Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #71]

Actually it doesn't. Many Christians regard (the purported) evolution as itself being part of God's creation.

But how many of them accept that humans evolved from apes (and in fact still are apes taxonomically)? I know plenty of Christians (mostly Catholics) who are OK with the idea that evolution is just how their god implemented things ... except when it comes to humans. They (and most Christians I expect, although I can't link any polls for this) believe humans are special and were created by a god and did not evolve from earlier primates. They accept evolution conditionally ... ie. it can apply to everything but humans.

There is no - repeat no - falsifiable theory of consciousness, none, nor is there a definition, no testable claims or predictions or anything, evolution has zero to say about the subject other than pure speculation.

You missed the point. The evolutionary path of brain development from worms to humans and everything in between suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain. There is a huge correlation between brains and possessing consciousness (and don't regurgitate "correlation does not prove causation" ... we all know that). There are no examples of consciousness (per the standard dictionary definition) existing without a brain. This is an observable fact and I'm pretty sure you cannot provide any confirmed examples to the contrary. This isn't evolutionary speculation as you suggest ... it is a rational conclusion from both evolution and observation that also has not been falsified or proven wrong in any way.

So you agree "anti evolution" is not "anti science"? If I dispute the claims made in one narrow branch of science but I'm totally in agreement with every other branch, that's not "anti science" is it?

Isn't that obvious? Evolution is science, so if someone opposes evolution then that are anti that branch of science. Simple definition.

Your complaints about evolution seem to have some root cause that you've never described well enough for anyone to figure out what it is other than that you just plain don't believe it. And apparently you want non-natural explanations of the natural world to somehow be allowed to exist in science which is the study of how the natural world works (not the supernatural world). Save the non-natural explanations for that realm (which has never been demonstated to actuallly exist) and let science worry about the natural world, with natural explanations.

[Bust Nak]

I think you're referring to a particular kind of theological belief that I would not label as "creationism" or "religion". These terms are much broader than how many here use it, "fundamentalism" is a much better term, but the atheists and evolutionists want to always discredit anyone who dares to disagree with their dogma.

Why are you calling evolution a dogma when it is actually a scientific theory? By that very act you are propagating the perception of "science vs religion."

So they imply that all creationists are poorly educated, factually vacant fundamentalists, its used as rhetoric. I'm a creationist and am just as inclined to argue against that kind of fanatical fundamentalism as any evolutionist.

Perhaps you should stop calling yourself a creationist. When people hear that word they think specifically young Earth creationist. I certainly am using creationism as a short hand for young Earth creationism.

No, the argument that one should not be able freely question the claims made in the name of evolution. That is not science, any intelligent person that's been educated to think critically doesn't need to be told what they should or should not believe. As the ID proponents have said "teach the controversy", the entire situation has a degree of fanaticism on both sides.

There is no controversy within the scientific community though. On the one hand you say there is no incompatibility between science and religion, on the other you say there is a controversy. Which is it?

Look at Burke's opening remarks that may help you see my point. Is there, could there be, by any kind of analysis, grounds for believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great antiquity?

Not scientifically there isn't. As Burke said "you see what your knowledge tells you, you are seeing." Armed with the scientific knowledge we have now, we are seeing the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

Some do argue there is, some regard Biblical chronology as indicating the earth was created 6,000 years ago, some regard the earth and life and human consciousness as compelling evidence of something deeply profound, an intelligent creator of some form. The only way to reconcile that with other scientific discoveries is to postulate that the earth is young and the way we interpret what we observe is flawed, apparent indications of age are not real indications of age, and so on. This is a reasoned argument, it is rational for that reason. That it espouses views that we might not share doesn't make it irrational, since we we know also there is no scientific basis for arguing it is wrong, it could, really could be true, shocking? yes, but if we can't come up with a good demonstration that it's false we should at least respect the fact that it is rational, could even be true.

Same challenge as before: you can say that for any claim, tag on a deity and you have a way to reconcile the claim with scientific discoveries. Here is a contrived unfalsifiable example: "The Earth is flat, but Loki fiddles with recording instruments so the Earth appears ball like when examined." Could it be true? Yes. Can you disprove it? No, not with Loki fiddling with your stuff. Is that rational? You tell me.

Well the freedom to question and disagree is - IMHO - more important than some groups obsession that their way is the only way. This was one of the things that led me to distance myself from atheism and evolution, the self assuredness and arrogance that "this is a fact" and the intolerance of dissent, like suggesting that evolution might not be the full explanation for what we observe is met with a ferocity and drama that frankly astonishes me, that's not science, good science, truly justifiable conclusions has no need of such thought police.

Do you feel the same way with the ball Earth? With gravity? Are we thought police for displaying the same self assuredness and arrogance, same intolerance of dissent, same ferocity and drama against flat Earthers?

Right, which really means that the phrase "religion vs science" is a misnomer, it simply means and only means "doubting evolution", I don't think that narrow dispute in any way amounts to a conflict between religion, theology and the natural sciences.

I just don't ever see this "religion vs science" stuff come up ever with subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity, cosmology, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering and so on, it is always and only when we discuss evolution, to pretend there some huge conflict of minds across all the sciences and all theological views is wrong, it is not about "science" at all.

Look harder, the same "vs" stuff comes up in physics (dating methods in particular,) geology and cosmology. But that's kinda besides the point. The narrow focus just speaks to the intellectual inconsistency of the creationism side, why pick out these certain disputes when they the product of the same scientific method that got us chemistry, electricity, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering? We both know why and it's not because of any scientific reasons.

Well I don't know what you mean by that, certainly no scientists or universities since the dawn of the scientific revolution ever gave the matter any thought, it was never (until relatively recently) seen as even slightly important, the discipline progressed fine.

Okay, so scientists and universities have since the dawn of science, naturally stayed within the restriction without giving it any thought and progressed just fine, surely that's all the more reason not to make a big deal when the restriction is made explicit?

Well the AAS are speaking unscientifically IMHO. What if some scientific research did begin to indicate that a non-natural agency accounted for something we observe?

There is no answer because that scenario is literally impossible, it's an incoherent concept. Scientific research can only produce natural explanations, if there empirical evidence indicating that an agency is responsible for something we observed, then we have a natural explanation involving a natural agency.

Being accused of "not doing science" is to be accused of "doing pseudoscience" do you get it now? can you see what I'm getting at now?

Kinda, in one sense I understand what you are getting at; in another sense I don't understand why you think the scenario is possible.

I don't know what you mean by "science cannot come with you"? The implication that the AAAS bastardization carries, is that there simply cannot actually be a non-natural explanations for natural phenomena...

No such implication exists, not from AAAS, not from evolutionists, not from scientists and not from atheists, you made that up. I've already pointed out that such an implication is simply beyond the scope of science, beyond its epistemological limit. While science can only lead to natural explanations for natural phenomena, that does not imply there cannot be non-natural explanations. You seemed to have made some unwarranted jump in logic.

Non-natural explanations are simply unscientific, that is a very different proposition to "non-natural explanations aren't real or don't/can't exist." You were championing the epistemological limit of science, telling others of what science can and cannot do. Yet time and again, you slipped up and took scientific claims beyond that limit, treating them as if they were claims of the one and only objective truths. Please keep that epistemological limit in mind, put what you are championing into practice.

Right, and that is a rational opinion IF one is a materialist, but as you'll know science cannot be used to show that materialism is true.

The point of the quote, "a priori adherence to material causes" in particular, makes it very clear there is no attempt at using science to show that materialism is true, instead it is simply taken for granted. Materialism is the foundation upon which science is built. So why did you think to point out materialism can't be proven with science, you might as well have said science cannot show that science is true. Perhaps you have the basis and product flipped around?

