(Since God is timeless – a- or omni-temporal, his design, how he interacts with his creation, his ‘technology’, is beyond our comprehension and also beyond our measurement.)
I don’t have time to “dispute” or even analyze hypothetical statements that no one has made, or ever will make. If someone thinks that the earth is warming due to supernatural intervention, because God is going to destroy the world in fire in the year 2057, he or she is welcome to believe that. I’m not interested in such speculations, from either a theological or a scientific point of view. But if someone suggests that simple molecules aren’t likely to have come together to form life without design, I’m interested in that even from a scientific point of view – in fact, more from a scientific point of view than from a theological point of view. The two cases aren’t the same, because we know of many causes other than the direct intervention of God that can warm the land, the seas, and the atmosphere, whereas so far we know of no causes capable of building up integrated complex systems from scratch, other than intelligent ones.
1 Like
Would you consider their position to be scientific? Do you think it is fair for the scientific community to not accept this person’s beliefs because they lack scientific evidence?
Does the person in question say that the earth is warming because of a miracle, i.e., a violation of natural laws? If that is the claim, then obviously scientists will simply say, “We don’t have the tools to investigate miracles, so even if this is true, you’re offering a cause we can neither verify nor falsify.”
On the other hand, if the person in question says that the earth is warming because of a chain of purely natural causes that God in his wisdom set in motion at the time of the formation of the earth, then scientists could investigate the claim of a “front-loaded 4.5 billion years ago” global temperature rise – they could ask if such a degree of front-loading was physically feasible.
So I couldn’t say how I would react without seeing the claim, and since we are talking about a non-existent claim, why is this worth discussing?
On the other hand, we have empirical information, in the here and now, derived from years of verified empirical work in synthetic chemistry, that a “chance” origin of life scenario faces very grave difficulties. This is not a question of invoking miracles or even God; it’s simply recognizing the magnitude of the problems raised by the hypothesis that the first life arose by a sequence of chemical accidents + chains of necessity following from such accidents. Skepticism that life could have arisen in that way is perfectly proper, and perfectly scientific.
I’m not speaking of the dogmatic claim that life couldn’t have arisen in that way, but merely of the skeptical position that it seems dubious. The skeptical position is a perfectly reasonable one for a well-trained, world-class synthetic chemist to take, and thus is perfectly “scientific.”
Certainly not.
Not as a scientific community, but maybe individual scientists should give it more than a second thought. Certainly not a given year or method, since there is so much metaphor in relevant scripture, but for Christians, "…when these things begin to take place [maybe megacryometeors?], straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:28
Let’s define their position:
-
AGW can’t happen because unguided and random natural mechanisms are incapable of changing climate.
-
Therefore, AGW has to be due to supernatural mechanisms.
If this person is so stubborn that they reject any evidence for point 1., and then continue to pronounce point 2., what is the scientific community to do?
I have never understood this. Scientists give something a second thought. Now what? What good does it do?
God causes the climate to change? I don’t see any evidence for it, nor any reason to consider it.
Give it a second thought? Ok. Yep, still don’t see any evidence for it, nor any reason to consider it.
What good is the second thought?
Unless I know the reasons why the hypothetical person believes this, I can’t possibly comment. That is why the discussion is a waste of time. But in the case of Tour, we know the reasons why he thinks typical OOL scenarios are wildly unlikely. He has set them forth. There is no comparison between a claim made without supporting reason and evidence, and a case made with supporting reason and evidence. The scientific community would be right to ignore a religious writer who made an unsubstantiated claim about the incapacity of natural causes to warm the globe. It would be wrong to ignore the difficulties set forth by James Tour.
Because there is evidence that there is more to all that exists than the ‘natural’. Materialism has been disproved.
Exactly.
That’s why ID is rejected by the scientific community. It doesn’t have to do with MN. It has to do with the lack of substantiation for their claims.
ID people have pointed out that “the scientific community” has yet to establish that unguided chemical reactions can produce life from simple molecules. Since this is a true statement, there is no reason why “the scientific community” should be upset about it, unless its pride is ruffled by its failure of achievement regarding OOL.
If ID goes further, and says, “Design is the best explanation,” I can see some resistance being justified, but given that “best explanation” is always tentative, even there, there is no reason for the reaction, since you yourself have granted that design might be legitimately inferred from effects we see in the world. And we do see certain striking effects in the world: complex, integrated systems whose workings dwarf in subtlety those of our most sophisticated man-made systems. It’s prima facie plausible that those systems have the properties they do because of design. There is no reason why scientists should automatically and viscerally snarl at the possibility of design. But as you know, a good number of them do – especially those most vocal in the public discussions.
1 Like
I also don’t understand this claim. Does this mean the Greenhouse Effect has been disproven?
Also, if something affects the natural in a discernible manner then it is part of nature, at least according to MN. Instead of materialism, I would say that MN merely accepts the existence of an objective reality that we can observe. If supernatural beings are a part of that objective reality in some discernible way, then those beings are a part of MN. What matters within MN is the method, not the labels you attach to different things.
If God’s actions are indiscernible then MN is the wrong tool. Instead of talking about science not letting certain views in, we should instead talk about the limits of science.
That’s why the scientific community has yet to accept those explanations as definitive answers.
Saying stuff isn’t science. Explanations in science need to be the result of the scientific method. Possibilities are not scientific conclusions.
Reducing CO2 emissions is the easiest place where we can effect climate change, which is not to say that it is easy.
It was not with respect to the greenhouse effect. We are talking about the limits of science, because we are also talking about ontology, teleology and a few other -ologies that are not covered by science.
The how of God’s actions may be indiscernible, but not the results. Take our moon, for instance.
But of course, it’s precisely on that point that some climatologists disagree. But this is another topic. If you want to start a thread on climate change, go ahead.
And it is right to restrain itself in this way. But I would like to see the excerpts from the biology textbook referred to on the other thread, where apparently statements are made about the origin of life. I would like to see whether or not they overclaim. But the commenter there hasn’t yet provided a copy of the relevant pages.
Well, I’ve already denied the validity of the phrase “the” scientific method (as opposed to a toolkit of scientific methods in the plural), so we need not take that up again.
Agreed. But a scientifically trained person may incline toward one possibility or the other; in fact, it’s almost humanly impossible not to form some tentative opinion. I would bet that 90% of living scientists, certainly 90% of life scientists anyway, have formed a tentative private opinion (not one they would claim scientific authority for) whether life could have arisen by chance and natural laws alone, or would have required design in addition. And I don’t think their scientific training is completely uninvolved in the tentative private opinions they have formed.
Correct, and by that definition, the ID movement isn’t seeking truth.
And since you clearly understand the fundamental activity of science, why are you going on about inferences and some unnamed people who are allegedly regulating them?
1 Like
That appears to conflict mightily with your having time to write: