they last, we cannot tell that they are illusions; and we cannot tell whether our present sensations are illusions. Again, are we dreaming or not? An elementary textbook on psychology will describe many of these phenomena, with the result that it is impossible to trust what we call sensory perception.” (The Trinity Review, September 1979)
I'm not even arguing that we can rely on it to be 100% accurate. I'm asking you to present an alternative to empiricism that you use to gauging what is real/true.
You must have missed my earlier posts concerning some of the hyperbole/sarcasm I used in this post. It was obviously received a little more literally than I had expected it to be.
Perhaps you should make it clearer that you are using hypberole/sarcasm as it is, more often than not, hard to pick up in written text alone.
Why? Why is science not there to say/show god does or does not exist? To say that it is incapable of doing so is ridiculous because you cannot possibly know that. Its utter nonsense to assert this.
It is not an assertion. It is a description of what science entails. Also, if I told you again why, would you listen? If you posit god as natural then science has the potential to say/show god does or does not exist. Are you positing god as a natural phenomenon?
are you ignoring the fact that methodological naturalism uses circular reasoning as its construct and yet you and others will continue to cite it as the ONLY logical and valid means for establishing facts about our reality.
Please cite where I have said that methodological naturalism is the only logical and valid means for establishing facts about our reality?
Methodological naturalism is not circular. It would only be circular if it took the philosophical approach to naturalism, which it does not. Also above, I have explained that you can't use methodological naturalism to determine whether or not it itself is the only way for determining what is real/true.
My position is that we should be allowing the door of science to be kicked open a little so we can investigate the ID argument.
So you admit that currently the scientific method can't be used to investigate ID? Finally it's sunken in....
If IDT was blatantly and clearly distorting the scientific method as its means, I would be the first to criticize it.
Well, as it can clearly be inferred from above that you do currently see it distorting the scientific method (otherwise why see the need to allow the door of science to be kicked open a little so we can investigate ID), then I'll look forward to you joining me in criticising it.
Frankly, I am astonished at the level of resistance to explore ID using the scientific method when the method has provided a means for determining innumerable things. The objections that have been made bear an acute tone of atheistic maneuvering over anything else.
Yes, the scientific method has provided a means for determining innumerable things, but all those things had one thing in common - they were all based in nature. There is no atheistic maneuvering as this has nothing to do with atheism. This is strictly science we are discussing, whether you're atheist, theist or Australian. I suggest if you really have an issue with this, take it up with a theistic scientist and they'll tell you exactly what I'm telling you.