More importantly, one does not have to be a materialist to have a prior commitment to materialism. Historically, the vast majority of those who contributed to science were not materialists, as you've pointed out in your OP. Newton, perhaps the most famous of all scientists, was a firm believer in an incorporeal God. Yet he had only ever appealed to materialism in his scientific explanations. You know, it doesn't take any effort for an atheist like myself to commit to materialism; but for someone as pious as Newton? That's a real testimony to his commitment. You are doing all religious scientists, past and present, a great disservice by dismissing Lewontin's stance as something that would only make sense to materialists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No the question is why do the AAAS and you yourself, defend the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" into the definition of science? If science progressed wonderfully for many centuries (driven primarily by creationists too) without any mention or concern over this, why bother adding it?

There must be a motive, it cannot be to further the progress of science because we've done fine for hundreds of years without any such clause and no other branch of the sciences even cares about this issue.

The motive can be reasonably inferred as to appease the fretting evolutionists, the entire context in which the clause appears is that of evolution.

The motive is to silence discussion in which the cherished ideology of fundamentalist evolution might be threatened. It is an age old trick, discredit those who might oppose you and the opposition will fade away.

I've already addressed this several times.

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

No it has not Jose, you are quite wrong. The very term "methodological naturalism" only entered the vernacular in the late 20th century, for hundreds and hundreds of years it never ever ever existed. The term itself arose from disputes about creationism and science!

The term "science" FYI is rooted in the Latin "Scientia" which literally means "knowledge".

Making up new terms and redefining old one's is perhaps the only way you can succeed in these debates.

2) There's not a single example in the entire history of science of non-natural causes explaining anything;

What constitutes "the history of science"? Unless you can clearly define that I don't see how your claim can be verified.

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

Pardon? what does that even mean? how can I verify this claim??? come to think of it how did you verify it? (You did verify it didn't you ?)

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

You need to broaden your horizons Jose, if you are insisting empiricism is true just say so (of course if you do you won't be able to prove it, but proving claims never seemed to matter much when its evolutionists making them).

If your position is "I want science to consider X", you have to......get this......actually say what X is! I find it hard to believe that's a revelation for you.

Finally, once again you have completely dodged attempts to get you to provide specific examples of what you're talking about. Rather than make another attempt to get you to do that, I'll just say that this repeated pattern is quite detrimental to your credibility.

Wrong again, you see (and you can quote me, just quote me to prove me a liar!) I never ever ever wrote "I want science to consider <anything>" I never ever ever wrote that, you have made it up, paraphrased, I've mentioned several times that as a supposed scientists supporting your arguments with facts should be routine for you, but oddly it something you find quite hard to do.

So why not try hard to remember what I did say which is "the clause 'seeking natural explanations' has never been part of the definition of 'science"" ? why do you like to pretend we're discussing something else? I know, because I am correct.

It has been added by the AAAS (that same august body that did so much for eugenics in the 1920s!) , for political reasons, you now claim that "science" has always followed "methodological naturalism" yet that term too was made up in 1982! Perhaps science began in 1982 eh? is that it?

[Jose Fly]

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

No it has not Jose, you are quite wrong.

Then provide an example of science being conducted under a different method.

What constitutes "the history of science"? Unless you can clearly define that I don't see how your claim can be verified.

Let's say in the last 250 years. Do you have an example of science being conducted under a different method than methodological naturalism?

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

Pardon? what does that even mean? how can I verify this claim???

?????? We've been discussing methodological naturalism and non-natural explanations for things most of this thread, and you don't even know what "non-natural mechanisms" refers to? Then what the heck is your point here?

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

You need to broaden your horizons Jose, if you are insisting empiricism is true just say so (of course if you do you won't be able to prove it, but proving claims never seemed to matter much when its evolutionists making them).

You're not even making sense.

Wrong again, you see (and you can quote me, just quote me to prove me a liar!) I never ever ever wrote "I want science to consider <anything>" I never ever ever wrote that

Then what exactly is your point here? Do you want something to change? If so, what?

So why not try hard to remember what I did say which is "the clause 'seeking natural explanations' has never been part of the definition of 'science""

It has been added by the AAAS (that same august body that did so much for eugenics in the 1920s!) , for political reasons, you now claim that "science" has always followed "methodological naturalism" yet that term too was made up in 1982!

Except as I showed before, you're wrong. That definition most certainly isn't limited to the AAAS.

But you seem to be trying to play both sides of the fence here. On one hand you complain about science being defined as only including natural causes, but OTOH you say you're not advocating for science to include non-natural causes. If the latter is true, then why does the former bother you at all?

[alexxcJRO]

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

No it has not Jose, you are quite wrong.

Then provide an example of science being conducted under a different method.

What constitutes "the history of science"? Unless you can clearly define that I don't see how your claim can be verified.

Let's say in the last 250 years. Do you have an example of science being conducted under a different method than methodological naturalism?

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

Pardon? what does that even mean? how can I verify this claim???

?????? We've been discussing methodological naturalism and non-natural explanations for things most of this thread, and you don't even know what "non-natural mechanisms" refers to? Then what the heck is your point here?

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

You need to broaden your horizons Jose, if you are insisting empiricism is true just say so (of course if you do you won't be able to prove it, but proving claims never seemed to matter much when its evolutionists making them).

You're not even making sense.

Wrong again, you see (and you can quote me, just quote me to prove me a liar!) I never ever ever wrote "I want science to consider <anything>" I never ever ever wrote that

Then what exactly is your point here? Do you want something to change? If so, what?

So why not try hard to remember what I did say which is "the clause 'seeking natural explanations' has never been part of the definition of 'science""

It has been added by the AAAS (that same august body that did so much for eugenics in the 1920s!) , for political reasons, you now claim that "science" has always followed "methodological naturalism" yet that term too was made up in 1982!

Except as I showed before, you're wrong. That definition most certainly isn't limited to the AAAS.

But you seem to be trying to play both sides of the fence here. On one hand you complain about science being defined as only including natural causes, but OTOH you say you're not advocating for science to include non-natural causes. If the latter is true, then why does the former bother you at all?

Creationists arguments are mostly just convoluted incoherent nonsense dressed in a intentional coat of vagueness so to make possible at any moment for them to weasel out if the S really HTF.
They will never engage in honest debate but always have predetermined paths that they will never go off course.
If you force them of course they would obfuscate, ignore, avoid, invent an imaginary offense to play the professional victim card.
Its so obvious and clear.
They have to attack the strongest guy in town: science in a pathetic attempt to gave some (false)legitimacy to their position.
They can't create legitimacy for their position in a independent way without resorting to attack something else.
This inherent dishonesty comes from the fact they are forced to defend a very weak position which rests on a very strong foundation of ignorance and falsehood.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you're referring to a particular kind of theological belief that I would not label as "creationism" or "religion". These terms are much broader than how many here use it, "fundamentalism" is a much better term, but the atheists and evolutionists want to always discredit anyone who dares to disagree with their dogma.

Why are you calling evolution a dogma when it is actually a scientific theory? By that very act you are propagating the perception of "science vs religion."

Well I started to consider it dogma when militant atheists like Dawkins referred to evolution being a "fact" (it is a hypothesis). A "fact" offers no basis for being questioned, calling some hypothetical process a fact is exactly the same as saying it cannot be question, to question it is absurd. That is not how science historically has progressed. Further, today when anyone tries to discuss evolution's shortcoming and problems, one is dismissed out of hand as being "anti science", instantly attacked, labelled a "creationist" a believer in "pseudoscience". No other branch of the sciences operates in this manner. It is an ideology, a dogma, unquestionable except by fools who "know nothing about science", this is why I call it a dogma.

So they imply that all creationists are poorly educated, factually vacant fundamentalists, its used as rhetoric. I'm a creationist and am just as inclined to argue against that kind of fanatical fundamentalism as any evolutionist.

