Historical sciences, and methodological naturalism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1692-historical-sciences-and-methodological-naturalism
O.Grasso: Why does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ? May 13, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrCs3u8LHU
Historical science is not worse, more restricted, or less capable of achieving firm conclusions because experiment, prediction, and subsumption under invariant laws of nature do not represent its usual working methods. The sciences of history use a different mode of explanation, rooted in the comparative and observational richness of our data. We cannot see a past event directly, but science is usually based on inference, not unvarnished observation (you don’t see electrons, gravity, or black holes either). (Gould 1989, 279)
https://sci-hub.wf/10.1177/0048393120944223
Claim: There is no distinction between historical, and operational science
Response: Operational science asks a fundamentally different question: How do things work/operate in the natural world. Historical science asks: How did things come to be/emerge/develop in the past? These are distinct and different questions.
Carol E. Cleland Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method 2001
Classical” Experimental science performs experiments that play a variety of roles besides the testing of hypotheses. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a significant portion of experimental work is devoted to testing hypotheses in controlled laboratory settings.
In Historical Science, an investigator observes puzzling traces (effects) of long-past events. Hypotheses are formulated to explain them. The hypotheses explain the traces by postulating a common cause for them. Thus the hypotheses of prototypical historical science differ from those of classical experimental science insofar as they are concerned with event-tokens instead of regularities among event-types. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that historical explanations often have the character of stories that, lacking reference to specific generalizations, seem inherently untestable.
https://sci-hub.ren/https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/29/11/987/197903/Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the
Historical scientists focus their attention on formulating mutually exclusive hypotheses and hunting for evidentiary traces to discriminate among them. The goal is to discover a “smoking gun.” A smoking gun is a trace(s) that unambiguously discriminates one hypothesis from among a set of currently available hypotheses as providing “the best explanation” of the traces thus far observed
https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/odonnell17online/files/2017/07/Cleland-2001.pdf
Claim: The fabled scientific consensus does not regard the term "Operational science" or the creationist understanding of "Historical science" as valid scientific terminology, and these heresies primarily appear in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution and nebular hypothesis Wikipedia are really scientific.
Reply: Methodological naturalism is the framework upon which operational science performs empirical tests and attempts to elucidate and explain how natural things work and operate. Historical science asks a different question, namely how things occurred in the past. Historical science draws its data from records of past events, as opposed to "experimental" or "operational" science. It uses the knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past. While it is justified to limit possible explanations related to operational science to methodological naturalism, since things operate in nature without supernatural intervention, in regards of origins, there is no justification to limit the possible explanations only to natural ones. While random, unguided natural events is a possible explanation of origins, so is intelligent design.
Either the physical universe and all in it emerged by a lucky accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction, purely physicodynamic processes and reactions, or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator. Excluding a priori, one possible explanation leads undoubtedly to bad inferences and bad science.
When we see a bicycle, and never saw one before: the question: How does it work, and what is its function? will give us entirely different answers, then: What made the bicycle and how was it made?
Intelligence is a known reality and therefore it is entirely legitimate for science to consider it among the possible causal factors in a given phenomenon coming about. Intelligent agency is currently the only causally adequate explanation for the machinery by which the cell translates DNA code having its assembly instructions also coded in the DNA.
Carol E. Cleland Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method 2001
Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
https://sci-hub.ren/https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/29/11/987/197903/Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the
"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. "Historical science" covers the Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution, and nebular hypothesis
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
International Committee of Historical Sciences
The International Committee of Historical Sciences / Comité international des Sciences historiques (ICHS / CISH) is the international association of historical scholarship. It was established as a non-governmental organization in Geneva on May 14, 1926. It is composed of national committees and international affiliated organizations devoted to research and to scholarly publication in all areas of historical study. There are currently 51 national committees and 30 international associations members of the CISH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_Historical_Sciences
The first difference is that historical study is a matter of probability. Any and all historical theories are supported by evidence that is not deductive in nature. We might consider them to be inferences to the best explanation, or Bayesian probabilities but they cannot be deductions. historical theories are not based on experiments, – repeatable or otherwise – nor are historical theories subject to empirical verification. The evidence for a historical theory may be empirical, but the theory itself is not. These differences mean that one cannot simply treat science and history as similar disciplines.
http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
Historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/81ca/78baf41581a70ddf0af3115ea8255aace4fb.pdf
Question: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Answer: Andreas Sommer Materialism vs. Supernaturalism? “Scientific Naturalism” in Context July 19, 2018
About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley and members of a group called the “X Club” effectively hijacked science into a vehicle to promote materialism (the philosophy that everything we see is purely the result of natural processes apart from the action of any kind of god and hence, science can only allow natural explanations). Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, who was more introverted and aggressively fought the battle for him. Wikipedia has an interesting article worth reading titled, “X Club.” It reveals a lot about the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of this group.
Jessica Riskin Biology’s mistress, a brief history 01 Oct 2020
J. B. S. Haldane "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03080188.2020.1794388?journalCode=yisr20
Christian de Duve Nobel Laureate Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning 2002
‘Scientific inquiry rests on the notion that all manifestations in the universe are explainable in natural terms, without supernatural intervention.
https://3lib.net/book/671683/43ba15
Steven Weinberg Nobel Laureate: ‘Beyond belief: science, religion, reason, and survival.’ 2006
Addressing the question whether science should do away with religion: ‘The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.’ Unsurprisingly, Richard Dawkins went even further. ‘I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion.’
While it is justified to limit possible explanations related to operational science to methodological naturalism, since things operate in nature without supernatural intervention, in regards of origins, there is no justification to limit the possible explanations only to natural ones. While random, unguided natural events is a possible explanation of origins, so is intelligent design.
Biosemiosis: A more rational approach:
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with searching for a purely material origin for the semiotic system required to organize the cell. However, if a claim based on those ideas is merely assumed to be true (as is the case across modern biology today), and if that assumption is then used to institutionalize the attack on a valid scientific alternative, then that practice is not only illogical, but is a clear abuse of scientific practice. In fact, it is the ultimate “science stopper”. As it stands right now, if materialism is not true, there is no way under current practices for science to correct itself. And in a perfect irony, it is this concept of self-correction that materialists routinely use to promote their dominance over the institution.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170614142752/http://www.biosemiosis.org/index.php/why-is-this-important
RICHARD LEWONTIN January 9, 1997
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(Lewontin 1997)
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
Materialism regards itself as scientific, and indeed is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its opponents, but it has no legitimate claim to be part of science. It is, rather, a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter, or, as Democritus put it, “atoms and the void.” 2
Physicist Steven Weinberg: “Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion” (2000). The days of scientific appeals to God are over.
Steve Benner: is a world-class abiogenesis researcher. Look what he confesses in the YouTube video: RTB Presentation Steven Benner Dec 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KChJgqHTuiE
" Darwinism which Darwinism is a derivative of right that is indeed creationism right that's in fact understand the basis for all that they in terms of their solution they invoke God which I have a problem with that is very hard to get our wisdom started because the chemistry doesn't let you do it."
My comment: Here Benner exposes nicely his a priori commitment to naturalism because he has a problem with Creationism. In other words: He does not infer Creationism, not because the evidence does not lead to it, but because, in his own words, he has a problem with it.....
Leonard Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 176
Nevertheless, the general attitude of theoretical physicists to Weinberg’s work was to ignore it. Traditional theoretical physicists wanted no part of the Anthropic Principle. Part of this negative attitude stemmed from lack of any agreement about what the principle meant. To some it smacked of creationism and the need for a supernatural agent to fine-tune the laws of nature for man’s benefit: a threatening, antiscientific idea. But even more, theorists’ discomfort with the idea had to do with their hopes for a unique consistent system of physical laws in which every constant of nature, including the cosmological constant, was predictable from some elegant mathematical principle.
https://3lib.net/book/2472017/1d5be1
ANIL ANANTHASWAMY Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? MARCH 7, 2012
This “anthropic principle” infuriates many physicists, for it implies that we cannot really explain our universe from first principles. “It’s an argument that sometimes I find distasteful, from a personal perspective,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, author of A Universe From Nothing . “I’d like to be able to understand why the universe is the way it is, without resorting to this randomness.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
Victor J. Stenger Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose? July/August 1999.
For about a decade now, an increasing number of scientists and theologians have been asserting, in popular articles and books, that they can detect a signal of cosmic purpose poking its head out of the noisy data of physics and cosmology (see, for example, Swinburne 1990, Ellis 1993, Ross 1995). This claim has been widely reported in the media (see, for example, Begley 1998, Easterbrook 1998), perhaps misleading lay people into thinking that some kind of new scientific consensus is developing in support of supernatural beliefs. In fact, none of this purported evidence can be found in the pages of scientific journals, which continue to operate within a framework in which all physical phenomena are assumed natural.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111004111941/https://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/anthro.skinq.html
Closer to truth: WHY COSMIC FINE-TUNING DEMANDS EXPLANATION
The fact that you exist makes some people quite uncomfortable. Specifically, the fact that the Universe – translated, the laws, constants and relationships of physics – is bio-friendly and allows for the origin, development, evolution, and overall the existence of living things makes some cosmologists and physicists uncomfortable. Current explanations of why the Universe should be bio-friendly don’t sit well with some subsets of this professional community.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-cosmic-fine-tuning-demands-explanation
Andreas Sommer Materialism vs. Supernaturalism? “Scientific Naturalism” in Context July 19, 2018
About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley and members of a group called the “X Club” effectively hijacked science into a vehicle to promote materialism (the philosophy that everything we see is purely the result of natural processes apart from the action of any kind of god and hence, science can only allow natural explanations). Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, who was more introverted and aggressively fought the battle for him. Wikipedia has an interesting article worth reading titled, “X Club.” It reveals a lot about the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of this group.
Huxley said that it was a waste of time to dialogue with creationists. The discussions always went nowhere. His approach was to attack the person, not the argument. He never discussed their evidence in an open manner. Establishing public understanding that science and God were incompatible was his major goal. To discuss anything in an open venue with those looking at science from a religious perspective would only give them credibility.
Huxley and the X-club members had exclusive control of the British Royal Society presidency for thirteen consecutive years, from 1873 to 1885. Their goal was to convert the society into a vehicle to promote materialism. They succeeded in this even to this day. As such, they were actually pseudo-scientists, placing personal philosophical preferences above honest scientific analysis.
Modern evolutionary science has come to follow this example. If something challenges materialism, it is rejected as false science regardless of its strength. As a “sales tactic” this approach has been effective. Materialists discuss all of the well-known advances and understandings from legitimate science and then claim that they also apply to the results of evolutionary dogma. To challenge evolutionary dogma in any manner is to go against the understanding of the vast majority of scientists across many fields of study. Therefore, evolutionary science is understood to be fact and it is false science even to acknowledge that challengers have anything legitimate to say. Hence, my article is outright rejected, even though it does not mention God, because it clearly indicates that materialism is inadequate. This challenges the true heart of this philosophy that has hijacked science for the past 150 years and continues to this day.
