<<hms> I stand by this previous statement: <It's one thing to say those are outside one's realm. It's another thing to say since those are outside one's realm, they can't exist.>

I didn't say that things outside one's realm can't exist, but merely that every discipline acts as if they don't on (many) occasions. It's in the nature of disciplines to do so.

<Boomie's> point is well-taken: Science's mistakes are our great discoveries. In that statement lies the essence of Science--it is willing to make admit mistakes (sometimes after long hard fights) and (eventually) figure out how to incorporate them into the discipline.

You also said <Distuinguishing creationist scientists from "real scientists"? I agree with a previous poster who noted your lack of nuance here.>

The "naturalistic" presupposition is a presupposition and nothing more. Scientists find it useful. It sets parameters. But scientists like Newton and Kepler managed to get along without it.

From "naturalism" to "materialism" is a very short step indeed--maybe too short to be measured. I say science need not be materialistic to be science. I say ruling out miracles a priori is to reject things that really happened--in some cases, in front of a crowd of eyewitnesses (the apparitions at Fatima, for example. Some of those witnesses were atheistic journalists--but they saw the same phenomena the believers saw, and reported it in their publications).

You keep trying to make this analogy that relates natural science with the case of the 3AM visitor to your neighbor's wife, where you include several non-scientist eyewitnesses.

Since you insist on this analogy, allow me to at least put it in the proper context:

~~~~

There were NO eyewitnesses at all. Scientists have made some observations: (1) Tire marks matching Bob's car are seen in the driveway. (2) The sprinklers, which came on at 3AM, left a car shaped water pattern on the driveway. (3) Bob's fingerprints were on the bedroom doorknob, and they were more recent than those of the neighbor's husband. (4) Stains matching Bob's DNA were found in the bed.

Scientists have thus formed the theory that Bob parked his car in the driveway, the car was there at 3AM when the sprinklers came on, and Bob at some point placed his hand on the bedroom doorknob, got into the bed, where he engaged in activity of a sort that would produce that stain.

However, a month later, "Mo" shows up. Everyone knows that Mo wasn't anywhere near your neighbor's house that night, but he feels inspired to tell us what really happened: A magical fairy was there to take your neighbor's wife to Neverland for innocent fun. For some reason, the fairy created the tire tracks, water marks, fingerprints and stains to create the "appearance" of Bob's involvement.

Q1: Can scientists prove that Mo is wrong?

A1: No!

Q2: Should the scientists be called liars if they don't accept Mo's story?

As much as you overpraise mainstream scientists, you overmalign Creationist scientists. "Just chalk it up"? Distuinguishing creationist scientists from "real scientists"? I agree with a previous poster who noted your lack of nuance here.>

Frankly, I doubt that the disagreement between you and me would be resolved if I were to clear up some "nuances". :-)

BTW, I have made the point that not all creation scientists are the same. I'm sure that many of them are well-intended, and most (maybe all) actually believe what they preach.

But regarding even the best of creation scientists, I fault them on these points:

(1) Failure to understand (or at least acknowledge) that natural science is about seeking *natural* explanations for observed facts. As such, miracles are - by definition - excluded from consideration. Their claim that miraclulous explanations should be considered is outside of bounds to science.

(2) Bias introduced by a belief that they *already have* the answers, which are given by their religious book. Thus, their intent is to seek explanations that happen to agree with these preconceived religious "answers". Unintentional bias is bad science, but intentional bias is non-science.

(3) Failure to realized that some degree of doubt is always in order in science. Most creation scientists will admit that all men are corrupt, and that their interpretations of scripture can at times be imperfect. And yet, they refuse to consider that *their* simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis might not be perfect. This is particularly remarkable since Genesis is such a brief summary of an event that is inconceivably complex. This is not the way science works.

You're painting with a rather broad brush. When you say "rejected Darwinism", do you mean he rejected all aspects of evolution? Or did is simply reject it as an origin of life? That he believed the Bible as God's word suggests he is a Christian. Lots of scientists are.

From what you've provided, I would not conclude that he is a creation scientist. Do you care to give his name?

<The "naturalistic" presupposition is a presupposition and nothing more. Scientists find it useful. It sets parameters.>

Yes! "Naturalism" is a presupposition and nothing more. And yes, it is presupposed because it is useful. Yes, it does actually define the parameters of natural science. :-)

<But scientists like Newton and Kepler managed to get along without it.>

When did Newton and Kepler propose theories that were in any way dependent on a denial of the naturalistic presupposition?

<From "naturalism" to "materialism" is a very short step indeed--maybe too short to be measured. I say science need not be materialistic to be science.>

I'm not seeing the point between equating (or sort of equating) "naturalism" with "materialism". However, I notice that if we stick with "naturalism", then the faultiness of your claim becomes more evident: i.e. "natural science need not be naturalistic to be natural science".

<I say ruling out miracles a priori is to reject things that really happened--in some cases, in front of a crowd of eyewitnesses (the apparitions at Fatima, for example. Some of those witnesses were atheistic journalists--but they saw the same phenomena the believers saw, and reported it in their publications).>

Perhaps something was seen at Fatima, although I'm not sure which specific apparitions you refer to.

However, to start out with the conclusion that "a miracle really happened" is an unnecessary and prejudicial leap.

How should a scientist view this? As usual, the scientist should seek a natural explanation. Could religious zeal and/or imagination have played a role? There have been plenty of cases where devout Catholics beleived that they saw images of Mary or Jesus (how they know the identity is another matter). Such images have been in reflections, in grilled sandwiches, in stains, in clouds, etc. A whole crowd of astonished "witnesses" will gather to and bow down before the image, and call it a miracle. BTW, I'm sure that Muslims can point to similar "miracles" that happen to support Islam. Maybe all religions can do likewise.

But even if it *were* a miracle, is there any useful scientific understanding of nature gained by considering that possibility?

<To say "We don't have the scientific doctrine to allow us to take miracles into consideration" strikes me as an honest position to take. To say "Miracles can't happen, and never have" is only prejudice.>

<hms> you say <In that statement lies the essence of Science--it is willing to make admit mistakes (sometimes after long hard fights) and (eventually) figure out how to incorporate them into the discipline.>

Are we to throw up our hands in despair and say we can't ever figure out if it is true? I think the Bible has a good idea:
1 Ths. 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

<Frankly, the reports of the resurrection read to me like the confabulations of believers in other supernatural phenomena. >

It doesn't get to the issue of truth, but the fact so many people were willing to die for their testimony surely indicates they were sincere. A discussion of the reliablity and accuracy of the eyewitnesses is probably far beyond discussion in this forum, but I think it stands up to scrutiny.

<Most of them are couched in vague language, like "he appeared" or "he was among us", no different to the delusions reported in ghost stories. >

Here's some non-vague language:
John 21:12-14 Jesus said to them, "Come [and] eat breakfast." Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are You?"--knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. This [is] now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

I don't think this is a valid analogy, for you put the scientists on the scene and addressing clear cut evidence that has only one possible interpretation.

<Frankly, I doubt that the disagreement between you and me would be resolved if I were to clear up some "nuances". >

I tend to lack nuance in my argumentation too.

<Unintentional bias is bad science, but intentional bias is non-science.>

We agree there, though we disagree on which side is doing it.

<Failure to realized that some degree of doubt is always in order in science>

Not really. There is Mo's miraculous explanation after all. :-)

But it is possible that other observations could be made which would overturn the scientist's theory which makes Bob look bad.

Just for fun, suppose we have these new developments:

(1) The woman works at a sperm bank where Bob made a donation. (2) Bob's donation is found missing. (3) It is revealed (through phone records or recorded message) that the woman called Bob at 2:30AM and pleaded with him to come help her because she was locked in her bedroom.

To explain these new facts (in addition to the previous facts), the scientists propose a new theory:

The woman wanted to frame Bob. she stole Bob's donation from the sperm bank, put it in her bed, called Bob at 2:30AM and begged him to free her from her bedroom. Bob shows up at 2:55AM, and enters the house as the sprinklers go on at 3AM. He innocently opens the door of her bedroom, leaving his fingerprints on the doorknob. A few minutes later (after the sprinklers shut off), he drives away with his honor intact. As I said, no theory is ever considered 100% foolproof. :-)

~~~~

Anyway, the main point of my analogy was to counter your analogy that featured foolish scientists who collected evidence but wouldn't listen to any of these several good eyewitnesses -- when in fact, there are no witnesses and the scientific evidence is ALL that we have to work with.

Another point was that if someone who wasn't even there shows up with a miraculous explanation, scientists should not be compelled to accept that explanation.

<We agree there, though we disagree on which side is doing it.>

Well, it's nice to agree on *something*. ;-)

<When <whatthefat> says he's as sure of Darwin's theory as he is of gravity, you defer to him since he knows more than you. I am really puzzled that you are taking this position and not seeing how inconsistent you are.>

It seems that you brought that up earlier and I addressed it. In fact here --> OhioChessFan chessforum

But I would like to know how you address that specific issue, which I'll repeat in full:

I don't agree about the validity of your analogy, but this line made me laugh, so I consider that a successful post on your part.

