Absolutely. DagnyWener's psychobabble is nothing more than desperation for conclusions his belief dictates.

He or she not only sounds like a preacher he is a preacher who has abandoned anything called science for his fanatical religious belief. His rejection of the possibility creation may or could have had intelligent input can only be the product of cult like indoctrination, not science.

ABO.... He or she not only sounds like a preacher he is a preacher who has abandoned anything called science for his fanatical religious belief. His rejection of the possibility creation may or could have had intelligent input can only be the product of cult like indoctrination, not science.

ABO,

I don't reject possibility of creation, I will be falsified immediately and will accept it if the creator shows up and proves how he created life. Want to bet on it? The possibility of creation from scientific and evidential standpoint is not being supported by overwhelming evidence - understand it, accept it, live with it. The creator has not left any of his lab notes, no equipment, nothing. I can assure you if in human DNA the first chapter of Genesis was written in some code, or any other way the creator can be found, religious scientists would be looking for it. They are not finding it. There is nothing that at this point that they can find that would point to it. When they do, I'll be the first one to accept it. In some other worlds, perhaps, the creator has left his notes, but we are not there to figure it out, so we'll just need to plug along without thinking about it in the lab.

It's not going to do us any good. It will further divide us. E.g. if you as head of a lab express these views out loud, wrote a paper, or would be telling everyone in the lab of different faith and no faith to be looking for the signs of the creator, I can assure you you would not last there long professionally. If I expressed my views that the creator is not need and not present, I'll stay there along with the rest of the folks of faith and no faith. Do you see how inclusion vs. exclusion works?

As I said in the previous post.... Or just the most reasonable way is to leave the speculations about intelligent designer outside the framework as the only way to falsify him/her it is when he shows up.

Don't you think this would be much simpler and will allow all people across different world views (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, agnostics and atheists) to do science? Instead of you to push the agenda of a designer onto others who do not support your views? There are plenty of Christians and even Jews who don't. Plenty, most religious scientists are "agnostic" when it comes to creator's role. This is the only way it can work. You don't want to accept it, it's OK. If you were working in the lab, and not be a layman, you'd understand. Are you working in the scientific field at all?

I can assure you that if an impartial observer reviews this thread they'll quite quickly figure out that I am on the side of "Methodological Naturalism" - i.e. there is no supernatural forces at work in the scientific method, they are left outside the lab in your church, synagogue, mosque, temple. If something becomes a problem and issue or discovered, a hypothesis for this "unexplainable" phenomenon is formulated, thus bypassing the need for invoking an invisible designer. It's done every time, it's done all the time. It's done by Christians and non Christians alike in science. Unless you can provide some falsification to this, you have to accept it as a given and highlight it in red. I can assure you that this is how it's done. Take it from Francis Collins, a staunch Evangelical Christian and head of NIH, leader of Human Genome would do science and so would Craig Venter (atheist or agnostic, I am not sure and don't care).

Speaking of Craig Venter, you may want to look up synthesizing of bacterium genome. Brilliant work. I'll look it up tomorrow and post.

Too bad, ABO, we are speaking in different languages, yet sharing the same planet. The view point you have that is shared by many in politics as it relates to science is hurting us as a species. In 20-30 years, China, India, Brazil, the UK, Russia, Japan and Taiwan will be so far away from the US that it maybe too late to catch up. Don't blame science for it then if this happens. Now I am preaching.

ABO, I think that makes it clear that Dagny either does not understand the difference between Methodological Naturalism and the Philosophical Naturalism he/she is promoting or thinks that readers won't catch the equivocation.

And I would take the bet that he would NOT accept any evidence for creation even if the Creator personally showed up. You see, his philosophical naturalism...presented as "Scientific Method"...allows him to claim that mindless undirected processes either do, or eventually wiil, explain all existence, life, mind and reason itself. Never mind that the Creator has left more lab notes than we can handle in things ranging from the mathematical order of the observable universe to the information passing abilities and content of living cells.

Given his assumptions, there is NO EVIDENCE, even in principle, that would falsify his undemonstrable belief.

In fact, I would challenge him to give an example of some proof that would Falsify his belief in naturalism.

If he doesn't keep pretending not to notice my posts, and actually tries to give an example I will demonstrate that it FAILS.

DagnyWener

I'm rather thankful we are speaking different languages. Your arrogance is sickening. Try to get over it, after all you're just a mutated ape like creature.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how the view you say I have along with some politicians for science is hurting us as a species.

I know you religions bias speaks to the contrary but observation is not creation. Seeing a duck doesn't make a duck.

ABO... I'm rather thankful we are speaking different languages. Your arrogance is sickening. Try to get over it, after all you're just a mutated ape like creature. Why don't you go ahead and explain how the view you say I have along with some politicians for science is hurting us as a species. I know you religions bias speaks to the contrary but observation is not creation. Seeing a duck doesn't make a duck.[/quote]

ABO,

If scientists spoke different languages doing science (e.g. Creation/ID Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism) nothing would have been done. This is just how it is. This is exactly why diplomats are needed to overcome different languages and cultures. However, if you speak same language, only culture and politics will be an issue. In science we take the culture and politics out and concentrate on the output. Hope this explains how politicians can pitch in their biases.

You are not sickening to me, you are amusing. You are ignorant, now, not just lacking any evidence and knowledge but in sense that you are "not willing to understand the other language". I understand yours quite well, let me assure you. My background gives me a very good view of your situation.

You still have not read anything I've recommended? Oh, well, though I heard about free will. Maybe you can tell me what my religion is from what you have ducked out? Maybe the duck you are seeing is not the duck you are seeing?

Maybe it's just me but I'm loving this one! If you read what ABO wrote very carefully then you should notice you missed an important qualifier that makes their science related statement far more logical than it looks.

You might believe that a "creator" has to leave lab notes and equipment behind, but that is from your religion and is not allowed as evidence against the sentence that makes all the rest they said go either way on you, depending on how well you answer the logic-trap's trigger mechanism. Very good sentence construction, in my book anyway.

Gary.......You might believe that a "creator" has to leave lab notes and equipment behind, but that is from your religion and is not allowed as evidence against the sentence that makes all the rest they said go either way on you, depending on how well you answer the logic-trap's trigger mechanism. Very good sentence construction, in my book anyway.

Gary,

So, if I have a religious stake in scientific method and practice my religion, then Christians, Jews, Muslims and other theists who practice scientific worship two religions at the same time?

This must come as a surprise to many, including Nobel winners who are Jewish and Christians.

DagnyWener



Explain it.

ABO....I'm rather thankful we are speaking different languages. Your arrogance is sickening.

ABO,

Is this what you would say to your wife if she was in science or if she had a higher degree of education and had the same position on what science is all about? Would you tell your wife her arrogance are sickening?

Would you tell your daughter if she was in biological research that her arrogance in working in scientific field and accepting reality of the scientific language is sickening?

Would you tell your mother or sister? Or your next door neighbor? Or the doctor who just saved your life from cancer?

Would you tell the same to a minister's wife who is a biologist or geneticist?

Would you tell this to a daughter/son of a minister who is a biologist?

Do you think this would be congruent with any tenants of any religion? (I take you are a theist?)

Religion is the search for answers to the big-questions that are in areas that science cannot (at least yet) explain. And as in science one discipline cannot cover everything so it's not a requirement that modern religions all be the same, for all (even Atheist scientists) to actually be ultimately searching for the same somewhat sacred knowledge together.

DagnyWener-Apparently you don't comprehend well. We're not talking about science, cancer, religion, or scientific language. We are talking about brain lock. The inability to comprehend and respond to simple questions without injecting your own personal belief as paramount.

Dagney...You are ignorant, now, not just lacking any evidence and knowledge but in sense that you are "not willing to understand the other language". I understand yours quite well, let me assure you.

ABO... Explain it.

As for evidence, I've outlined it in the 14 pages of this thread. I've recommended that you read from page one and spend a few hours on it. It's not easy, it's complex, it may be confusing, but it's OK.

As for knowledge, it comes with evidence and built up on it, including general scientific procedures, hypothesis, theories, experiments and dead ends. I've outlined several sites for Mike to visit daily and it may help broaden your awareness of the subject.

As for "willing to understand", I have no control over your willingness and desire over anything. I hope that this request to explain it is "willingness to understand" the other language?

As for "other language" -metaphor for "this is how things work in science and this is the only way it can work". Otherwise, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. would be all pushing their own "world view" agenda. You would never do anything and never accomplish anything.

As for understanding your language (shall I dub it "faith" in a creator/designer) I've been around the block a few times, have a few close friends who are Christian, Jewish, atheistic, agnostic and even some spiritualists, (no Muslim friends). They are Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats - but I don't ask and don't care. The language we speak is above the differences we have. We speak the language if "issues" - what is it that you are up to and what you are doing that matters.

Hope this helps. Don't take things personally. Live and let live. Otherwise, you would not be using this computer you are reading this on. You'd be living in cave if people never set their differences aside for a common good.

Gary....Religion is the search for answers to the big-questions that are in areas that science cannot (at least yet) explain.

If you say so, Gary, and if you want to redefine the meaning of what religion is all about.

What are these big questions? Who determines they are big? What happens when society, weather, politics changes and big questions are small now? E.g. Tornadoes swept through the country over past few days. The Big questions are not the same as they were before. Science explained lightening and thunder - so they are not big questions anymore.

And as in science one discipline cannot cover everything so it's not a requirement that modern religions all be the same, for all (even Atheist scientists) to actually be ultimately searching for the same somewhat sacred knowledge together.

Don't follow, Gary. You speak in some unusual code. Modern religions have what to do with science? Religions need science to explain things. Science doesn't need religion for anything. Knowledge is sacred? Knowledge is knowledge. Science is not a religion. It's a tool to find out about what's real and how it works. It's not sacred. It's just reality. Seems to be objective reality.

I am quite positive that if an alien civilization came to visit us, our scientists will have no problem understanding their scientific method. They will be eons ahead of us, but let me assure you that prime numbers (possibly, depending on the numbering system they'd use) and value of "pi" will be the same for them (again depending on the translation through some universal scientific basics).

Let me rephrase, I wasn't referring to you or the supposed scientific language, but rather the implication of what you understand about my language.

ABO,

You conflate "belief" and "acceptance of reality and reasoning through reality based thinking and rationality" - call it belief for sake of argument. I have an acceptance and validation through objective reality and no presuppositions (only one - I think, therefore I am) that scientific methodology is the only objective methodology we have to learn about objective reality. I will change some constructs within my views, but it is highly unlikely I can change my whole acceptance paradigm, just like it's highly unlikely that it's not a sun centered Solar system. It happens that scientific method coincides with my acceptance of reality - you call it belief, I call it worldview, whatever.

I comprehend and respond to any questions (complicated or simple) without injecting my personal belief, because, personal beliefs would show biases. My "belief"/acceptance doesn't have any biases other than objectivity that I outlined. It is unlikely that there will be another paradigm in reality based thinking coming up other than the one we have already and if it does, I'll change it according to the only presupposition I have.

Not sure why is this brain lock. I can see that this maybe different for you, but so was an idea there are some little things called atoms at some time. Also that your brain has electric signals in it. I can also see that this line of reasoning can be threatening and "disguisting" and "sickening" to you. Imagine how you'd look to a person from another time and another culture or continent if you spoke a different language? In the old times you'd be most likely killed, today, we are just musing over it.