By contrast to the above approach, one proper subject matter of investigation is to determine the scope of a task to be accomplished. Another is to determine the scope of the natural processes available for the task. However, because of the materialistic bias of modern science, it is forbidden on the one hand to talk simultaneously about the biochemical and genomic information requirements to implement a natural origin of life and on the other hand the scientifically observed capabilities of natural process to meet these needs. The chasm is virtually infinite. This is obvious to anyone who looks at it without bias. But, since the goal is to support materialism at any cost, this discussion is forbidden. If the article Dr. Matzko and I authored were to be published in a standard journal, it would open the door for discussion of all of the weakness of evolutionary theory. This possibility terrifies materialists, because they know the scope of the unexplained difficulties they are facing and which they do not want to be known publicly.
Incidentally, I have written a collection of five articles discussing these issues. Article 4 is an 18-page discussion of how Huxley and the X Club turned evolutionary science into a vehicle to promote materialism at the expense of honest scientific investigation. I believe that almost everyone reading this article will be shocked at the deception materialists use by design in their tactics. To them, this is warfare. The easiest way to win a war is for your enemy to be ignorant of your tactics and agenda. So, they disguise their agenda of materialism to make people equate it with science. They have been successful in this.
It challenges anyone who disagrees with anything presented in the Five Articles to explain their basis. In general, I expect very few legitimate challenges. So far, there have been none. 150 years ago Huxley established a policy of refusing to discuss science with creationists in a venue not under his control (i.e., he could attack but they weren’t allowed to respond). Huxley would then viciously attack the creationist personally in an effort to get attention off of their comments. Materialists today still follow Huxley’s approach. Notice the difference: I welcome open discussion. The major science journals run from it.
http://www.forbiddenhistories.com/scientific-naturalism/?fbclid=IwAR2odJ_LtQgQjmmSJke4pRE6i0UB8z2mNqwHmtesHyNP9uVzX4nEjdQzLQs
The X Club was a distinguished dining club of nine influential men who championed the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England (1870s & 1880s). Back then these prominent scientists and intellectuals wielded considerable influence over scientific thought. The "esteemed" members of the X Club:
1. Thomas Henry Huxley: The initiator of the X Club, Huxley was a prominent biologist and a fervent supporter of Charles Darwin’s theories. His dedication to science and intellectual freedom was the driving force behind the club’s formation.
2. Joseph Dalton Hooker: Revered as one of the most respected botanists of his time, Hooker was a close friend of Charles Darwin. His contributions to plant taxonomy and exploration were significant.
3. John Tyndall: A physicist and mountaineer, Tyndall made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of heat radiation and atmospheric science. His work on the absorption of infrared radiation by gases was pivotal.
4. Herbert Spencer: A philosopher and sociologist, Spencer is known for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” His ideas influenced both scientific and social thought during the Victorian era.
5. Francis Galton: A polymath, Galton made significant contributions to fields such as statistics, psychology, and genetics. He coined the term “eugenics” and pioneered the study of heredity.
6. Edward Frankland: A chemist, Frankland’s work focused on organic chemistry and valence theory. He was a key figure in advancing chemical knowledge during the 19th century.
7. George Busk: An anatomist and paleontologist, Busk contributed to our understanding of fossil mammals and marine life. His expertise extended to comparative anatomy.
8. William Spottiswoode: A mathematician and physicist, Spottiswoode served as the club’s treasurer. His contributions to mathematics and scientific publishing were noteworthy.
9. Thomas Archer Hirst: A mathematician and physicist, Hirst’s work spanned areas such as elasticity theory and mathematical physics. His insights enriched scientific discourse.
The atheists will tell us, "Together, these remarkable individuals formed the X Club, united by their devotion to science, unencumbered by religious dogmas. Their influence extended beyond the club’s meetings, shaping the scientific landscape of London and leaving a lasting legacy in the annals of scientific history."
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/X/bo28082465.html?fbclid=IwAR1m35o902L13aRTPHS2nsG3YyOnzah97koYK0TgLx0g1Xo2Af7Up7XkPdY_aem_AZTTjwel3JUtcOe0A5RKTpoy9zeUwloB1mdTiNCMV_IoLc_688mYgz5OVUxXOjSvjulbmv47av6W-mdg1xU2TBaB
The fact that science papers do not point to God, does not mean that the evidence unravelled by science does not point to God. All it means,is that the philosophical framework based on methodological naturalism that surrounds science since its introduction in the 19th century through Thomas Huxley, Darwins bulldog, and the X-club, is a flawed framework, and should have been changed a long time ago, when referencing to historical science, which responds to questions of origins. Arbitrary a priori restrictions are the cause of bad science, where it is not permitted to lead the evidence wherever it is.
The proponents of design make only the limited claim that an act of intelligence is detectable in the organization of living things, and using the very same methodology that materialists themselves use to identify an act of intelligence, design proponents have successfully demonstrated their evidence. In turn, their claim can be falsified with a single example of a dimensional semiotic system coming into existence without intelligence.
The specific complex information of living systems as, well as fine-tuning agents of a life-permitting universe and immaterial truths, etc have causal materialistic dead ends. However, intelligent design is a current observable mechanism to explain the design, thus are an adequate simple causal mechanism to explain these realities of our universe, its fine tuning improbabilities, information, immaterial abstracts, etc. Intelligence can and is a causal agent in the sciences such as forensics, archeology engineering, etc., thus there is no reason to rule out a priori the unobserved designer scientifically. We only rule him out by philosophical or anti-religious objection, which anybody has the free will right to do, but it isn't necessarily true or right to do so, and we can't use science to do so, if we are unbiased, correctly using the discipline. Additionally, to argue non-empirical causes are inadequate would rule out many would be mainstream secular materialistic hypothetical causes as well. It then becomes a matter of preference to the type of causes one is willing to accept and one's preferred worldview has a lot to do with that.
There are following possible causing agents of origins and the universe as a whole:
There are 4 possibilities we are faced with regarding the beginning of the universe:
1. The universe is an illusion and none of this exists
2. The universe is "self-created"
3. The universe is "self-existent/eternal"
4. The universe was created by someone who is "self-existent/eternal"
1. The universe and the physical laws: an intelligent creator, or random unguided natural events
2. The fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of life: an intelligent creator, random natural events, and physical necessity
3. Biodiversity: above three, and evolution
This result means that intelligent design cannot be removed entirely from consideration in the historical sciences. They are a division of history rather than science, and what applies to history, in general, applies to them. However, evidence must be found to support them.
Let's suppose you have a crime scene. So you call an investigator, He comes, and wishes to start his investigation. The victim has a bullet in her chest. No fire arm nearby. Then you say to him: Friend, in your county its only permitted to infer that the victim died of natural causes. No inference that a murderer shot the victim is aloud. Now write your report What would you say?
This illustrates why I am against methodological naturalism applied in historical sciences because it teaches us to be satisfied with not permitting the scientific evidence of historical events to lead us wherever it is. Philosophical Naturalism is just one of the possible explanations of the origin of the universe, it's fine tuning, has no answer about the origin of life, explains very little about biodiversity, and what it explains, it explains bad, has no explanation about essential questions, like the arise of photosynthesis, sex, conscience, speech, languages, morality. It short: it lacks considerable explaining power, which attracts so many believers, because they think, they do in their life whatever pleases them, no interference from above.
Sean Carroll, in his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself.
Science should be interested in determining the truth, whatever that truth may be – natural, supernatural, or otherwise. The stance known as methodological naturalism, while deployed with the best of intentions by supporters of science, amounts to assuming part of the answer ahead of time. If finding truth is our goal, that is just about the biggest mistake we can make.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/intelligent-design-and-methodological-naturalism-no-necessary-contradiction/
Scientific evidence is what we observe in nature. The understanding of it like micro biological systems and processes is the exercise and exploration of science. What we infer through the observation, especially when it comes to the origin of given phenomena in nature, is philosophy, and based on individual induction and abductional reasoning. What looks like a compelling explanation to somebody, can not be compelling to someone else, and eventually, I infer the exact contrary.
In short, the imposition of methodological naturalism is plainly question- begging, and it is thus an error of method.
PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE
A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:
We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3726
Luke A. Barnes writes:
Theory testing in the physical sciences has been revolutionized in recent decades by Bayesian approaches to probability theory.
Wiki: Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. .......and......... historical sciences, including intelligent design theory which tries to explain how most probably past events occurred. That is similar to abductive reasoning :
Wiki: Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand the abductive reasoning as "instant-deduction to the best explanation".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf
No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis.
For, we did not – and cannot -- directly observe the remote past, so origins science theories are in the end attempted “historical” reconstructions of what we think the past may have been like. Such reconstructions are based on investigating which of the possible explanations seems "best" to us on balance in light of the evidence. However, to censor out a class of possible explanations ahead of time through imposing materialism plainly undermines the integrity of this abductive method.
http://iose-gen.blogspot.com.br/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html#methnat
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Stephen Meyer, Darwin's Doubt pg.162:
Studies in the philosophy of science show that successful explanations in historical sciences such as evolutionary biology need to provide “causally adequate” explanations—that is, explanations that cite a cause or mechanism capable of producing the effect in question. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly attempted to show that his theory satisfied this criterion, which was then called the vera causa (or “true cause”) criterion. In the third chapter of the Origin, for example, he sought to demonstrate the causal adequacy of natural selection by drawing analogies between it and the power of animal breeding and by extrapolating from observed instances of small-scale evolutionary change over short periods of time.
“Methodological naturalism destroys the truth-seeking purpose of science, dooming it as a game with an arbitrarily restricted set of possible outcomes.” Dr. Paul Nelson
International Committee of Historical Sciences
In science there are no “facts”, just observations (observations and laws), and explanations (hypotheses and theories). “Fact” is a apologetic or legal term. As far as explanations go in science: “hypotheses” are educated guesses, but “theories” are close enough to the actual mechanism being studied to make accurate predictions. Peter Medawar (AD 1915-1987) Biologist/ Agnostic/ Physiology or Medicine Nobel AD 1960. My favorite Medawar quote is “I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not”. (Medawar, AD 1979, p. 39). In preparing this dissertation, it struck me that even, the intensity of my conviction that a God hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not. There MUST be evidence! Hence, the title of my nearly complete dissertation in Biblical studies: “The Imprimatur Of Our Triune God Is Seemingly Everywhere On A Fundamental Level In Science”. And what is becoming one of my favorite Bible verses: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20, NIV).
Medawar, Peter B. (AD 1979) “Advice to a Young Scientist” (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Series) New York: Basic Books, Perseus Book Group.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Donald Gould, former Editor of New Scientist, "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)
That was in '92 and it is far worse today.
Why does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrCs3u8LHU
Limiting scientific inquiry that automatically excludes certain explanations is not science, it's indoctrination.
