[MD] Intelligent Design

[Ian]

Let's stick to the first point.

One. You're only confused cos you choose to be. A pendant interested  
in definitions of words to argue about, rather than anything  
productive. You are being SOMist.

Two. I only used the word creation in that second definition cos you  
asked me to point out the distinction. I'm gonna have to go back to  
using scare quotes. I didn't use that word originally. Evolution and  
creation are distinct. The former is legitimately scientific, the  
latter isn't.

Let's start there. And you can read what I posted, from the top.
Ian

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Oct 2010, at 16:03, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 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
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html