nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + +
Talk:Methodological naturalism (view source)
Revision as of 16:27, February 26, 2009
, 16:27, February 26, 2009→New start
They say that ID can't be "scientific" because [[science]] only examines physical causes. But ID says that the decision to confine one's research and study to physical causes is itself the problem! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
They say that ID can't be "scientific" because [[science]] only examines physical causes. But ID says that the decision to confine one's research and study to physical causes is itself the problem! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Very interesting conclusion Ed. I would not say that scientists assume that the material world is all there is, as many scientists are of different faiths. I would, however, say that science is limited based on methods of detection. As such it is hard to not study the physical scientifically when the detection methods that currently exist are only able to detect the physical. For example, if I were to say that there is a sunflower in the middle of the room, you could verify this by looking in the room. However, if I were to say there is an invisible sunflower in the room you would be limited to detecting it through means that would not require optics, such as displacement methods. To go further if I were to say there is a mass less, invisible, non-field rendering sunflower in the room you would be unable to verify this based on the current detection methods available currently. The reason why so many scientist say the ID is not scientific is that there is no way to currently detect and research their hypothesis (That life was intelligently designed by something). The reason why evolution does not fall into this situation is based on the hypothesized mechanism of evolution, that mutation can cause the diversity. ID is based on the designer somehow causing the diversity however the mechanism has yet to be explained as to how the designer caused the diversity. The problem, and therefore the reason why science is not accepting of ID, is that we are currently seeing microevolution occur based on the mechanisms explained by evolution however the best explanation that IDists can give is that the designer had predesigned this to occur without providing a mechanism as to how we can detect the hand of the designer or as to how it was preprogrammed.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:27, 26 February 2009 (EST)