1. Credit to: Steven Guzzi
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2017/01/29/a-physicist-talks-god-and-the-quantum/#6f9172582c86
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1692-historical-sciences-and-methodological-naturalism
O.Grasso: Why does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ? May 13, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrCs3u8LHU
Historical science is not worse, more restricted, or less capable of achieving firm conclusions because experiment, prediction, and subsumption under invariant laws of nature do not represent its usual working methods. The sciences of history use a different mode of explanation, rooted in the comparative and observational richness of our data. We cannot see a past event directly, but science is usually based on inference, not unvarnished observation (you don’t see electrons, gravity, or black holes either). (Gould 1989, 279)
https://sci-hub.wf/10.1177/0048393120944223
Claim: There is no distinction between historical, and operational science
Response: Operational science asks a fundamentally different question: How do things work/operate in the natural world. Historical science asks: How did things come to be/emerge/develop in the past? These are distinct and different questions.
Carol E. Cleland Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method 2001
Classical” Experimental science performs experiments that play a variety of roles besides the testing of hypotheses. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a significant portion of experimental work is devoted to testing hypotheses in controlled laboratory settings.
In Historical Science, an investigator observes puzzling traces (effects) of long-past events. Hypotheses are formulated to explain them. The hypotheses explain the traces by postulating a common cause for them. Thus the hypotheses of prototypical historical science differ from those of classical experimental science insofar as they are concerned with event-tokens instead of regularities among event-types. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that historical explanations often have the character of stories that, lacking reference to specific generalizations, seem inherently untestable.
https://sci-hub.ren/https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/29/11/987/197903/Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the
Historical scientists focus their attention on formulating mutually exclusive hypotheses and hunting for evidentiary traces to discriminate among them. The goal is to discover a “smoking gun.” A smoking gun is a trace(s) that unambiguously discriminates one hypothesis from among a set of currently available hypotheses as providing “the best explanation” of the traces thus far observed
https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/odonnell17online/files/2017/07/Cleland-2001.pdf
Claim: The fabled scientific consensus does not regard the term "Operational science" or the creationist understanding of "Historical science" as valid scientific terminology, and these heresies primarily appear in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution and nebular hypothesis Wikipedia are really scientific.
Reply: Methodological naturalism is the framework upon which operational science performs empirical tests and attempts to elucidate and explain how natural things work and operate. Historical science asks a different question, namely how things occurred in the past. Historical science draws its data from records of past events, as opposed to "experimental" or "operational" science. It uses the knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past. While it is justified to limit possible explanations related to operational science to methodological naturalism, since things operate in nature without supernatural intervention, in regards of origins, there is no justification to limit the possible explanations only to natural ones. While random, unguided natural events is a possible explanation of origins, so is intelligent design.
Either the physical universe and all in it emerged by a lucky accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction, purely physicodynamic processes and reactions, or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator. Excluding a priori, one possible explanation leads undoubtedly to bad inferences and bad science.
When we see a bicycle, and never saw one before: the question: How does it work, and what is its function? will give us entirely different answers, then: What made the bicycle and how was it made?
Intelligence is a known reality and therefore it is entirely legitimate for science to consider it among the possible causal factors in a given phenomenon coming about. Intelligent agency is currently the only causally adequate explanation for the machinery by which the cell translates DNA code having its assembly instructions also coded in the DNA.
Carol E. Cleland Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method 2001
Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
https://sci-hub.ren/https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/29/11/987/197903/Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the
"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. "Historical science" covers the Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution, and nebular hypothesis
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
International Committee of Historical Sciences
The International Committee of Historical Sciences / Comité international des Sciences historiques (ICHS / CISH) is the international association of historical scholarship. It was established as a non-governmental organization in Geneva on May 14, 1926. It is composed of national committees and international affiliated organizations devoted to research and to scholarly publication in all areas of historical study. There are currently 51 national committees and 30 international associations members of the CISH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_Historical_Sciences
The first difference is that historical study is a matter of probability. Any and all historical theories are supported by evidence that is not deductive in nature. We might consider them to be inferences to the best explanation, or Bayesian probabilities but they cannot be deductions. historical theories are not based on experiments, – repeatable or otherwise – nor are historical theories subject to empirical verification. The evidence for a historical theory may be empirical, but the theory itself is not. These differences mean that one cannot simply treat science and history as similar disciplines.
http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
Historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/81ca/78baf41581a70ddf0af3115ea8255aace4fb.pdf
Question: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Answer: Andreas Sommer Materialism vs. Supernaturalism? “Scientific Naturalism” in Context July 19, 2018
About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley and members of a group called the “X Club” effectively hijacked science into a vehicle to promote materialism (the philosophy that everything we see is purely the result of natural processes apart from the action of any kind of god and hence, science can only allow natural explanations). Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, who was more introverted and aggressively fought the battle for him. Wikipedia has an interesting article worth reading titled, “X Club.” It reveals a lot about the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of this group.
Jessica Riskin Biology’s mistress, a brief history 01 Oct 2020
J. B. S. Haldane "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03080188.2020.1794388?journalCode=yisr20
Christian de Duve Nobel Laureate Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning 2002
‘Scientific inquiry rests on the notion that all manifestations in the universe are explainable in natural terms, without supernatural intervention.
https://3lib.net/book/671683/43ba15
Steven Weinberg Nobel Laureate: ‘Beyond belief: science, religion, reason, and survival.’ 2006
Addressing the question whether science should do away with religion: ‘The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.’ Unsurprisingly, Richard Dawkins went even further. ‘I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion.’
While it is justified to limit possible explanations related to operational science to methodological naturalism, since things operate in nature without supernatural intervention, in regards of origins, there is no justification to limit the possible explanations only to natural ones. While random, unguided natural events is a possible explanation of origins, so is intelligent design.
