JOHN_A_DESIGNER: You wrote that the anti-ID folks “fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.”

So is ID science?

In my opinion it is not science. My point was simply that the anti-ID folk are often just as unscientific. They say; "there is no Designer so only a naturalistic explanation of origins is permissible." Is this statement any more scientific than saying; "There is order and design in the universe therefore there must be a Designer"?

Raevmo: The origin of what?

Ultimate origins. "Why there is something rather than nothing."

You use the same tactic with cosmology that critics use with biology. Insert an arbitrary stoppage point into a causal trail. Atoms originate from stars heh. Where do stars come from? Where would all that primordial hydrogen following a BB come from? The best means of gauging scientific limits is by the limits of accurate predictions based on empirical data. We do not know what would have preceeded the origin of the universe. We do not know how a series of chemical reactions could give rise to a cell. Those are limits to our scientific understanding.

I didn't say science can answer all origin questions. I just denied that science can't answer any origin questions. Yes, we do not know what preceded the origin of the universe, assuming something preceded it at all. We haven't worked out yet how a series of chemical reactions could give rise to a cell, but we're making progress. It's you who is inserting an arbitrary stoppage point. You insist we can't figure out how life originated because you assume without reasonable grounds that only God could have done it. Would it really destroy your faith if we discovered how life can originate without His intervention?

The origin of what? Science is quite capable of answering many questions about origins. We know that the atoms in our bodies originate from long-dead stars. We know quite a bit about the evolutionary origin of humans. There is no reason to assume the origin of life is beyond the capabilities of science.

You use the same tactic with cosmology that critics use with biology. Insert an arbitrary stoppage point into a causal trail. Atoms originate from stars heh. Where do stars come from? Where would all that primordial hydrogen following a BB come from? The best means of gauging scientific limits is by the limits of accurate predictions based on empirical data. We do not know what would have preceeded the origin of the universe. We do not know how a series of chemical reactions could give rise to a cell. Those are limits to our scientific understanding.

What they seem to fail to realize is that questions about origins are simply beyond the scope of science. They fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.

The origin of what? Science is quite capable of answering many questions about origins. We know that the atoms in our bodies originate from long-dead stars. We know quite a bit about the evolutionary origin of humans. There is no reason to assume the origin of life is beyond the capabilities of science.

So is ID science? That is where I part company (in a civil non-hostile way) with many in the ID community. The version of ID I subscribe to doesn’t see ID as science or as a scientific theory but as an interpretation of certain scientific discoveries. Something, that in my opinion, is a legitimate role for philosophers and theologians.

Count me in your corner, sir. This is exactly the attitude I take - glad to know there are others around who appreciate some aspects of the ID community but still have a similar reservation.

Thanks for the compliment. You wrote that the anti-ID folks “fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.”

So is ID science? That is where I part company (in a civil non-hostile way) with many in the ID community. The version of ID I subscribe to doesn’t see ID as science or as a scientific theory but as an interpretation of certain scientific discoveries. Something, that in my opinion, is a legitimate role for philosophers and theologians.

The questions of origin: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness raise interesting if not puzzling questions. At present these are the kinds of questions that science has not and cannot answer. Yet if you read a popular work by science writers, like Dawkins, Dennett, or the late Carl Sagan etc., you're more than likely get loads of authoritative opinion about theses kinds of questions and be left with the impression that these are the kinds of questions that science is on the verge of answering. They are, indeed, very interesting and worthwhile questions. But honestly, they are not really questions that science is even capable of answering at the moment.

However, just wait; some critic out there will respond to what I have written and accuse me of being anti-science. No, I’m not anti-science I just think that science is limited in it’s scope.

That is a good summary and brings out a very important point (In fact, the only point). . . There are some things that are beyond the scope of science. The individuals that would like to correct and silence the ID crowd point out rightly that ID can not scientifically prove that there is a Designer. In their arguments, however, they insinuate that answers to origins are possible. They go on talking about using scientific means to explore the question of origins. This gives the impression that science can provide that answer. What they seem to fail to realize is that questions about origins are simply beyond the scope of science. They fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.

I think that no one has made this clearer than Brian Greene in his book, The Fabric of the Universe: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. “A common misconception,” he writes, “is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The Big Bang is a theory…that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after what happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all. In fact if you think about it for a moment, you realize that the big bang presents us with quite a puzzle.”

It is exactly the kind of puzzle that philosophers and theologians just love. As astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded in his 1978 book, God and the Astronomers, that for “the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

The big bang itself presents a metaphysical road block to both empirical science and worldviews, like materialism and naturalism, that pretend to be based on empirical natural science. Natural science requires some degree of causal continuity. The big bang presents an absolute dead end to any kind of natural causal continuity.

So what caused the universe to explode into existence?

I think there are logically three possibilities:

1. The universe was uncaused. It just happened.
2. Our universe was caused by some primordial universe (or universes) that preceded it.
3. Our universe was caused by an eternally existing, or self existing intelligence that ontologically transcends it.

How can we decide among these three options? While there are probably some people that believe in number one, I think most serious thinkers put their money on number 2 or 3, so I‘ll concentrate there.

#2 seems to have some appeal to people who prefer scientific or empirical explanations. Ironically, however, there is no way to empirically verify this option so it fails to live up to its billing. Furthermore, it ultimately leads to an infinite regress. How can one empirically prove the existence of an infinite regress? In a way #2 seems to be scientific, but it is only a matter of appearances.

#3 concedes that there are things that transcend our ability to know and understand empirically. It is not something that is provable but it certainly is something that is possible. Ironically it is theory based on empirical science that has led us to this point. It was Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that suggests that if run the film of our cosmos in reverse we’ll reach a point where even space and time cease to exist. It suggests that whatever caused our universe to come into existence is something very powerful, (powerful enough to cause the existence of our universe) but it also transcends space and time as we know it. So, how and why did this mysterious something cause the existence of our universe? Maybe it was planned… Maybe it was intended… if you look globally or holistically from what we do know I think you can make that kind of argument. Not only that, I think it is the best explanation.

kornbelt888: I would object to the usage of "experiment" is such a context.

They're called natural experiments, but I will substitute "testing" for clarity.

kornbelt888: Again, repeatable-empirical science has a feature historical science does not possess, an eye-witness repeatability of the generation of evidence.

You just reused the term "empirical" that you said you had abandoned.

In any case, the claim was that the existence of quarks is pure science, but the existence of T. Rex or galaxies are apparently of some lower, ill-defined order.

Zachriel: Empirical, A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.

No problem. Strike "empirical" and use "repeatable experimental" instead.

Paleontology deals with data produced from experiment

I would object to the usage of "experiment" is such a context. Paleontology merely discovers evidence like a kid looking for easter eggs. It does not produce it. The causal origin of the evidence is not known. The cause is unwitnessed. Moreover, it's production is not experimentally repeatable.

Again, repeatable-empirical science has a feature historical science does not possess, an eye-witness repeatability of the generation of evidence.