For the sake of accuracy, you will have to clarify that statement with the period and scope of the observation.
I.e in the last so many years, there has been no observation of Human beings getting assembled from sand. And the geographical scope of observation would be ?
Does this statement presume that ALL things can be understood by the Scientific method?
There is no scientific evidence for such an assumption.
1 Like
Indeed, which is why nobody who holds to such supernatural, spontaneous creation got the idea from studying nature. They happened to get it from a particular reading of a book they hold to be somewhat important to them.
A great question for such a person to ask is- does the Bible teach that God really did spontaneously make two people from nothing? And if it did, should we care/how should we think about that in the modern sense?
It appears that you think that the Bible does teach that and it helps to demonstrate the Bible is a silly book. I happen to think the Bible doesn’t teach that God supernaturally made any people and that’s a bad way to read ancient near eastern cosmogonies.
1 Like
Common that’s silly. The Bible doesn’t even teach that such processes made that man in the garden. It says that God formed him.
Maybe we’d all become engineers then 
4 Likes
No, it doesn’t.
Not referring to the bible here at all… I am looking at the scope of the observation.
In which case there will be a set of things that are not accessible or cannot be explained by the Scientific method.
Would you agree to the above?
1 Like
Nobody is claiming that God regularly assembles people from dust out of thin air. Rather, we’re talking about a one-time event that happened a long time ago. No way to prove or disprove that. Science doesn’t have the tools to investigate a one-time event happening a long time ago with no lasting physical evidence.
1 Like
Scripture says that the creation makes all men aware of the existence of the Creator of it. (Ro 1) Therefore true science should be an analysis of the created world, and not a world marked as one existing via randomness and chance. I applaud men and women who love to analyze the created world. I am sour when historical science takes a philosophical path that interprets the existence of life and the universe itself on naturalistic cruise control. This does not mean that science is capable of determining the nature of God. Rather, it should leave within the realm of conclusions the existence of a Cause at every turn, where the theologian can then be handed the batton. When that baton is handed to the Christian theologian, God creating plants and animals according to their kinds in short order where God concludes with calling His work “very good” trumps naturalistic common descent evolution via selection of random luck and chance over large amounts of time.
I’m not sure. There may be things that remain that way indefinitely, but are there things that we can define as being inaccessible by their nature?
Can everything about nature be measured?
Or is what is being measured and explained more significant than something that cannot be?
Potentially, it can. If it is apparent in nature, and we can access it, why not?
But some things can’t currently certainly. Are they less significant? They may not be potentially. But how could we say?
Certainly science is going to be biased towards what it currently knows and can access. But it is always pressing outward.
1 Like
Yes… which is why we see a bias towards reductionism and materialism.
A reductionist approach may be successful in many areas, but it might be wrong in others.
If Scientists want to claim science is neutral with respect to metaphysics/theology, the they need to look carefully at their communication. Are they making statements that have metaphysical/theological implications. If so, do scientists have sufficient empirical backup to make these claims.
But what does it mean to “have metaphysical/theological implications.” Are these things that can be assessed scientifically in any way? Is there some overriding moral consideration in play? Presuming no, what does science have to say about them, at all? Whose word is it supposed to take about such implications? If you have concerns about implications that aren’t accessible to science, nothing is stopping you from sharing that viewpoint with society at large. Scientists are just doing what they do, exploring the unknown.
The only scientists I know of who regularly make statements with metaphysical/theological implications are those in the area of Intelligent Design.
And there is no empirical backup for such claims. Perceived design is convincing to Christians due to the lenses of our faith.
Never heard of Richard Dawkins, Jerry coyne etc?
Please don’t jab me in the eye with the ridiculous statement that saying there are no metaphysical implications in science IS a metaphysical implication.
If you use that definition… then there is no way ANYTHING escapes your clutches. Can’t you just be a normal person using English… instead of someone who thinks any combination of words he can think of must be a legitimate English sentence?
How did you come to that conclusion? Do you see athiesm/materialism as an absence of metaphysical claims?
That would be wrong.
1 Like
Did you cut and paste that off an atheist website George?
You know, I found this profound wisdom from @NLENTS who made this comment in reply to swamidass and towards the ID folks to whom he and swamidass both disagree:
@swamidass says about ID: I have to wonder if they know they are painted into a corner here, and just do not know the way out.
Lents replies: The same could be said of IC and that’s the problem with their whole approach. If you are starting from a conclusion that you feel you must support (rather than letting the data lead you to a conclusion), it’s basically impossible to interpret data in an unbiased way.
So i wonder if swamidass and lents are ALSO aware of the possibility of bias in interpretation of data from the camp in which they are vested. I of course dont understand all of the nitty gritty in the science of genomes etc, but sure sense that a hyper focus on these tree details in already established organisms sure miss the forest of understanding that the high intracacy of the nerves, optics, network of muscles within an eye structure does not seem to be made by mistakes selected by unintelligence of nature but rather an implemented design by God!
So just as ID may have a bias, so will science that demands a naturalistic explanation for everything at all cost. If a scientist demands a naturalistic cause (because that is the nature of science)and is analyzing the nitty gritty details of adaptation qualities in organisms, then i see no pathway of stopping THIS bias from concluding anything but purely naturalistic causes in universal common descent evolution.
I have an admitted bias: I am a Christian who admittedly was not there in the beginning. So i have chosen to rely on what i consider a reliable history book called the Bible. In my bias, it seems that @swamidass and @NLENTS are out to prove that the history promoted in that book about a God who says He created kinds of plants and animals in short order is actually a liar. I take offense to that. After reading loads of info from both ID and naturalism camps, have to still conclude that it takes more suppressed intelligence and logic thus more blind faith to believe that the natural can take a bacterium and pull this earths existence full of life, and beauty and the appearance of design off, than the idea that God was intracately involved. Maybe that is just my bias talking.