[MD] Intelligent Design

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ian,

> [IG]
> Creation - Conjuring something out of nothing.
> Evolution - Creation of interesting things in the universe.
> (How hard can that be ?)

Steve:
I'm still confused. I asked you to explain the distinction bewteen
evolution and creation and you just defined evolution as creation.



>>
>> Ian:
>>> Science has nothing to do with creation (of something from nothing).
>>
>> Steve:
>> What makes you think so?
>
> [IG] Huh. That ball is in your court if you disagree.
> Give me any possible plausible suggestion it could be otherwise.

Steve:
It's not that I agree or disagree yet. I'm still trying to figure out
what you mean.

Ian:
> (Briefly - science explains things in terms of physical processes,
> demonstrable empirically from before and after situations, causes and
> effects, events - and controlled events, like experiments.

Steve:
If creation is "before there was nothing and now there is something"
then that is a before and after situation. I don't see why it can't in
principle be studied. It may be true that we haven't found a way to
say anything about that situation, but I don't see what it is
impossible for science in principle to study it.


Ian:
>Those
> processes assume things like time and physical laws ... even if
> assuming them is part of the hypothesis being tested ... what
> processes work on no-thing and no-time, before existence and time ?

Steve:
As I understand you, you've defined this very process as creation.




>> Ian:
>>> Evolution of things (big bangs, galaxies and people) since creation
>>> need have nothing to do with any god, since in principle it is
>>> amenable to science.

Steve:
Here you just said that creation is in principle amenable to science.



>> Ian:
>>> Cosmogeny (metaphyisical or theological) has nothing to do with
>>> science ever, not even in principle.
>>>


Steve:
>> What makes you think that science has nothing to do with
>> cosmogeny even in principle? What sort of knowledge is possible that
>> science can't even in principle try to know?


> [IG] Cosmogeny, as I said. (How hard can it be ;-)

Steve:
That's not an answer. You've just put a label to my question. What
sort of knowledge claims would qualify as cosmogeny? I suspect that
you've defined knowledge in cosmogeny as an empty set.


Ian:
> As I say - I make the bold (and very simple) assertion - so I ask you
> to show any flaw in what I say. If you can suggest any remotely
> possible way science can explain something from nothing, I'd really
> like to hear it (don't tell me people disagree - that's not news -
> most of the SOMist world does - that's the point). Point me to a
> theory, show me an equation, a paper, anything ... even your own
> argument if you prefer it (but this is not a new subject).


Steve:
But what more needs to be said about something from nothing? What sort
of knowledge claims are possible about the situation that science can
never say anything about? If we are talking about cosmogeny, what is
it we are talking about? You'll say "something from nothing" as though
that is an answer, bit what sorts of knowledge claims could fit under
the heading "something from nothing?"

I suspect what you are doing is saying that science can never help us
know something about which there is nothing to know. But we already
knew that.

Best,
Steve