When the Knee will not bend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493


2 September 2010 Last updated at 04:18 ET  Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe


The Universe can create itself from nothing, says Prof Hawking There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.


In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos.

Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.

In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe."If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.




A good start of response to Hawking


http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/stephen-hawking-worships-the-unknown-god/#more-5617

What is Intelligent Design?

Simple definition


"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of livings things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. (Stephen Myers)

Basics: What is an apriory commitment? (A-Priory)

Modern Science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.  (Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis (New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1942 p457, gleaned the Battle for Truth , DavidNoebel

What is (Philisophical) Naturalism?

II): What is Naturalism?

If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total system. I say “explicable in principle” because we are not going to demand that naturalists, at any given moment, should have found the detailed explanation of every phenomenon. Obviously many things will only be explained when the sciences have made further progress. But if Naturalism is to be accepted we have a right to demand that every single thing should be such that we see, in general, how it could be explained in terms of the Total system. If any one thing exist which is of such a kind that we see in advance the impossibility of ever giving it that kind of explanation, the Naturalism would be in ruins. If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System—if any one thing makes a good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole—then we have abandoned naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature—the whole interlocking system—exists. (CS Lewis, Miracles (The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism p 12)

What is Scientific Naturalism?

Science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being; it happened un-aided and spontaneously as a natural process…it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention.

What is Methodological Naturalism?

What is Methodological Naturalism?

MN


If we restrict ourselves to only naturalistic explanations, then the is what we will find, no matter what the evidence. (Cornelius Hunter Darwin’s Proof, 149)

Question: How could the tools of science ever verify or critique any claim other than a naturalistic expanation?



Evolution, Darwinists explain, is based on methodological naturalism, which is the basis for all science from astronomy to zoology. Methodological naturalism assumes that the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes. Science cannot test explanations about the supernatural and methodological naturalism is completely silent on the subject of God or other supernatural forces.

This argument is self contradictory. If methodological naturalism assumes the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes, then it is not silent on the subject of God and supernatural forces. Under this definition, methodological naturalism assumes that God did not actively create the world in detectable ways.

Furthermore, the claim that the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes in not scientific. The idea that the natural world has no detectable supernatural causes is outside of science. It is metaphysical and cannot be verified by science. Cornelius Hunter, Darwin’s Proof. P 147


What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

But who says we have to play by the rules set down by atheists. If Christianity is true, then it’s not at all obvious that valid science can be done only by making the counterfactual statement that atheism is true. NP, total Truth, 203

A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview (quoted by NP, 207)


This is probably bad form (to copy so much) but the following discussion on Methodological Naturalism (MN) sheds great light on the larger problem of the concept, especially for Christians who would do science.
Question: What is Methodological naturalism


March 9, 2010 10:44 AM

methodological naturalism is the underlying principle in modern science that there is a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis

I don't think that is quite right as a definition of MN, at least not if it is taken to imply that this continuity and so forth will always work.

I see MN as more a description of how science works, that the method of science consists of looking for such "natural" explanations and that other types of explanations (such as supernatural) are out of bounds for science. But MN leaves open the possibility that there might be cases where the methods of science won't work. At which point one has gone as far as science can go -- one can bring in non-natural hypotheses in an attempt to fully understand reality, but at that point one is no longer doing "science" (which after all [contra the Enlightenment and those who think our faith depends on science finding God's fingerprints] is not the only path to truth).



What if its True? Barry Arrington  (From a post on Uncommon Descent)

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

A response in Jesus Creed to the original article in which Ray argues for MN











I am deeply impressed by this body of thought by Timothy (Jesus Creed, Methodological Naturalism)

Timothy Dalrymple

March 9, 2010 10:41 AM

http://evangelical.patheos.com

A few thoughts.



1. Your definition of MN in the second paragraph is elegantly minimalistic, but it rather de-emphasizes the problematic aspects of MN as concretely practiced. It would be more accurate, I suggest, to say "All phenomena, given complete knowledge, are explicable according to a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis." The problem most Christians have is with the first word. We all approach our lives as though there is (generally) a natural explanation for phenomena around us. Yet many Christians, even if they believe God in the vast majority of instances works through the natural order He has ordained, hold open the possibility of divine or human causation that is not reducible to natural explanation.



