Dave Hawkins

SUBTITLE: Yet Another Reason Why "Anti-Supernaturalists" Really Aren't at the Bottom of It
SUB-SUBTITLE: Why are many scientists so opposed to investigating Immaterial Intelligence? (I.e. Theology, and it used to be called the 'Queen of Sciences')
SUB-SUB-SUBTITLE: Will the 'Queen' regain her rightful throne?

ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM
I have always said that anti-supernaturalists ... or materialists if you like ... those who either deny the supernatural or say it's unscientific to explore it ... truly are NOT. That is, they are not anti-supernaturalists at all upon close inspection. They actually believe in many supernatural things. The spontaneous assembly of life from non-living chemicals that supposedly occurred several billion years ago is a prime example. It's never been observed in the lab ... just like I've never observed my supernatural God creating anything in the lab ... so it's a supernatural belief, although adherents will deny this. The spontaneous origin of new proteins, new cell types, and new organs is another example. No one's ever observed it. They just assume it can happen on faith in the supernatural. Now some may come back and say, "I beg your pardon, new proteins are formed spontaneously all the time." Yes, I say, this happens in the same twisted way that I could say my dented up, rusted out Ford Mustang is a "new car." Click here for that discussion.

THE ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE OF MATTER
Now with that background ... Yesterday, we were discussing Cellular Machinery in this thread ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...02#post4742902 ...

Several people still don't agree that cell contain real machines, but a few people seem to agree ...

We begin with a comment from Jet Black who responded to me as follows ... I think JB meant to say "molecular machines" not molecular motors, but in any case I think I understand his meaning. He is basically critiquing my reasoning by noting that I say molecular machines require intelligence, which in turn requires molecular machines in order to be intelligent in the first place. So JB seems to think I have a "chicken and egg" situation. Which came first? But what he didn't realize is that I DO NOT postulate material intelligence as the original source of other material (biological) intelligence. I postulate Immaterial Intelligence.

Here was my post ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...11#post4743511 ... So my point was that splitting atoms is a job that will never end. In theory, you should be able to keep splitting indefinitely and you never will reach a truly elementary particle. This fact in itself is a SUPERNATURAL concept. We cannot conceive of this in our finite brains. Just as we cannot conceive of how big the universe is. Just as we cannot conceive how an Invisible God could supposedly speak the universe into existence.

But since when did not being able to conceive of something be a good reason to not investigate it fully? Why do so many scientists not like the idea of looking for evidence of an Immaterial Intelligence? Why is there such a strong opposition in science to any mention of the God of the Bible when studying things like the Origin of Matter and the Origin of Life?

This seems odd to me.

Now people may come back and say, "Dave, we only study material things. That's what science is about." Really? Did you read the latest issue of Science? So it seems that trying to detect and describe Immaterial Intelligence as a postulated Cause for the Origin of Biological Intelligence and of Matter itself ... may not be so outlandish after all !!!

What say you?

(Gone for about 2 hours ... I will respond to questions then)

http://afdave.wordpress.com

LordLeckie

Just because we have never observed something does not mean it does not exist.

Just because we have never seen some theroies of maths in the real universe does it make them supernatural as well?

Dave give up, who are you trying to convince?

mung bean

Posting and running away? Davey, I'm astonished! I'm even more astonished that you claim you will respond to questions upon your return.
What has prompted this precipitous change of policy? Are you sure you want to do this?
If you really have your heart set on responding to questions try these:http://www.dastardlydave.info/

As for the content (in a loose and non-technical sense) of your OP, doesn't it give you a slight sense of deja vu? We went over your Ford Mustang back at RDF. It's still rusty. Are your cells full of rusty Ford Mustangs, Dave? Is that why your are obsessed with the "machines" analogy?
Why are you making that ludicrous claim that anything that has not been observed in the lab is "supernatural"? Hey, me and my GF having sex has never been observed in the lab. Does that make us supernatural?
It may well be a bloody good idea for you to be observed in a lab but has it happened yet? If not, are you claiming to be supernatural? Do you have any idea what you're claiming?

hecate

I say people have gone over this topic with you many times already...

ck1

Dave, you got this wrong. Go back to the other thread and read the responses to this comment.

This news and views article is not about the supernatural/immaterial. It describes carefully designed experiments on perception. The two papers that were summarized are:


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../317/5841/1048

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../317/5841/1096

shirley knott

The origin and structure of the total codswallop you make of any attempt to present an argument is
YOUR TOTAL FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANIING OF WORDS.
You have already demonstrated that you do not know what an explanation is, now you want to show that you do not know what 'matter' means, what 'intelligence' means, you do not understand what the difference between 'materialism' and 'naturalism' is, what 'supernatural' means etc. etc.
dave, this is not E&C material, this has precious little to do with science as such, and is simple thrashiing on your part.
Until you can address fundamentals, until you can define, in your own words, the terms you use as foiundations for your argument,
YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE AN ARGUMENT.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
regretting that I'll be away from the net for the next 3 or 4 days to watch how long it taks this thread to get locked...

mung bean

I give it ten hours max.

notta_skeptic

Dave, it is NOT science if you include the supernatural.

From the National Academies of Science in the National Science Education Standards:

"Explanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific" (p. 201).

The following is a statement from Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science:

"We do not believe that science and religion are inherently at odds. On the contrary, we believe they can co-exist harmoniously. Thousands of religious leaders nationwide share our view. We would not be troubled to see the issues about human origins discussed in social studies classes, however, we firmly believe that only science should be taught in science classrooms. By definition, scientific explanations are limited to rigorous, testable explanations of the natural world and cannot go beyond."

From the National Academies of Science:

"The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subject to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation."

That's why scientists don't study supernatural things. If they did, they wouldn't be doing science.

Why don't you understand this? My former MIDDLE SCHOOL students did!

Pappy Jack

Just out of interest, what is your view of the current state of string theory? Princeton University theoretical physicist Edward Witten (one of the world's leading physicists) thinks strings could be just that basic form of matter and energy that you think can never be reached.

ck1

Dave: Well, Dave, how can you investigate something that you cannot even conceive? Give me a practical example.

The bottom line is scientists are pragmatists. We want our experiments to work and we want to see progress in our research. Whenever a new idea or new technology appears everyone takes a look to determine whether it would be useful in their own work. And broadly useful new ideas/technologies spread rapidly.* If you or anyone can show how your concept of an Immaterial Intelligence has any practical use in a lab, it would be used. I would use it.

But it does not. So the concept is considered irrelevant to science.

*Example - PCR (polymerase chain reaction). A new technology reported a few years before the modern ID movement was started. Every research lab doing molecular biology now has at least one PCR machine and its developer has a Nobel prize. And ID has produced no research at all.