<But I would like to know how you address that specific issue, which I'll repeat in full:

YouRang: (3) Failure to realized that some degree of doubt is always in order in science. Most creation scientists will admit that all men are corrupt, and that their interpretations of scripture can at times be imperfect. And yet, they refuse to consider that *their* simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis might not be perfect. This is particularly remarkable since Genesis is such a brief summary of an event that is inconceivably complex. This is not the way science works.>

I can best respond to that by giving my take on what you are really saying. I'll purposely go over the top with it.

Well, that response completely dodged the issue, and I'm sure you realize that your version of what I'm "really saying" isn't remotely what I've said.

Einstein - "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"God is subtle, but He is not malicious. I cannot believe that God plays dice with the world."

Emerson - "The dice of God are always loaded."

Newton - "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Franklin at the Constitutional Convention - "In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: ...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."

Freud - "The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on his relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father."

Abe Lincoln - "It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him."

Nietzsche - "Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?"

Pascal - "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists."

Picasso - "God is really only another artist. He invented the giraffe, the elephant, and the cat. He has no real style. He just keeps on trying other things."

Ramakrishna - "The grace of God is a wind which is always blowing."

Russell - "The difficulty is old, but none the less real. An omnipotent being who created a world containing evil not due to sin must Himself be at least partially evil."

Tagore - "Your idol is shattered in the dust to prove that God's dust is greater than your idol."

Thoreau - "It seems to me that the god that is commonly worshipped in civilized countries is not at all divine, though he bears a divine name, but is the overwhelming authority and respectability of mankind combined. Men reverence one another, not yet God."

Twain - "There are many scapegoats for our sins, but the most popular is providence." <Heh>

Voltaire - "God is always on the side of the heaviest battalions."

"God is a comic, playing to an audience that's afraid to laugh."

<Pascal - "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists." >

From my perspective, the problem in this case is that there are several reasonable alternate explanations that do not require miracles.

<<Frankly, the reports of the resurrection read to me like the confabulations of believers in other supernatural phenomena. >

It doesn't get to the issue of truth, but the fact so many people were willing to die for their testimony surely indicates they were sincere.>

They possibly believed it - I doubt that it's a malicious lie, although it may be an embellishment. But cult members have long been willing to die for their beliefs too. That doesn't make them true.

<Here's some non-vague language: John 21:12-14 Jesus said to them, "Come [and] eat breakfast." Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are You?"--knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. This [is] now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

Luke 24:39-40 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.>

I've tried over and over to explain that miraculous explanations are excluded from natural science -- not by bias, but by definition. But I'll try again:

~~~

Suppose that I were to turn a pumpkin into an elephant, and then cause the elephant to rise 100 feet into the air, where it suddenly transforms into a flock of pigeons, and they all fly off in different directions. Also, I did this event outside in a Home Depot parking lot in full view of thousands of independent witnesses and many video cameras.

Q1: Would science then be forced to accept a miraculous explanation?

A1: No! Science would seek to find an natural explanation for this event -- because that's what science does.

Q2: If after much time and effort, scientists still can't figure it out, does that prove that a miracle occurred?

A2: No! Some scientists may form the personal opinion that it was a genuine miracle, but that opinion is not a scientific conclusion. The inability to find a natural explanation doesn't prove that a natural explanation doesn't exist.

Q3: If scientists eventually come up with some wild but remotely feasible natural theory to explain the event, would that prove that their theory is true? Or, would it at least prove that it wasn't a miracle?

A3: No twice! Theories are never "proven" true. The theory may become the prevailing view, but it might fail some future test. Also, miracle cannot be proven to be either true or false.

Q4: If the majority of scientists are satisfied with their theory, does that show that scientists are dishonest because they refuse to accept that it's a miracle?

A4: No! Refusing to accept that it's a miracle is just another way of saying that they haven't given up. They don't give up because giving up contributes nothing to the understanding of nature -- and understanding nature is what natural science is all about.

~~~~

I gather that folks like <OhioChessFan> and <playground player> would be among the crowd calling for scientists accept it as a miracle, and calling them liars if they don't.

But to scientists, that is just a call to give up. But why should they give up? Many times in the past science has encountered phenomena that could arguably be called miracles. Thankfully, scientists worked hard on those miracles until they found *natural* theories that explained them. Those natural theories have resulted in countless benefits to mankind.