Okay, so this is something I've repeated time and again but I believe that it bears repeating. Supernaturalists will often claim that just because science hasn't or can't detect a phenomenon doesn't mean that it's false. Supernaturalists have accused me (and others) of being closed minded because I will not consider supernatural phenomena as an explanation and nothing could be further from the truth. The reason I trust the scientific method is because it has a mechanism that produces reliable, testable, measurable, independently confirmable, predictable results. If a methodology with those attributes were to be developed for supernatural phenomena, I'd have no problem accepting it along with the supernatural claims that it supports and, indeed, accepting it as an alternative to science. Indeed, for all I know there may exist some non-physical method of explaining and measuring reality, but I have yet to see anything that gives even remotely consistent results, let alone anything approaching the consistency and reliability of naturalistic science.

But the purpose of this thread wasn't for me to rant about supernaturalism (okay, maybe just a little) but to give our supernaturalist friends here the opportunity defend themselves in the best way they can: by giving us the Supernatural Method which, just like the scientific method, should be reliable, testable, measurable (remember, this doesn't have to use physical measurements so don't even think of using the old "you can't measure the supernatural with a ruler" cop-out), independently confirmable (so that anyone can verify it and not just those who 'have faith'), gives predictable and repeatable results, and has explanatory power. So, the ball's in your court now so show us what you've got.

Dionysus,

At the risk of speaking "out of turn", or before an adherent to faith posts, I would like to also see some methodology.

I suppose the mere presence of faith precludes methodology as the very definition of faith means accepting a premise without any means, or desire, of confirmation. The Christian Bible evens tells them that faith is things hoped for and unseen.

I'm afraid your posting will draw all sorts of responses, but I doubt a methodology such as you framed it will emerge.

RS

theropod wrote:... I doubt a methodology such as you framed it will emerge.

Oh I wonder why ...

dionysus wrote: ...by giving us the Supernatural Method which, just like the scientific method, should be reliable, testable, measurable (remember, this doesn't have to use physical measurements so don't even think of using the old "you can't measure the supernatural with a ruler" cop-out),

Think of the hedgehog searching for Dinsdale. No natural or supernatural measurement need be specified: it was big. Right fucking big, more than any hedgehog ever seen in the world before. Bring one to the vicar's garden party and I might begin to believe. Well, after I'd Google'd "Giant Hedgehog +Dinsdale"

There is nothing "supernatural" about either creationism or intelligent design.

Our modern technological civilization depends on the creative and intelligent endeavours of scientists and engineers.

Those who criticise creationism/ID are reactionaries and self-haters who despise the intelligence being technology.

Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Why then should the molecular biologist deny the exquisite complexity invested in a single cell as not of the same vein?

Evolutionism is absolutely bonkers.

Welcome back, Joe.

Atheistoclast wrote:There is nothing "supernatural" about either creationism or intelligent design.

Our modern technological civilization depends on the creative and intelligent endeavours of scientists and engineers.

Those who criticise creationism/ID are reactionaries and self-haters who despise the intelligence being technology.

Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Why then should the molecular biologist deny the exquisite complexity invested in a single cell as not of the same vein?

Evolutionism is absolutely bonkers.

Technology = life?

A cell is a biological machine...it contains an information storage and decoding system, assembly lines, factories and much more. It is a nano-technology par excellence.

Of course, the evolutionist tries to downplay this because chance and necessity fail to explain the origin of cellular life

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... eac1b5e57d

Darwinism is running out of ideas.

Atheistoclast wrote:Evolutionism is absolutely bonkers.

Or could it just, possibly, be your religious mentors who are bonkers?

Atheistoclast wrote:Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Actually, that is exactly what I would claim. Those two were extraordinarily bad examples, considering the likely brain processes involved in making them, the specificity of those brain processes and the likely degree of understanding in the brain of the nest or dam builder of what it is doing and why it is doing it. It would make more sense to say that birds' nests and beavers' dams are just more products of evolution: more expressions of the evolved genotype, with the genotype affecting matter a bit less directly than when it builds bit of bird or beaver.

Atheistoclast wrote:There is nothing "supernatural" about either creationism or intelligent design.

Our modern technological civilization depends on the creative and intelligent endeavours of scientists and engineers.

Those who criticise creationism/ID are reactionaries and self-haters who despise the intelligence being technology.

Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Why then should the molecular biologist deny the exquisite complexity invested in a single cell as not of the same vein?

Evolutionism is absolutely bonkers.

So because we know that certain things are the product of a creative intelligence, we should conclude that all things are the result of a creative intelligence?

We can understand how the complexity in a cell emerged without invoking an intelligence. Come on.

Do you have some sort of a method for deciding what's designed and what isn't? All faces/genitalia look different, is each one of them individually designed? How about rocks, each one of them designed down to the last crevice? Meteors and asteroids, designed or non-designed?

Paul Almond wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Actually, that is exactly what I would claim. Those two were extraordinarily bad examples, considering the likely brain processes involved in making them, the specificity of those brain processes and the likely degree of understanding in the brain of the nest or dam builder of what it is doing and why it is doing it. It would make more sense to say that birds' nests and beavers' dams are just more products of evolution: more expressions of the evolved genotype, with the genotype affecting matter a bit less directly than when it builds bit of bird or beaver.

Of course, you lot see intelligence as an evolved/emergent complexity.....we know that.

But your extended genotype argument is flawed.

Like it or not, the structures built by birds, beavers, ants, spiders and other creatures are observed instances of creation and design in Nature. They are not simply produced by blind laws or chance.

MrGray wrote:Do you have some sort of a method for deciding what's designed and what isn't? All faces/genitalia look different, is each one of them individually designed? How about rocks, each one of them designed down to the last crevice? Meteors and asteroids, designed or non-designed?

Who are you asking?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Paul Almond wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Would a zoologist honestly claim that a bird's nest or beaver's dam are not acts of creation and intelligent design?

Actually, that is exactly what I would claim. Those two were extraordinarily bad examples, considering the likely brain processes involved in making them, the specificity of those brain processes and the likely degree of understanding in the brain of the nest or dam builder of what it is doing and why it is doing it. It would make more sense to say that birds' nests and beavers' dams are just more products of evolution: more expressions of the evolved genotype, with the genotype affecting matter a bit less directly than when it builds bit of bird or beaver.

Of course, you lot see intelligence as an evolved/emergent complexity.....we know that.

But your extended genotype argument is flawed.

Like it or not, the structures built by birds, beavers, ants, spiders and other creatures are observed instances of creation and design in Nature. They are not simply produced by blind laws or chance.

Nobody is debating whether or not bird nests are designed. But it's a complete non sequitur to say that...

Bird nests are designed, therefore, birds are designed.

Seriously, like one of the biggest non sequiturs I've ever seen.

The "Face on Mars" was taken seriously as possible evidence for intelligent design.....but somehow the cell isn't.

SETI desperately looks for evidence of "artificiality" from EM transmissions from deep space, but the genomic information contained in all 60 trillion cells within the human body is seens as the product of chance and necessity.

As I say, Darwinism is bonkers and makes science look stupid.

Science will need to ditch it to survive.

No, not chance. Nobody with more than two functioning neurons postulates chance. It isn't even a candidate.

Atheistoclast wrote:The "Face on Mars" was taken seriously as possible evidence for intelligent design.....but somehow the cell isn't.

Well, if it makes you feel better, NEITHER is a good example.

Creationism: Because even with 3.8 Billion years of collecting loose change, you'll never reach a dollar.

num1cubfn wrote:

Nobody is debating whether or not bird nests are designed. But it's a complete non sequitur to say that...

Bird nests are designed, therefore, birds are designed.

Seriously, like one of the biggest non sequiturs I've ever seen.

I never claimed the fact that bird nests are designed that it logically follows that birds themselves are created.

I just showed that creation and design do exist out in the wild and there is no need to label it "supernatural" in any way.

It is not "unscientific" to consider the possiblilty of creation when it is an observable and reproducible act.