Perhaps you should stop calling yourself a creationist. When people hear that word they think specifically young Earth creationist. I certainly am using creationism as a short hand for young Earth creationism.

Why? I am a creationist, here is what that term actually means:

A Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will.

That is a position I and a huge number of people, many of them science professors, teachers and so on, hold, that simple, so it is other people who need to educate themselves when they use words like "creationist" in a disparaging manner.

No, the argument that one should not be able freely question the claims made in the name of evolution. That is not science, any intelligent person that's been educated to think critically doesn't need to be told what they should or should not believe. As the ID proponents have said "teach the controversy", the entire situation has a degree of fanaticism on both sides.

There is no controversy within the scientific community though. On the one hand you say there is no incompatibility between science and religion, on the other you say there is a controversy. Which is it?

What is your criteria for deciding there's no controversy regarding the claims of evolution? What is your definition of the "scientific community"? For me the term has no meaning and if we must use it it should be all those who have achieved science related degrees and PhDs at accredited universities nothing more.

There's no incompatibility between science and religion they cannot be in conflict unless one misunderstands one or both of these terms. The controversy is specifically between fanatical evolution advocates and everyone who does not share their dogma.

Look at Burke's opening remarks that may help you see my point. Is there, could there be, by any kind of analysis, grounds for believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great antiquity?

Not scientifically there isn't. As Burke said "you see what your knowledge tells you, you are seeing." Armed with the scientific knowledge we have now, we are seeing the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

Right so the "way" you see it reflects your knowledge, what you've learned, what you believe and so on. It is quite rational to believe the earth is ancient, that is a reasonable way to look at it but it is not the only rational way.

Someone who believes the earth to be 6,000 years old uses different knowledge, different assumptions and therefore reaches a different conclusion. There's no sound argument that the they are wrong either.

Some do argue there is, some regard Biblical chronology as indicating the earth was created 6,000 years ago, some regard the earth and life and human consciousness as compelling evidence of something deeply profound, an intelligent creator of some form. The only way to reconcile that with other scientific discoveries is to postulate that the earth is young and the way we interpret what we observe is flawed, apparent indications of age are not real indications of age, and so on. This is a reasoned argument, it is rational for that reason. That it espouses views that we might not share doesn't make it irrational, since we we know also there is no scientific basis for arguing it is wrong, it could, really could be true, shocking? yes, but if we can't come up with a good demonstration that it's false we should at least respect the fact that it is rational, could even be true.

Same challenge as before: you can say that for any claim, tag on a deity and you have a way to reconcile the claim with scientific discoveries. Here is a contrived unfalsifiable example: "The Earth is flat, but Loki fiddles with recording instruments so the Earth appears ball like when examined." Could it be true? Yes. Can you disprove it? No, not with Loki fiddling with your stuff. Is that rational? You tell me.

You might be right but that is the reality, if we are honest then we must accept that even our "advanced" understanding and explanations are also ultimately also based on pure assumptions. It is a huge error in science education to imply or teach that the way we perceive things scientifically is the "correct way", the "true way", there are many other ways of perceiving and understanding the universe.

Well the freedom to question and disagree is - IMHO - more important than some groups obsession that their way is the only way. This was one of the things that led me to distance myself from atheism and evolution, the self assuredness and arrogance that "this is a fact" and the intolerance of dissent, like suggesting that evolution might not be the full explanation for what we observe is met with a ferocity and drama that frankly astonishes me, that's not science, good science, truly justifiable conclusions has no need of such thought police.

Do you feel the same way with the ball Earth? With gravity? Are we thought police for displaying the same self assuredness and arrogance, same intolerance of dissent, same ferocity and drama against flat Earthers?

But I don't carry that kind assuredness, I am (I hope) open minded, I am always prepared to have my world shaken, if someone can present a reasonable argument for the earth being flat then I should evaluate that argument not prejudge the argument prejudicially. I'm not afraid to be wrong, not at all. I do try to see an argument from the other person's standpoint, my approach is not one of defending my beliefs but rather trying to dispassionately evaluate their argument.

