tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post697061236809425830..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The God of the gaps narrativeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23641417895900474732016-09-01T09:56:31.547-04:002016-09-01T09:56:31.547-04:00The scientistic crowd will only answer that the un...The scientistic crowd will only answer that the universe is a self-existing perpetual motion machine (as if anyone could actually know that) and hence the source of its own laws. They say so not with any firm and irrefutable empirically-derived evidence, but because they are sanitized Baalists who worship the creature rather than the Creator. This is not a war between Science and Religion, but between True and False religion; the latter's appeal to science is but a distraction, mantra, and canard.Kirk Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06142889734004402296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16139039683710014982016-08-28T08:20:26.124-04:002016-08-28T08:20:26.124-04:00Just to piggyback off of this fine post:
1. It...Just to piggyback off of this fine post:<br /><br />1. It's possible there are problems which science can never resolve (e.g. the hard problem of consciousness). If so, then science has its limitations.<br /><br />2. A striking issue with secular science is it doesn't pretend to be unbiased and objective. It readily assumes naturalism - or at least methodological naturalism. The assumption is miracles cannot occur. An a priori rejection of miracles is worked into the secular scientific outlook. <br /><br />However, bona fide scientific investigation would ask in advance whether the gaps in our knowledge about a particular phenomenon is due to a surmountable ignorance of discoverable physical mechanisms, or if it's due to other possibilities such as the fact that physical mechanisms in a specific case are perhaps inherently unknowable. It's scientific to ask if science is or isn't able to investigate a particular phenomenon. Whether or not a particular phenomenon in question falls under the purview of empirical scientific investigation in the first place. <br /><br />If a phenomenon isn't able to be scientifically investigated, then it doesn't necessarily mean it's false or illusory or the like. Rather it may mean we need to pursue other lines of inquiry.<br /><br />3. There's an aspect of willful ignorance in much of secular science. Otherwise secular scientists would allow, say, intelligent design theory to be scientifically assessed. Yet many if not most dismiss the knowledge brought by ID theory out of hand. Mention positive evidence for irreducible complexity, specified complexity, or many of the evidences found in systems biology, and many secular scientists will simply roll their eyes and disengage if not worse.<br /><br />4. Ironically, one could offer similar criticisms of neo-Darwinism as a theory.<br /><br />On the one hand, there are many molecular and cell biologists (among other relevant scientists) such as James Shapiro and Franklin Harold who admit things like: "we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations".<br /><br />But on the other hand, they refuse to part ways with neo-Darwinism. They still wish to hold onto some semblance of neo-Darwinian theory at the same time as proposing their own seismic revisions in neo-Darwinian theory (which they in turn downplay). Every biological event or detail, even if inexplicable by neo-Darwinian mechanisms or processes, is nevertheless attributed to neo-Darwinism in some vague sense. <br /><br />In short, they don't know how to explain the inexplicable in neo-Darwinian theory, but they know neo-Darwinism is true and will someday explain all.<br /><br />5. What's the end game for secular science? <br /><br />It seems to me it's what Einstein once said: "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world". <br /><br />That science can one day discover some set of physical laws and/or mathematical equations by which God is made redundant (e.g. quantum cosmology). From the beginning of the universe to the end of time, we can simply watch the entire universe and all it contains unfold according to a TOE. A physical law(s) which commences and sustains the whole of existence. Plug in the right numbers and equations, and the universe, elements, stars, planets, life, consciousness, and so forth must be.<br /><br />Chance and necessity explain it all. God plays no role. He may or may not exist, but if he does exist, then he's superfluous. <br /><br />However, one problem is, even if we grant all this for the sake of argument, then what explains the existence of such a physical law? If a law, then would there not need to be a lawgiver?rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.com