Biosemiosis: A more rational approach:
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with searching for a purely material origin for the semiotic system required to organize the cell. However, if a claim based on those ideas is merely assumed to be true (as is the case across modern biology today), and if that assumption is then used to institutionalize the attack on a valid scientific alternative, then that practice is not only illogical, but is a clear abuse of scientific practice. In fact, it is the ultimate “science stopper”. As it stands right now, if materialism is not true, there is no way under current practices for science to correct itself. And in a perfect irony, it is this concept of self-correction that materialists routinely use to promote their dominance over the institution.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170614142752/http://www.biosemiosis.org/index.php/why-is-this-important
RICHARD LEWONTIN January 9, 1997
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(Lewontin 1997)
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
Materialism regards itself as scientific, and indeed is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its opponents, but it has no legitimate claim to be part of science. It is, rather, a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter, or, as Democritus put it, “atoms and the void.” 2
Physicist Steven Weinberg: “Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion” (2000). The days of scientific appeals to God are over.
Steve Benner: is a world-class abiogenesis researcher. Look what he confesses in the YouTube video: RTB Presentation Steven Benner Dec 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KChJgqHTuiE
" Darwinism which Darwinism is a derivative of right that is indeed creationism right that's in fact understand the basis for all that they in terms of their solution they invoke God which I have a problem with that is very hard to get our wisdom started because the chemistry doesn't let you do it."
My comment: Here Benner exposes nicely his a priori commitment to naturalism because he has a problem with Creationism. In other words: He does not infer Creationism, not because the evidence does not lead to it, but because, in his own words, he has a problem with it.....
Leonard Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 176
Nevertheless, the general attitude of theoretical physicists to Weinberg’s work was to ignore it. Traditional theoretical physicists wanted no part of the Anthropic Principle. Part of this negative attitude stemmed from lack of any agreement about what the principle meant. To some it smacked of creationism and the need for a supernatural agent to fine-tune the laws of nature for man’s benefit: a threatening, antiscientific idea. But even more, theorists’ discomfort with the idea had to do with their hopes for a unique consistent system of physical laws in which every constant of nature, including the cosmological constant, was predictable from some elegant mathematical principle.
https://3lib.net/book/2472017/1d5be1
ANIL ANANTHASWAMY Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? MARCH 7, 2012
This “anthropic principle” infuriates many physicists, for it implies that we cannot really explain our universe from first principles. “It’s an argument that sometimes I find distasteful, from a personal perspective,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, author of A Universe From Nothing . “I’d like to be able to understand why the universe is the way it is, without resorting to this randomness.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
Victor J. Stenger Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose? July/August 1999.
For about a decade now, an increasing number of scientists and theologians have been asserting, in popular articles and books, that they can detect a signal of cosmic purpose poking its head out of the noisy data of physics and cosmology (see, for example, Swinburne 1990, Ellis 1993, Ross 1995). This claim has been widely reported in the media (see, for example, Begley 1998, Easterbrook 1998), perhaps misleading lay people into thinking that some kind of new scientific consensus is developing in support of supernatural beliefs. In fact, none of this purported evidence can be found in the pages of scientific journals, which continue to operate within a framework in which all physical phenomena are assumed natural.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111004111941/https://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/anthro.skinq.html
Closer to truth: WHY COSMIC FINE-TUNING DEMANDS EXPLANATION
The fact that you exist makes some people quite uncomfortable. Specifically, the fact that the Universe – translated, the laws, constants and relationships of physics – is bio-friendly and allows for the origin, development, evolution, and overall the existence of living things makes some cosmologists and physicists uncomfortable. Current explanations of why the Universe should be bio-friendly don’t sit well with some subsets of this professional community.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-cosmic-fine-tuning-demands-explanation
Andreas Sommer Materialism vs. Supernaturalism? “Scientific Naturalism” in Context July 19, 2018
About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley and members of a group called the “X Club” effectively hijacked science into a vehicle to promote materialism (the philosophy that everything we see is purely the result of natural processes apart from the action of any kind of god and hence, science can only allow natural explanations). Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, who was more introverted and aggressively fought the battle for him. Wikipedia has an interesting article worth reading titled, “X Club.” It reveals a lot about the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of this group.
Huxley said that it was a waste of time to dialogue with creationists. The discussions always went nowhere. His approach was to attack the person, not the argument. He never discussed their evidence in an open manner. Establishing public understanding that science and God were incompatible was his major goal. To discuss anything in an open venue with those looking at science from a religious perspective would only give them credibility.
Huxley and the X-club members had exclusive control of the British Royal Society presidency for thirteen consecutive years, from 1873 to 1885. Their goal was to convert the society into a vehicle to promote materialism. They succeeded in this even to this day. As such, they were actually pseudo-scientists, placing personal philosophical preferences above honest scientific analysis.
Modern evolutionary science has come to follow this example. If something challenges materialism, it is rejected as false science regardless of its strength. As a “sales tactic” this approach has been effective. Materialists discuss all of the well-known advances and understandings from legitimate science and then claim that they also apply to the results of evolutionary dogma. To challenge evolutionary dogma in any manner is to go against the understanding of the vast majority of scientists across many fields of study. Therefore, evolutionary science is understood to be fact and it is false science even to acknowledge that challengers have anything legitimate to say. Hence, my article is outright rejected, even though it does not mention God, because it clearly indicates that materialism is inadequate. This challenges the true heart of this philosophy that has hijacked science for the past 150 years and continues to this day.