Right, which really means that the phrase "religion vs science" is a misnomer, it simply means and only means "doubting evolution", I don't think that narrow dispute in any way amounts to a conflict between religion, theology and the natural sciences.

I just don't ever see this "religion vs science" stuff come up ever with subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity, cosmology, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering and so on, it is always and only when we discuss evolution, to pretend there some huge conflict of minds across all the sciences and all theological views is wrong, it is not about "science" at all.

Look harder, the same "vs" stuff comes up in physics (dating methods in particular,) geology and cosmology. But that's kinda besides the point.

Where do you suggest I look?

The narrow focus just speaks to the intellectual inconsistency of the creationism side, why pick out these certain disputes when they the product of the same scientific method that got us chemistry, electricity, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering? We both know why and it's not because of any scientific reasons.

What is this "inconsistency of the creationism side" you speak of?

Well I don't know what you mean by that, certainly no scientists or universities since the dawn of the scientific revolution ever gave the matter any thought, it was never (until relatively recently) seen as even slightly important, the discipline progressed fine.

Okay, so scientists and universities have since the dawn of science, naturally stayed within the restriction without giving it any thought and progressed just fine, surely that's all the more reason not to make a big deal when the restriction is made explicit?

I disagree, all of these scientists were - technically speaking - "creationists". Each of them by definition regarded it a fundamental truth that what they were exploring was a created thing, that the laws and structures and patterns and symmetries were the work of an intelligent creative agent. So for all of these people the "explanations" for the many many things they worked on, was quite simply "God" and that caused no problem for them or the growth of scientific knowledge in general.

Well the AAS are speaking unscientifically IMHO. What if some scientific research did begin to indicate that a non-natural agency accounted for something we observe?

There is no answer because that scenario is literally impossible, it's an incoherent concept.

For you perhaps but not me, not for a great many people - including certificated scientists and mathematicians.

Scientific research can only produce natural explanations, if there empirical evidence indicating that an agency is responsible for something we observed, then we have a natural explanation involving a natural agency.

No, these are philosophical statements you are making, not scientific statements. You cannot use science to prove that everything can be explained within the confines of science and its assumptions, for example how can one explain the existence of science using science?

Being accused of "not doing science" is to be accused of "doing pseudoscience" do you get it now? can you see what I'm getting at now?

Kinda, in one sense I understand what you are getting at; in another sense I don't understand why you think the scenario is possible.

Well that's fine then, I don't expect you to see things as I do, but at least be willing to consider that there might be other ways to see things, that's all I ask.

I don't know what you mean by "science cannot come with you"? The implication that the AAAS bastardization carries, is that there simply cannot actually be a non-natural explanations for natural phenomena...

No such implication exists, not from AAAS, not from evolutionists, not from scientists and not from atheists, you made that up.

I don't think that's fair. What if the explanation for some natural thing was found to not be natural? should we stop exploring? should we reject it? tell me what would you do? (Forget about the fact you assume this to be impossible, just for the sake of argument).

I've already pointed out that such an implication is simply beyond the scope of science, beyond its epistemological limit. While science can only lead to natural explanations for natural phenomena, that does not imply there cannot be non-natural explanations. You seemed to have made some unwarranted jump in logic.

But I do not agree that what has been called "science" for centuries ever restricted the scope of explanations. Like I showed you above huge numbers of scientists for centuries all regarded "God" as the explanation for a scientifically structured world even being here.

Non-natural explanations are simply unscientific, that is a very different proposition to "non-natural explanations aren't real or don't/can't exist."

But all scientific arguments today are already unscientific! Everything is explained using reductionism, that is the "explained" things are explained in terms of unexplained things and this is unavoidable and we either say this truly goes on for infinity or there is a non-material non-deterministic agency as the source. The infinity belief is unscientific because nothing can ever be explained and the god belief is unscientific because it abandons laws, determinism and so on.

A crude analogy might be Goidel's incompleteness theorems which in essence says there are claims we can make within rule based system the correctness of which cannot be established using only those rules.

You were championing the epistemological limit of science, telling others of what science can and cannot do. Yet time and again, you slipped up and took scientific claims beyond that limit, treating them as if they were claims of the one and only objective truths. Please keep that epistemological limit in mind, put what you are championing into practice.

Lets recap my contention here is that the definition of science for most of recorded time has not placed any epistemological restriction on what explanations might arise (go and dig out some definitions form the past). The AAAS definition is trying to pretend that science means the same thing as materialism.

Right, and that is a rational opinion IF one is a materialist, but as you'll know science cannot be used to show that materialism is true.

The point of the quote, "a priori adherence to material causes" in particular, makes it very clear there is no attempt at using science to show that materialism is true, instead it is simply taken for granted.

How do you know that every scientist takes that for granted? look at the list I shared earlier, none of those scientists took materialism to be true!

Materialism is the foundation upon which science is built.

I disagree, science is (historically) much more concerned with seeking patterns, establishing laws, discovering mathematical relationships it does not need to assume materialism is true. It is a mode of inquiry where hypotheses are formed, tested and revised.

So why did you think to point out materialism can't be proven with science, you might as well have said science cannot show that science is true. Perhaps you have the basis and product flipped around?

More importantly, one does not have to be a materialist to have a prior commitment to materialism. Historically, the vast majority of those who contributed to science were not materialists, as you've pointed out in your OP. Newton, perhaps the most famous of all scientists, was a firm believer in an incorporeal God. Yet he had only ever appealed to materialism in his scientific explanations. You know, it doesn't take any effort for an atheist like myself to commit to materialism; but for someone as pious as Newton? That's a real testimony to his commitment. You are doing all religious scientists, past and present, a great disservice by dismissing Lewontin's stance as something that would only make sense to materialists.

Well Newton (and many many others, Galileo etc) all regarded "God" as the explanation for the thing they were unravelling, so I don't think they'd agree that God "played no part in their scientific explanations" God played no part in the material aspects of their explanations, I'd accept that but as we can all see science is primarily a mode of inquiry not a claim that all explanations have to be in terms of materialism.

IMHO there's no epistemological purposed served by the AAAS addition, it does nothing helpful at all, it is clearly a way of discouraging dissent with respect to evolution, science never needed such language and does not need it today.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #71]

Actually it doesn't. Many Christians regard (the purported) evolution as itself being part of God's creation.

But how many of them accept that humans evolved from apes (and in fact still are apes taxonomically)? I know plenty of Christians (mostly Catholics) who are OK with the idea that evolution is just how their god implemented things ... except when it comes to humans. They (and most Christians I expect, although I can't link any polls for this) believe humans are special and were created by a god and did not evolve from earlier primates. They accept evolution conditionally ... ie. it can apply to everything but humans.

Right but that's not a conflict between "religion and science", the (untestable) claim that humans can eventually evolve from apes is not science because it cannot be tested.

There is no - repeat no - falsifiable theory of consciousness, none, nor is there a definition, no testable claims or predictions or anything, evolution has zero to say about the subject other than pure speculation.

You missed the point. The evolutionary path of brain development from worms to humans and everything in between suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain.

The claim that human brains can naturally arise from worms is untestable, so if that is untrue then the claim for "gradual emergence" is unjustified.

There is a huge correlation between brains and possessing consciousness (and don't regurgitate "correlation does not prove causation" ... we all know that). There are no examples of consciousness (per the standard dictionary definition) existing without a brain.

How would you test for consciousness existing without a brain? in other words not finding an example could be telling us something about how we look for it.

This is an observable fact and I'm pretty sure you cannot provide any confirmed examples to the contrary.

No I cannot because we still haven't defined what it is we're looking for!

