I think that’s one of the common misconceptions about MN, that it imposes arbitrary limits or boundaries on what can be considered by the scientific method. But any question that can be addressed thru science, math and empirical evidence is fair game. It does not matter if the phenomenon under consideration is actually “supernatural.”
In practice, this would been if we had good convincing evidence that there was a being running around splitting seas and raising the dead, we would incorporate this knowledge into our understanding of the “natural” world. We would not consider it some exception to the natural laws of the universe and just wall it off into a separate ontological category.
MN imposes no limits whatsoever on what we may know. That is just an lame excuse made by people who believe in the “supernatural” for their inability to provide any good evidence for their beliefs. When someone loses the game, it is poor sportsmanship to blame the rules of the game.
Your question answers itself: Because there is no evidence for anything that could possess such a mind. Every mind of which we know is attached to a multicellular organism. So the same process of “induction” you are misusing to prop up your religious fantasies works against the very argument you make.
Well, you have not identified a contradiction, so this is a non-response.
That Bill Cole thinks there is good evidence for the existence of a pre-biotic mind only tells us about the sort of stuff Bill Cole is inclined to believe.
I wasn’t referring to particular arguments advanced by ID proponents. (And I don’t agree that all of those are poor, by the way, but they weren’t what my statement was about.) I was referring to the general attitude of disapproval regarding design inferences. It has nothing to do with the particular movement we call ID. It long predates ID, long predates even the births of the ID leaders. The resistance to design inferences is strong in all the sciences except those which clearly deal with human activity (e.g., anthropology, archaeology). Evograd was cherry-picking his example from a science where design inferences are clearly allowed, and thus deflecting atttention from the much greater number of sciences where design inferences are severely frowned upon.
If I’m wrong, someone can do a count of all the articles published in the past 100 years in journals of anthropology etc. presenting design inferences, and a count of all the articles published in the past 100 years journals of cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology presenting design inferences, and, when the count verifies what everyone already knows about the difference, explain why there should be any difference, if there is no more professional resistance to design inferences in the non-human sciences than in the human ones.
This is wrong. We could empirically determine a person is dead. We could observe that his brain activity has ceased or, if we really want to be sure, we can decapitate his body and liquefy his brain in a blender.
If we then come back an hour later and find him cheerfully walking around with his head re-attached to his body like nothing happened, we will have confirmed a resurrection. Whether or not the investigators are philosophical naturalists would have no bearing on the finding.
Evidence for a mind (a complex functional sequence) is not evidence is a contradiction. Something you have done to ignore a large amount of evidence that may contradict your worldview.
You’re fundamental reasoning is circular based on an arbitrary criteria.
We cannot observe God so all evidence of his existence is invalid. You are denying inductive reasoning which is a fundamental of science.
Allow me to illustrate. “Logic” as done by ID creationists:
In our experience, “complex functional sequences” are created by minds.
DNA consists of “complex functional sequences”.
Conclusion: DNA was created by a mind.
In our experience, minds only arise from organisms whose existence requires DNA.
Conclusion: Well, that doesn’t mean anything, there could be a mind that exists apart from DNA, , just because we don’t experience something doesn’t mean it couldn’t exist, that’s scientism, and why do you hate God?
And yet you ID creationists feel justified in saying that “complex functional sequences” only arise from a mind based on nothing but your “experience”.
See the contradiction yet?
(That is in addition to the fact that we know, thru direct observation, that “complex functional sequences” arise in DNA thru nothing more than undirected mutations.)
Yes. `There are so many possible creators. An infinite number we can’t even conceive or enumerate. Plus there are potential aliens and creatures with near god-like powers.
The best explanation for long functional sequences is a mind. This is based on our experience of what minds can do.
You are free to demonstrate that undirected mutations can create functional sequences that can build a multicellular organism and your Nobel prize along with 5 million dollars from Perry Marshalls group awaits you.
