Can you articulate why science will never be able to help identify the super-natural? What about origin events like OOL and OOU?
How could a methodology based on matter-and-energy interactions detect a non-matter-and-energy (that is, supernatural) interaction? How would that work? How would a “Supernatural Intervention Detector” work? How would you invent one?
Why should we assume that an origin of life event was “super-natural”? And couldn’t God have created a universe where living organisms arise from non-living materials by means of natural processes? Why or why not? (The Bible says that all humans and all other animals are made from the dust of the ground—so it certainly seems possible to me.)
1] If you believe origin events require the presence of God … you have just hurled your hat into the real of the supernatural.
2] Science only works on NATURAL processes.
3] You either hold that even all MIRACLES are just more mysterious forms of the natural order… or that MIRACLES transcend the natural order.
4] By definition, if the miraculous transcend nature, science comes to its natural limit.
Same way you detect anything not directly observable: by its effects on what you can observe. A priori rejection of the supernatural is not how MN or science, whatever you want to call it, works.
3 Likes
See Evan Fales:
1 Like
@gbrooks9 claim is that detecting design by observing nature is impossible. Do you agree with this claim?
I agree we should not assume it but the evidence is against a natural origin of life IMO. Design is a viable explanation given the evidence. By design I mean provided directly fully functioning from God. Science does a very good job describing life or matter it can observe. It does a poor job coming up with an explanation of its ultimate origin.
@colewd (and @AllenWitmerMiller ):
Behe’s views seem relevant at this point. When he discusses God making the universe work through a divine billiards shot - - aside from the very moment of creation, Behe is proposing that all events after the moment of creation could be completely natural. But he does not make a completely natural universe as one that is devoid of design.
So the question comes down to whether God exclusively uses natural processes to effect His goals or not. Most theists allow for God to sometimes suspend the natural order to accomplish something special; this implies the super-natural.
EXAMPLE: The Dino-Killing Asteroid
Did God, from the very beginning AFTER creation, arrange for an asteroid to be naturally created and sent on an intercept course with Earth?
Or, was the lethal Asteroid specially created (miraculously created) and fired at the Earth miraculously?
Or was it just something that happened?
1 Like
For the purposes of making progress in my discussion with a Theist, I’m going to analyze two versions of an INTENTIONAL hit on the Earth by a dino-killing asteroid.
The question is to compare two versions of an INTENTIONAL asteroid strike.
I wonder if this conversation is conflating two different things that we (or science) might want to “detect.” They are, IMO, REALLY different. What follows are not pronouncements on behalf of “science” but my views on what these various terms and concepts mean. My views, of course, are correct. 
-
The “presence” of the supernatural. Science does not have tools to “detect the supernatural.” This is why the various instruments in Ghostbusters are funny and it’s why the 21 grams thing is funny. Some argue that science can’t do this (detect the supernatural) by definition but I disagree. In some other universe where “supernatural” is defined clearly in such a way as to make it detectable publicly, “science” would be able to “detect the supernatural.” The reason this is outside of science now (and, IMO, forever), is not “MN” or anything like it. The reason is that the only method of detection of the supernatural is private: “I experienced X.” All other “methods” used to argue for the detection of the supernatural have been, so far, discredited. And private knowledge is, in my view, one of the things precluded by “science” (in the context of empirical detection or measurement).
-
The effects of supernatural “intervention.” I think this should be obvious: science is not merely able to detect effects of such intervention–the very definition of “intervention” depends on scientific observation. The hard part, for science and for the defenders of the gods alike, is providing explanations for the gaps/anomalies/discontinuities that are asserted whenever “intervention” is the topic. Of course, if “intervention” is not the topic, and instead some people are talking about their gods and how nice they are and how they are immanent blah blah blah, then science is out of the picture, not because of MN or corrupt atheist journal editors, but because–come on, people, this should be obvious–there is nothing to explain. In other words, when someone says “the Morrígan, hail to her glorious name, used evolution to create leeches” they aren’t violating MN they are just saying something that has no explanatory value and suggests no question in need of answering. It isn’t “outside of science” because it’s about a badass Celtic goddess. It’s “outside of science” because it’s vacuous. Science can get involved the instant any claim about the Morrígan or Thor or the FSM or some bloodthirsty Iron Age deity offers an explanation for something that can be publicly examined. “The Morrígan used her power to conceive Bob” is a vacuous statement outside science; “Bob’s conception can only be explained by the action of the Morrígan” is completely different. It’s a scientific claim subject to examination of public evidence.
3 Likes
No, it implies not understanding God or His word.
Isaiah 55:8-9 - “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
God is not some sort of puppet master pulling all the strings, and “supernatural” and “miracle” are just other terms for “I don’t know” without having to say it. But we will never know, God is God, He is beyond human existence and understanding. I don’t mean to say give up on seeking knowledge, just that using “supernatural” as scientific reasoning to me equates with “I don’t know” which is no explanation at all.
This is my beloved friend John, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him!
2 Likes
Ah, so you’re assuming methodological supernaturalism.
Can you quote a relevant paragraph? I think there is a paywall at this site:
The Abstract included this text:
"… the appeal to the supernatural should not be ruled out as science for methodological reasons,
but rather because the notion of supernatural intervention probably suffers from fatal flaws."
That God knows how to do something that humans don’t (like say, raise someone from the dead) does not mean that it is supernatural, it means that humans don’t know how.
I am a theist, you are assuming a lot, making stuff up (like that an asteroid hit earth as an intentional act to kill off dinosaurs) and it doesn’t make any sense in regard to the topic (unless addressing “things that ID needs to get straight” to which you should listen up).
1 Like
If by this you mean to say science doesn’t know how to make an a priori determination regarding an event being supernatural versus natural - - then I agree.
But if we are making classroom distinctions about hypotheticals… it is pretty clear that Science is not going to do anything productive with a supernatural event.
I agree. A lot of established scientific phenomena would have seemed “supernatural” several generations ago, such as neutrinos, gravitational waves, “spooky action at a distance”, and cosmic rays. However, they are now considered common place because we can detect and measure these phenomena and understand where they come from.
Sometimes such statements are practically untestable because they are not defined according to easily measurable criteria. For example if someone says, “Embracing Orthodox Judaism has made me become a better person,” the definition of “better” is often subjective or too vague to scientifically test. They also involve some degree of private evidence, as you said in your first point. But I disagree that such statements are vacuous, in the sense of thoughtless, meaningless, or empty. They just do not serve the same explanatory purpose as an easily scientifically testable sentence like “The Earth has a radius of about 6,000 km.”
3 Likes
Yes, that is a sensible assertion.
But if we don’t fashion a plausible definition of a distinction between natural and super-natural, ultimately nobody is going to be satisfied.
The topic is making a definition of super-natural that accommodates the more EXCEPTIONAL scenario - - the one where God does something that literally doesn’t comply with natural laws.
If you refuse to address this specific scenario - - you are not doing anyone any favors.
1 Like
Detecting a change in mass of 21 grams is not at all what is intended by the anti-ID crowd. Yes… we can detect the change in weight. But if it was super-naturally caused… we will never be able to determine how the change by 21 grams was effected.
That sentence is not comprehensible but it’s also unconnected to the topic.