This isn't evolutionary speculation as you suggest ... it is a rational conclusion from both evolution and observation that also has not been falsified or proven wrong in any way.

It is rational yes, I never said evolution was not rational, Darwin was a superb rationalist and scientist.

So you agree "anti evolution" is not "anti science"? If I dispute the claims made in one narrow branch of science but I'm totally in agreement with every other branch, that's not "anti science" is it?

Isn't that obvious? Evolution is science, so if someone opposes evolution then that are anti that branch of science. Simple definition.

This is quite shocking, that you'd really argue this tells me a lot. If I accept all prevailing claims made in the name of science except some pertaining to evolution, then surely I am 99% pro science and only 1% anti science according to your reasoning? To be "anti science" would must be opposed the general practice of science, to a trust in science in general, to the general practice of inquiry, hypothesis, test, review etc. If I disagree with some claim about ancient Egypt that is not being anti-history.

It is more of the linguistic gymnastics that fanatical evolutionists adopt so often, anything, even completely illogical reasoning like your is fine so long as we do all we can to discredit the skeptic, to punish dissent!

It is indefensible and utterly irrational, to equate the expression of skepticism of some subset of claims within a discipline as a rejection of the entire discipline.

Your complaints about evolution seem to have some root cause that you've never described well enough for anyone to figure out what it is other than that you just plain don't believe it. And apparently you want non-natural explanations of the natural world to somehow be allowed to exist in science which is the study of how the natural world works (not the supernatural world). Save the non-natural explanations for that realm (which has never been demonstated to actuallly exist) and let science worry about the natural world, with natural explanations.

Well thankfully your perverse definition of science is not what most scientists understand by the term, I'm grateful for that.

[Jose Fly]

Creationists arguments are mostly just convoluted incoherent nonsense dressed in a intentional coat of vagueness so to make possible at any moment for them to weasel out if the S really HTF.
They will never engage in honest debate but always have predetermined paths that they will never go off course.
If you force them of course they would obfuscate, ignore, avoid, invent an imaginary offense to play the professional victim card.
Its so obvious and clear.
They have to attack the strongest guy in town: science in a pathetic attempt to gave some (false)legitimacy to their position.
They can't create legitimacy for their position in a independent way without resorting to attack something else.
This inherent dishonesty comes from the fact they are forced to defend a very weak position which rests on a very strong foundation of ignorance and falsehood.

I agree. IMO, it's important to remember that creationism is, at its heart, a form of denialism. And more specifically, it's a type of denialism that's rooted not just in religion, but usually a brand of conservative religion. That brings in all sorts of other factors, most significantly how religion is often the most important aspect of their identity and the role it plays in maintaining their emotional well being. That's why they engage in the sorts of behaviors you describe....when it comes right down to it, it's much more preferable to be thought of as a liar and such by a bunch of evolutionists than to take a step down a path that might lead to a crisis of faith.

Years ago a person helped me appreciate how most of what we see from creationists makes sense when viewed through this understanding. They're not debating science so much as they're defending their identity and maintaining the sense of emotional comfort and safety that their religion provides.

[alexxcJRO]

Right so the "way" you see it reflects your knowledge, what you've learned, what you believe and so on. It is quite rational to believe the earth is ancient, that is a reasonable way to look at it but it is not the only rational way.

Someone who believes the earth to be 6,000 years old uses different knowledge, different assumptions and therefore reaches a different conclusion. There's no sound argument that the they are wrong either.

Q: You believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right so the "way" you see it reflects your knowledge, what you've learned, what you believe and so on. It is quite rational to believe the earth is ancient, that is a reasonable way to look at it but it is not the only rational way.

Someone who believes the earth to be 6,000 years old uses different knowledge, different assumptions and therefore reaches a different conclusion. There's no sound argument that the they are wrong either.

Q: You believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Not me, but given an appropriate set of beliefs one can support the argument, the fact is nobody can be sure, there's no way to prove it wasn't just created 6,000 years ago and appears to us to be old.