Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@terrellclemmons

It depends on what conclusions you’re referring to. The question would have to be answered on a case-by-case basis.

Please pick a case in which you think that ID proponents are testing or have tested an ID hypothesis.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@terrellclemmons

It doesn’t address the specific question raised in the OP and clarified above in comment #122. (Sorry - I don’t know how to link to a specific comment.)

You’re very unclear, since comment #122 is mine.

The link icon is for that.

[terrellclemmons]

@Mercer

Please pick a case in which you think that ID proponents are testing or have tested an ID hypothesis.

Sorry, not going to go there. I’ll assume you and I are in agreement that your question was overly broad and unanswerable as is. To return to it and just answer, No, we are not in agreement that ID theorists are by definition pseudoscientists and that they don’t ever test conclusions empirically.

I’m happy to note the disagreement and leave it at that.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

Yet your belief prevents you from having the delightful curiosity I have in understanding how they came to be. I would say that I have an extra delight that for you, creates fear and denial.

I am in so much fear and denial. You missed this part:

@DaleCutler

I think I’m beginning to allow that God could have designed and executed his design of the biosphere similarly, using evolution, comparable to his using the evolution of the universe to execute his design for the moon.

(Part of my PM to @Dan_Eastwood was a suggestion that maybe my moniker extension needed to be updated.)

[terrellclemmons]

@Mercer

You’re very unclear, since comment #122 is mine.

Oh, then I apologize. I’m still new to this forum format. If you want clarification, I refer you to the OP. Daniel was clear.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

IDCreationist rants

Someone else is near the threshold of ranting, I’m not sure which side.

[terrellclemmons]

@Mercer

The link icon is for that.

I think I got it, thanks.

Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

I didn’t express the concern that science cannot discuss design because design belongs to the world of values, purpose and meaning, though I remember someone else expressing it earlier on this thread. The concern I have expressed is this: When design is inferred, if it is required that the designer itself be explainable within MN, then philosophical naturalism is governing the whole enterprise of scientific reasoning. This takes us back to the OP and the problem that @dga471 had with the article on BioLogos specifically (and TE/EC more broadly) that the OP referred to. And the problem is this: TE/EC is an attempt to integrate Christianity, which by definition recognizes a supernatural God who sometimes does intervene in the natural world in discernible ways, with a paradigm of science that rules out a priori any recognition of supernatural reality. Biblical Christianity and philosophical naturalism cannot be integrated. They make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of reality…

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

You’re very unclear, since comment #122 is mine.

122 is hers, I believe.

[DaleCutler]

The numbering is funky:

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@terrellclemmons

Sorry, not going to go there.

Of course not.

@terrellclemmons

I’ll assume you and I are in agreement that your question was overly broad and unanswerable as is.

That would be incorrect.

@terrellclemmons

To return to it and just answer, No, we are not in agreement that ID theorists are by definition pseudoscientists and that they don’t ever test conclusions empirically.

Now you’re sneaking in “by definition,” which I did not claim. They are operationally pseudoscientists. They have always been perfectly free to test an ID hypothesis; they simply choose not to.

My observation that they have never empirically tested an ID hypothesis (not merely a conclusion) is easily falsifiable with a single case.

Doesn’t it say something that you can’t point to a single one?

And now that we’ve figured out the post to which you were referring (thanks, Dale), I don’t see anything I’m bringing up that’s not related to your assertions there.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

You missed this part:

I did! Great news!

[terrellclemmons]

@Mercer

Now you’re sneaking in “by definition,” which I did not claim.

You called ID scientists pseudoscientists. I don’t agree with that sweeping ad hominem.

@Mercer

My observation that they have never empirically tested an ID hypothesis (not merely a conclusion) is easily falsifiable with a single case.

Doesn’t it say something that you can’t point to a single one?

It is true that your assertion is easily falsifiable.

Interpret my opting to disengage from further argument with you however you choose.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

I did! Great news!

You also missed

@DaleCutler

Neither belief can be empirically proven.

…so you can abandon your rant about pseudoscience.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@terrellclemmons

You called ID scientists pseudoscientists. I don’t agree with that sweeping ad hominem.

What’s the evidence that they aren’t?

@terrellclemmons

Interpret my opting to disengage from further argument with you however you choose.

OK, but don’t I have to first run my inference by the MN police who will allow or disallow it, though? How do I do that? Is there an email address?

[terrellclemmons]

Are you upset over this, John?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

No, I’m entertained!

[DaleCutler]

There are implications beyond entertainment, however.

[terrellclemmons]

@DaleCutler

There are implications beyond entertainment, however.

Indeed.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mercer

If I’m playing poker, what’s the difference between a flush that I fold with and an identical flush that performs the function of winning me a bunch of money?

It is worth noting that a hand with a 5 of diamonds, 3 of spades, 9 of clubs, 10 of diamonds, queen of hearts, and 6 of clubs is more improbable than a royal flush.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Mercer

If the inferred designer isn’t “accessible” to science, because it is outside the MN boundary, then it isn’t a scientific subject/hypothesis/project. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valid, true, etc. because that would be a metaphysical statement (philosophical naturalism), it just means science can’t address it.

But what the inferred designer (and manufacturer) does is well within the boundary and hypotheses regarding His actions are readily testable, yet IDCreationists neither advance nor test them in favor of endless whining about nonexistent cabals preventing them from doing such important work.

Well, I think it could depend on what exactly the designer did. I’m thinking of @swamidass’ case of God “influencing” evolution through mutations that aren’t detectable by science. Of course, that wouldn’t be scientific hypothesis. So it’s possible a designer did things that science could detect, it’s also possible they did stuff science can’t detect.