Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?

Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?

Is the mind natural, or supernatural ? and what does it tell us about ID theory ?  Dualis10

DesCartes, the 17th century philosopher was a dualist, proposing that our consciousness/mind has a separate reality from our body.6 Is there a God-created soul and spirit and consciousness which exists apart from the body? This is a scientific a philosophical and a religious question. If there is a non-physical soul and spirit, then it might not be detectable by any direct physical measurement, and therefore, it might be, by definition, supernatural. I agree on dualism , based on clinical experiments and testimonies 2 , and philosophy of the mind 3 . Since the mind cannot be detected physically, it is a non-physical entity, and does  not belong to the realm of the physical world, and is supernatural. 

1. The mind is supernatural 
2  The effects of the mind are natural, physical, tangible, visible, and can be tested scientifically. 

Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. 

So can the substance of the mind  be  subject to scientific scrutiny and inquiry ? No. 
Can the effects of the mind subject to scientific scrutiny and testing ? yes. 

According to Discovery, the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.  ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. 

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has however stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." 5

So they question the fact , that the action of a supernatural agent cannot be tested by the methods of science. There is however a shift of terminology, while Discovery points to the effects of intelligence, and how features in nature point to a intelligent agent, the academy of sciences requires that the intervention , the act per se of creation, should be possible of observation, and testing. And if it does not meet that critecia, its not science. Is that true? 

The distinction is basically operational x historical sciences. While through operational sciences  following questions can be answered : 

1. What is X (  Elucidating the components and structure )
2. What does Xthe action, how it works, functions, and operates )
3. What is the performance of X ( what is the efficiency etc. )
4. What is the result of the performance of  X  ( the result of the action. )

historical sciences ask: 

5. What is the origin of X ( how did X arise ) 

The action of X can be observed and tested in operational sciences. The action of X however cannot be observed directly in historical sciences, since events in the past are in question. 

Proponents of ID are acused of making a false distinction, and there is no such thing as operational x historical science. But Jeff Dodick writes: 7

Despite the still-regnant concept of science proceeding by a monolithic “Scientific Method”, philosophers and historians of science are increasingly recognizing that the scientific methodologies of the historical sciences (e.g., geology, paleontology) differ fundamentally from those of the experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry). This new understanding promises to aid education, where currently students are usually limited to the dominant paradigm of the experimental sciences, with little chance to experience the unique retrospective logic of the historical sciences. A clear understanding of these methodological differences and how they are expressed in the practice of the earth sciences is thus essential to developing effective educational curricula that cover the diversity of scientific methods. 

And Ann Gauger uses the same line of reasoning, when she writes:

Defenders of methodological naturalism often invoke definitional or "demarcation criteria" that say that all science must be observable, testable, falsifiable, predictive, and repeatable. Most philosophers of science now dismiss these criteria because there are too many exceptions to the rules they establish in the actual practice of science. Not all science involves observable entities or repeatable phenomena, for example --you can't watch all causes at work or witness all events happen again and again, yet you can still make inferences about what caused unique or singular events based on the evidence available to you. Historical sciences such as archeology, geology, forensics, and evolutionary biology all infer causal events in the past to explain the occurrence of other events or to explain the evidence we have left behind in the present. For such inference to work, the cause invoked must now be known to produce the effect in question. It's no good proposing flying squirrels as the cause of the Grand Canyon, or a silt deposit as the cause of the Pyramids. Squirrels don't dig giant canyons or even small ones, and silt doesn't move heavy stone blocks into an ordered three-dimensional array. However, we know from our experience that erosion by running water can and does produce gullies, then arroyos, and by extension, canyons. We know that intelligent agents have the necessary design capabilities to envision and build a pyramid. No natural force does. These are inferences based on our present knowledge of cause and effect or "causes now in operation." The theory of intelligent design also qualifies as historical science. We cannot directly observe the cause of the origin of life or repeat the events we study in the history of life, but we can infer what cause is most likely to be responsible, as Stephen Meyer likes to say, "from our repeated and uniform experience." In our experience the only thing capable of causing the origin of digital code or functional information or causal circularity is intelligence and we know that the origin of life and the origin of animal life, for example, required the production of just such things in living systems. Even though other demarcation criteria for distinguishing science from non-science are no longer considered normative for all branches of science, it is worth checking to see how well intelligent design fares using criteria that are relevant for an historical science. Briefly, although the designing agent posited by the theory of intelligent design is not directly observable (as most causal entities posited by historical scientists are not), the theory is testable and makes many discriminating predictions. Steve Meyer's book Signature in the Cell, Chapters 18 and 19 and Appendix A, discusses this thoroughly. 8