By contrast to the above approach, one proper subject matter of investigation is to determine the scope of a task to be accomplished. Another is to determine the scope of the natural processes available for the task. However, because of the materialistic bias of modern science, it is forbidden on the one hand to talk simultaneously about the biochemical and genomic information requirements to implement a natural origin of life and on the other hand the scientifically observed capabilities of natural process to meet these needs. The chasm is virtually infinite. This is obvious to anyone who looks at it without bias. But, since the goal is to support materialism at any cost, this discussion is forbidden. If the article Dr. Matzko and I authored were to be published in a standard journal, it would open the door for discussion of all of the weakness of evolutionary theory. This possibility terrifies materialists, because they know the scope of the unexplained difficulties they are facing and which they do not want to be known publicly.
Incidentally, I have written a collection of five articles discussing these issues. Article 4 is an 18-page discussion of how Huxley and the X Club turned evolutionary science into a vehicle to promote materialism at the expense of honest scientific investigation. I believe that almost everyone reading this article will be shocked at the deception materialists use by design in their tactics. To them, this is warfare. The easiest way to win a war is for your enemy to be ignorant of your tactics and agenda. So, they disguise their agenda of materialism to make people equate it with science. They have been successful in this.
It challenges anyone who disagrees with anything presented in the Five Articles to explain their basis. In general, I expect very few legitimate challenges. So far, there have been none. 150 years ago Huxley established a policy of refusing to discuss science with creationists in a venue not under his control (i.e., he could attack but they weren’t allowed to respond). Huxley would then viciously attack the creationist personally in an effort to get attention off of their comments. Materialists today still follow Huxley’s approach. Notice the difference: I welcome open discussion. The major science journals run from it.
http://www.forbiddenhistories.com/scientific-naturalism/?fbclid=IwAR2odJ_LtQgQjmmSJke4pRE6i0UB8z2mNqwHmtesHyNP9uVzX4nEjdQzLQs
The X Club was a distinguished dining club of nine influential men who championed the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England (1870s & 1880s). Back then these prominent scientists and intellectuals wielded considerable influence over scientific thought. The "esteemed" members of the X Club:
1. Thomas Henry Huxley: The initiator of the X Club, Huxley was a prominent biologist and a fervent supporter of Charles Darwin’s theories. His dedication to science and intellectual freedom was the driving force behind the club’s formation.
2. Joseph Dalton Hooker: Revered as one of the most respected botanists of his time, Hooker was a close friend of Charles Darwin. His contributions to plant taxonomy and exploration were significant.
3. John Tyndall: A physicist and mountaineer, Tyndall made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of heat radiation and atmospheric science. His work on the absorption of infrared radiation by gases was pivotal.
4. Herbert Spencer: A philosopher and sociologist, Spencer is known for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” His ideas influenced both scientific and social thought during the Victorian era.
5. Francis Galton: A polymath, Galton made significant contributions to fields such as statistics, psychology, and genetics. He coined the term “eugenics” and pioneered the study of heredity.
6. Edward Frankland: A chemist, Frankland’s work focused on organic chemistry and valence theory. He was a key figure in advancing chemical knowledge during the 19th century.
7. George Busk: An anatomist and paleontologist, Busk contributed to our understanding of fossil mammals and marine life. His expertise extended to comparative anatomy.
8. William Spottiswoode: A mathematician and physicist, Spottiswoode served as the club’s treasurer. His contributions to mathematics and scientific publishing were noteworthy.
9. Thomas Archer Hirst: A mathematician and physicist, Hirst’s work spanned areas such as elasticity theory and mathematical physics. His insights enriched scientific discourse.
The atheists will tell us, "Together, these remarkable individuals formed the X Club, united by their devotion to science, unencumbered by religious dogmas. Their influence extended beyond the club’s meetings, shaping the scientific landscape of London and leaving a lasting legacy in the annals of scientific history."
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/X/bo28082465.html?fbclid=IwAR1m35o902L13aRTPHS2nsG3YyOnzah97koYK0TgLx0g1Xo2Af7Up7XkPdY_aem_AZTTjwel3JUtcOe0A5RKTpoy9zeUwloB1mdTiNCMV_IoLc_688mYgz5OVUxXOjSvjulbmv47av6W-mdg1xU2TBaB
The fact that science papers do not point to God, does not mean that the evidence unravelled by science does not point to God. All it means,is that the philosophical framework based on methodological naturalism that surrounds science since its introduction in the 19th century through Thomas Huxley, Darwins bulldog, and the X-club, is a flawed framework, and should have been changed a long time ago, when referencing to historical science, which responds to questions of origins. Arbitrary a priori restrictions are the cause of bad science, where it is not permitted to lead the evidence wherever it is.
The proponents of design make only the limited claim that an act of intelligence is detectable in the organization of living things, and using the very same methodology that materialists themselves use to identify an act of intelligence, design proponents have successfully demonstrated their evidence. In turn, their claim can be falsified with a single example of a dimensional semiotic system coming into existence without intelligence.
The specific complex information of living systems as, well as fine-tuning agents of a life-permitting universe and immaterial truths, etc have causal materialistic dead ends. However, intelligent design is a current observable mechanism to explain the design, thus are an adequate simple causal mechanism to explain these realities of our universe, its fine tuning improbabilities, information, immaterial abstracts, etc. Intelligence can and is a causal agent in the sciences such as forensics, archeology engineering, etc., thus there is no reason to rule out a priori the unobserved designer scientifically. We only rule him out by philosophical or anti-religious objection, which anybody has the free will right to do, but it isn't necessarily true or right to do so, and we can't use science to do so, if we are unbiased, correctly using the discipline. Additionally, to argue non-empirical causes are inadequate would rule out many would be mainstream secular materialistic hypothetical causes as well. It then becomes a matter of preference to the type of causes one is willing to accept and one's preferred worldview has a lot to do with that.
There are following possible causing agents of origins and the universe as a whole:
There are 4 possibilities we are faced with regarding the beginning of the universe:
1. The universe is an illusion and none of this exists
2. The universe is "self-created"
3. The universe is "self-existent/eternal"
4. The universe was created by someone who is "self-existent/eternal"
1. The universe and the physical laws: an intelligent creator, or random unguided natural events
2. The fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of life: an intelligent creator, random natural events, and physical necessity
3. Biodiversity: above three, and evolution
This result means that intelligent design cannot be removed entirely from consideration in the historical sciences. They are a division of history rather than science, and what applies to history, in general, applies to them. However, evidence must be found to support them.
Let's suppose you have a crime scene. So you call an investigator, He comes, and wishes to start his investigation. The victim has a bullet in her chest. No fire arm nearby. Then you say to him: Friend, in your county its only permitted to infer that the victim died of natural causes. No inference that a murderer shot the victim is aloud. Now write your report What would you say?
This illustrates why I am against methodological naturalism applied in historical sciences because it teaches us to be satisfied with not permitting the scientific evidence of historical events to lead us wherever it is. Philosophical Naturalism is just one of the possible explanations of the origin of the universe, it's fine tuning, has no answer about the origin of life, explains very little about biodiversity, and what it explains, it explains bad, has no explanation about essential questions, like the arise of photosynthesis, sex, conscience, speech, languages, morality. It short: it lacks considerable explaining power, which attracts so many believers, because they think, they do in their life whatever pleases them, no interference from above.
Sean Carroll, in his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself.
Science should be interested in determining the truth, whatever that truth may be – natural, supernatural, or otherwise. The stance known as methodological naturalism, while deployed with the best of intentions by supporters of science, amounts to assuming part of the answer ahead of time. If finding truth is our goal, that is just about the biggest mistake we can make.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/intelligent-design-and-methodological-naturalism-no-necessary-contradiction/
Scientific evidence is what we observe in nature. The understanding of it like micro biological systems and processes is the exercise and exploration of science. What we infer through the observation, especially when it comes to the origin of given phenomena in nature, is philosophy, and based on individual induction and abductional reasoning. What looks like a compelling explanation to somebody, can not be compelling to someone else, and eventually, I infer the exact contrary.
In short, the imposition of methodological naturalism is plainly question- begging, and it is thus an error of method.
PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE
A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:
We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3726
Luke A. Barnes writes:
Theory testing in the physical sciences has been revolutionized in recent decades by Bayesian approaches to probability theory.
Wiki: Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. .......and......... historical sciences, including intelligent design theory which tries to explain how most probably past events occurred. That is similar to abductive reasoning :
Wiki: Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand the abductive reasoning as "instant-deduction to the best explanation".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf
No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis.
For, we did not – and cannot -- directly observe the remote past, so origins science theories are in the end attempted “historical” reconstructions of what we think the past may have been like. Such reconstructions are based on investigating which of the possible explanations seems "best" to us on balance in light of the evidence. However, to censor out a class of possible explanations ahead of time through imposing materialism plainly undermines the integrity of this abductive method.
http://iose-gen.blogspot.com.br/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html#methnat
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Stephen Meyer, Darwin's Doubt pg.162:
Studies in the philosophy of science show that successful explanations in historical sciences such as evolutionary biology need to provide “causally adequate” explanations—that is, explanations that cite a cause or mechanism capable of producing the effect in question. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly attempted to show that his theory satisfied this criterion, which was then called the vera causa (or “true cause”) criterion. In the third chapter of the Origin, for example, he sought to demonstrate the causal adequacy of natural selection by drawing analogies between it and the power of animal breeding and by extrapolating from observed instances of small-scale evolutionary change over short periods of time.
“Methodological naturalism destroys the truth-seeking purpose of science, dooming it as a game with an arbitrarily restricted set of possible outcomes.” Dr. Paul Nelson
International Committee of Historical Sciences
In science there are no “facts”, just observations (observations and laws), and explanations (hypotheses and theories). “Fact” is a apologetic or legal term. As far as explanations go in science: “hypotheses” are educated guesses, but “theories” are close enough to the actual mechanism being studied to make accurate predictions. Peter Medawar (AD 1915-1987) Biologist/ Agnostic/ Physiology or Medicine Nobel AD 1960. My favorite Medawar quote is “I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not”. (Medawar, AD 1979, p. 39). In preparing this dissertation, it struck me that even, the intensity of my conviction that a God hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not. There MUST be evidence! Hence, the title of my nearly complete dissertation in Biblical studies: “The Imprimatur Of Our Triune God Is Seemingly Everywhere On A Fundamental Level In Science”. And what is becoming one of my favorite Bible verses: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20, NIV).
Medawar, Peter B. (AD 1979) “Advice to a Young Scientist” (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Series) New York: Basic Books, Perseus Book Group.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Donald Gould, former Editor of New Scientist, "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)
That was in '92 and it is far worse today.
Why does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrCs3u8LHU
Limiting scientific inquiry that automatically excludes certain explanations is not science, it's indoctrination.
1. Credit to: Steven Guzzi
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2017/01/29/a-physicist-talks-god-and-the-quantum/#6f9172582c86
Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:00 am; edited 59 times in total