2. One of the problems with methodological naturalism, as Plantinga states, is that it predetermines for and against certain sets of possible explanations. A wider array of explanatory options are available to the person who does not accept MN, at least in its strong form. Let's call "strong" methodological naturalism the view that naturalistic explanations are to be preferred at all costs to non-naturalistic explanations, and "weak" MN the view that naturalistic explanations are simply to be preferred, but the preponderance of evidence can overwhelm that preference in favor of a non-naturalistic explanation. I hold to weak MN, and partly for theological reasons: my belief and my experience is that God chooses in the vast majority of cases to work through the natural processes God has ordained. This has been the view of the Church for centuries (witness how the Catholic church still seeks naturalistic explanations for purported 'miracles' in the canonization process).



Strong MN can lead an individual to affirm a wildly implausible causal story simply because it is the only available or only possible naturalistic explanation.



(3) Plantinga only said that the probability of the GEN with respect to MN and the evidence is great than it is without MN. He did not say (at least in your reconstruction, which may not fully represent his argument on this point) that it is unlikely absent MN, such that Christians must be swayed to GEN not by the evidence but by MN. It seems to me indisputable that GEN, though it may be likely in both cases, is indeed more likely with the MN supposition than without. Also, while I'm a fan of Simon Conway Morris, I don't see any contradiction between Plantinga's statement and Morris' views on convergence. I do not see Plantinga here as committed to the view that God "guided" the process by directly forcing otherwise 'random' outcomes. Whether God guided by orchestrating 'chance' events, or by putting in place the mechanisms that guide evolution, or by putting in place the laws that produce the mechanisms that guide evolution, etc., at some point it would seem that the Christian is committed to some notion of God's guidance of cosmic history toward a life that is capable of knowing and worshiping Him.



4. The other problem with strong MN *as it is actually practiced and situated in western society* is that it almost inevitably devolves into ontological naturalism. This is, I think, primarily for historical and psychological reasons. Ideally, one might say that I practice (strong) MN as a physicist or historian but as an individual person I am open to other explanations. However, (i) Scientific inquiry has become so paradigmatic of rationality for western society (though I believe rationality is a far richer phenomenon, and I think we have an idealized and inaccurate view of scientific inquiry) that people come to believe not only that they should employ MN in their practice as scientists or historians or etc. but that MN is required of all rational persons in all areas of life. Also, (ii) The more we train ourselves to prefer naturalistic and shoot down non-naturalistic explanations, the harder it becomes to step outside of that methodology as individuals.



5. You say MN is especially problematic when it comes to issues like altruism (if I am reading you correctly) because there are not naturalistic accounts that provide an adequate basis for a transcendent or non-utilitarian good and evil. Yet the issue in discussions of altruism has more to do with the question of determinism, i.e. whether we are genetically or otherwise determined to act in "altruistic" ways or whether here, at least, is a phenomenon that cannot be explained according to natural, evolutionary causes. In this respect, at least, the issue does not seem essentially different from the issue of MN in evolutionary biology.



6. Finally, it *is* possible to practice science perfectly well with a weak and not a strong version of MN. There have been many excellent examples of such scientists, historically. And I see no reason why a person should have to say "As a physicist, I am committed to explanation X, because physics required MN, and X is the only available naturalistic explanation. Yet as a rational human being, when I remove the mantle of the physicist, I can see that Y is a better explanation." Not only is this sort of bifurcation psychologically treacherous; it is only necessary if we accept a wrongheaded, inaccurate and unduly narrow definition of what science is.



Daniel Mann

March 9, 2010 11:56 AM

http://www.MannsWord.blogspot.com

RJS,



You define methodological naturalism (MN) thusly:



“the underlying principle in modern science that there is a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis. The universe is comprehensible and obeys set laws. Scientific research seeks to understand these laws and processes, to discern how they have operated to produce what we see around us, and to utilize them…”



However, this definition does not seem to get to the real crux of the debate. This is because there is nothing in your definition that a supernaturalism would dispute. We all agree about testing, rational understanding of laws, etc.



Instead, the real problem with MN, as Timothy Dalrymple lucidly pointed out, is that MN is limiting, coercive, and refuses to acknowledge scientific causation outside of a naturalistic framework. And it does this without any evidence that our laws of physics are natural laws. Instead, it’s far more plausible that these laws find their origin and sustenance within the mind of God.

--

AHH

March 9, 2010 2:16 PM

Well, this discussion has spun off wildly, but I want to return briefly to the often-misunderstood idea of "Methodological Naturalism".



It is absolutely essential in these discussions to recognize that MN is a limitation on science, not a limitation on reality. If that is kept straight, it is quite compatible with Christianity, and even compatible with design arguments as long as it is admitted that if one concludes a "designer" outside nature one has left the domain of science. Which can be OK if one recognizes that not all truth is found in science.



--
"The core idea behind evolutionary thought is that the diversity of life and origin of species must be explained exclusively by natural laws."  (Cornelius Hunter)


(Richie)
This is a point you keep drumming home again and again and again, and I keep correcting you again and again and again. Still you never seem to understand:

***ALL SCIENCE*** insists observed phenomena must be explanied exclusively by natural laws!! Again and again you say evolution insists this, as though it is unscientific of evolution to do so. It is not unscientific - it is absolutely scientific!

There is not a single field of science which would accept a theory which did not explain obersved phenomena through exclusively natural laws.

Hypotheses which introduce other elements/explanations (eg, Creationism) are simply not science for this very reason (as well as others).

From a discussion on Cornelius Hunter's blog - Darwin's God  http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/h-in-evolution.html


No, at the root of ALL SCIENCE is the assumption that the whole universe operates according to entirely natural laws. All theories, not just the theory of evolution through natural selection, must therefore be explained using natural laws.

Could this assumption be incorrect? Yes. But the fact that science is so damn productive does act as very weighty evidence that it is, in fact, correct. And if you have a problem with this assumption of naturalism, then you have a problem with the WHOLE of science.

This is a point Cornelius seems totally unable to grasp - the theory of evolution is not doing anything a respectable scientific should not do. Does ToE insist on methodological naturalism? Yes. And so does every other theory in science!

Or, put another way, any theory which is NOT built on methodological naturalism simply is not science.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/evolutionary-thought-in-action_24.html


The scientific mind:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

What are the Implications of Naturalism?

From a Commencement Speech by Carl Sagan

This is a picture of Earth. Yes. If you look very carefully and closely, you’d see it. Just below the center line, on the right side, bathed in sunbeam. Yes, it’s that speck of dust.

What is Special Creation?

We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator. [3] (Duane Gish, Biblical Creationist. (Wikipedia, Special Creation)

What is “Biblical Creationism” (or what is Young Earth Creationism)?

Biblical or “Young Earth Creationism” (YEC) flows from the conviction that Genesis is to be read in a literal --or direct historical fashion --and that God’s primary (or initial creative acts) were both instantaneous and recent, completed in a six day week of natural days. Most Young Earth Creationist hold that the entire cosmos is under 10,000 years of age. (We will look at some novel variations on YE Creationism later on.)

Intro: What is Progressive Creationism?

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor. (Wikipedia, Progressive Creationism)

Kirk Note, Progressive Creationism is something of a blanket term and may include elements of Special creation, limited evolution, or even common descent. However the term is generally not applied to those models which make chance-mutation the primary engine of variation.


Criticism of Progressive Creation Model

The natural world truly is the common ground we share with unbelievers, but we must always remember it is God’s ground. God created the ground on which we all stand, ordered the natural laws to keep us all standing there, and stamped His image on us. God gave us reason and curiosity to recognize Him through what He made (Rom. 1:19-20); He wrote His law on our hearts and gave us a conscience to convict us (Rom. 2:14-15). Like Paul in Acts 17, we need to preach the biblical storyline—God is the Creator of everything (v. 24), we all descended from Adam (v. 26), and we all need to repent in view of coming judgment by the resurrected Christ (vv. 30-31).


Dr. Falk, The BioLogos Foundation, and old-earthers surrender the only common ground that exists. They’ve departed from Scripture, and by preferring the middle ground, they’ve become comfortable in the enemy’s camp. Long ages of death before Adam, no literal Adam, death not a consequence of Adam’s Fall—call it what you want, but that’s not the Christian faith.

Travis Allen on the Grace to You (John McArthur Website)  http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100625

In what ways does Progressive Creation (or Old Earth Creationism) differ from Theistic Evolution?

(I hope I am not over quoting, the following comes from Dana at:

blog.bloghttp://rtbtaketwo.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/checking-out-the-menu/

Often viewed as the ideal alternative between giving up science and giving up faith, theistic evolution (or evolutionary creation) has gained significant menu space in recent years. Big-name proponents include geneticist Francis Collins (founder of The BioLogos Foundation), theologian Alister McGrath, and paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. Even Pope John Paul II gave evolution a thumbs-up, saying there is no opposition between Darwin’s theory and the doctrines of the faith.


According to the BioLogos website, evolutionary creation  “does not require that God miraculously intervened in the process of evolution in the sense of working outside the laws of nature, and because BioLogos also claims that biological evolution is the way by which God created the world, it is not a form of Old Earth Creationism.”

Advocates of evolutionary creation hold a nonliteral view of the Genesis 1–2 creation narrative, instead defining it as mythic text (that is, “it has cultural significance in explaining the hows and whys of human existence, using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses”).

With respect to Adam, evolutionary creation maintains that he was not the first man. Some theories propose Adam was not an actual historical person. Concerning the image of God, it seems the jury is still out as to how and when humans developed moral consciousness. BioLogos writes, “We also cannot know whether God directly intervened in the evolutionary process at this point [Genesis 2:7], or whether the unfolding evolutionary process produced the human soul.”

On the other hand, old-earth creation (specifically day-age creation) affirms that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can be translated to mean long but finite periods of time. They also assert that the creation miracles ought to be rightly interpreted as God intervening in various ways throughout His creation and that Genesis 1 chronicles real historical events.

This view supports a historical Adam and Eve as the first human pair, endowed with the image of God and therefore distinct from hominids. Theologian and RTB’s dean of online learning Krista Bontrager addresses the concept of a nonhistorical Adam,

The New Testament makes a strong case for a historical Adam. For example, Adam is among those listed as part of Jesus’ genealogy (see Luke 3:23–28). If Adam were not a historical person, then one of the many listed in Jesus’ genealogy is fictitious.

Critique:

1) From the standpoint of those who advocate "Biblical Creationism" (YEC)  any model which holds to an old Earth represents a real compromise of biblical teaching:

The battle over the integrity of Genesis continues. In a recent article,¹ eight geologists, including long-time anti-creationist Davis Young, attempt to persuade the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) that secular natural history must guide, even determine, interpretation of the biblical text, even in the face of a clear contrary meaning. 

Providential ordinaria and Providentia extraordinaria

What do we mean by the terms "providential ordinaria" and "providentia extraordinaria" (more often called Ordinary (or General) Providence -- and Special Providence?  How do these concepts differ from the terms ‘Natural” and “Supernatural” -- and why would anyone use them?

The Case for "Ordinary Providence" (v nature)

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

What is Theistic Evolution?

“Some think of evolution as the theory of common ancestry: Any two living things share ancestors, so that we and the poison ivy in our back yard, as well as other living creatures, are cousins. This is surprising, but compatible with Christian belief.”  (Alvin Plantinga)

Intro: Reading Genesis

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.   (Guess who)

What is NOMA (and is it philosophically defensible)?

Non Overlapping Magesteria


Most scientists, believers and nonbelievers alike, probably agree with the Non Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA) view articulated by recently deceased Stephen J. Gould. In this view, science and religion should confine themselves to different domains. Science should deal with material world, while religion should deal with morality. (Find source)

Richard Dawkins has pointed out that

• A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

He also notes that


There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Incompatibility.html


For once Richard and I agree.  Science and Religion (or Faith) certainly are occupied with different interests and use different tools of inquirery, but in my mind, both speak to each other, and cannot help but intersect in vital areas.

There are those that claim there is no head-on collision ((Between Science and Faith)) Francisco Ayala, who just won the Templeton Award, says that science and religion cannot be in conflict because they’re answering two different questions. Science is answering the how, and religion is answering the who and the why. That is intellectual facile. The scripture is claiming far more than who and why and any honest reading of the modern scientific consensus knows that it too is speaking to the who and very clearly speaking to the why. Stephen J. Gould, the late paleontologist of Harvard University, spoke of what he called non-overlapping magisteria. He said science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. Each has its own magisterial authority and its own sphere of knowledge and they never overlap. Well the problem is they overlap all the time.  (Emph Mine)  They overlap in Stephen J. Gould’s own writings. We cannot separate the who and the why and the what, as if those are intellectually separable questions. In his new book Why Evolution is True Jerry Coyne cites Michael Shermer at the very beginning who says this, “Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age. An epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.” 

(Albert Mohler):  http://biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old/

Special v General Revelation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0&feature=related