We can detect and make a distinction between the patterns and effects of a mind , and compare to the effects of natural causal agencies , physical and chemical reactions and interactions, and draw conclusions upon the results.   Thats where ID kicks in, detecting design patterns, and test what is observed in the natural world, to see if they have signs of a intelligent causal agency, and compare the evidence with the efficiency of natural causes, to then, at the end, infer which explanation makes most sense, and fits best the evidence.   So intelligent design does not try to test or to detect or to identify the designer, nor try to detect and test the action of creation, and neither is that required to detect design and infer it as the best explanation of origins,  but examine the natural effects , and upon the results, draw inferences that can provide conclusions of the best explanation model for the most probable origin and cause of the physical parts. So the mere fact that a supernatural agent and its action cannot be scrutinized and observed directly and scientifically, does not disqualify ID as a scientific theory. 

1) On the definition of the concepts thinking, consciousness, and conscience,

Last edited by Admin on Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:57 pm; edited 1 time in total



Paul: Nope - living things store information in their DNA. The information is generated by the interaction of mutations with the environment

And what was the origin of the first gene set required to make the minimal required proteins  to give life the first go ? You can't invoke evolution, since evolution did only start with DNA replication..... 

Paul: Books do not replicate themselves, living things do.

Correct. Which is not a fact that is a plus for naturalistic explanations. Rather the oposit is the case. What mechanism originated the first proteins that are required to make DNA replication happen ?  My contemption is that these proteins had to arise all at once, a stepwise manner is not possible, since if even just one of the more than 30 proteins that are required would be missing, nothing goes, dna replication could not happen. 

Furthermore, why would natural mechanisms produce the mechanism of DNA replication at all ? Did lifeless molecules have the " natural drive " and " will " to become alive through replication? 

Furtermore, it makes no sense to produce the hardware, if not the software together. The main ingredient to make life happen is CS information. So both had to arise togheter. 

I wrote extensively about these issues here: 

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology  that defies naturalistic explanations

Unfortunately, you seem to be a victim of the current status quo of mainstream science, and live inside the BOX of methodological naturalism, as Paul Nelson elucidated. 

This system of indoctrination and the minds behind it which created that demarkation are the REAL LIARS, which are responsible for several generations of scientists, which pietly believe in this philosophical framework, which produces BAD SCIENCE.  

Paul Nelson nails it  down,  when he illustrates the matter of facts  and philosophical landscape of science, that there is a REAL problem of intelligent design not being given the importance and merited space it deserves as a scientific THEORY, because its a priori let out of the box, and that is how i see it, because  there is A SPIRITUAL BATTLE GOING ON to win our minds and souls, ( yes, i have the courage to name it ), and also a general denial of proponents of naturalism to admit intelligent design as legitimate and serious scientific theory with a solid and sound philosophical framework behind , based on BIAS, not on reason. A example par exellence is how everything is done by the scientific establishment to keep scientific papers on intelligent design out of the mainstream scientific peer reviewed publishing because its stamped as not legitimate scientific theory and science, and persecution of scientists that have the guts to try, like happened with Sternberg:

If intelligent design theorists do manage to publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, Darwinists will make sure the editor suffers grievously for it.


Post Author: Bill Pratt
One of the most common charges that intelligent design (ID) opponents hurl at ID theorists is that ID is not real science. They will say that a real scientific theory must be testable against the empirical world, must make predictions, must be falsifiable, must be explanatory by reference to natural law, and so forth. They point to ID and say that it doesn’t meet all of these criteria, and therefore ID must not be science.
But is that true? Are there really criteria that define whether something is science or not science? Well, if you ask philosophers of science (the academic experts on this question), they will tell you that no such criteria exists. Every attempt at formulating an ironclad set of criteria has ended up accidentally excluding what scientists consider to be legitimate scientific fields. There is no set of agreed upon criteria for separating science from pseudo-science; it just doesn’t exist among philosophers of science.
According to philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, leading philosophers of science such as Larry Laudan, Philip Quinn, and Philip Kitcher have argued that the question of whether something is science or non-science is both “intractable and uninteresting.” Meyer explains that “they and most other philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is ‘scientific’ according to some abstract definition, but whether a theory is true, or supported by the evidence.”
That is the key. Theories should not be rejected or accepted with definitions of what is or is not science, but with the evidence that supports the theory. This concept seems so simple and obvious, but the attempt at demarcating between science and non-science is a favorite technique of ID opponents. By calling ID non-scientific, opponents never have to look at the evidence. How convenient! Call it pseudo-science and move on, without ever stopping to examine the evidence or evaluate the arguments offered by ID proponents.
Meyer quotes one philosopher of science, Martin Eger, who concludes, “Demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that’s a different world.” Indeed it is.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum