Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?

[genuineoriginal]

As I previously described my conversation with other biologists...

. . . Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. . . . not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. . . .​

You seem to be stating that a scientific organization is required to be based on metaphysical naturalism and not merely methodological naturalism in order to be accredited.

Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the most influential scientist of all time, is quoted as saying, "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."

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to be stating that a scientific organization is required to be based on metaphysical naturalism and not merely methodological naturalism in order to be accredited.

Nope, never said anything like that at all.

Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the most influential scientist of all time, is quoted as saying, "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."

He was also quite convinced that alchemy was possible and was often referred to as an apostate (since he rejected the notion of the Trinity). What's your point?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nope, never said anything like that at all.

Well, you should have, then you would not look so much like a complete idiot.

He was also quite convinced that alchemy was possible and was often referred to as an apostate (since he rejected the notion of the Trinity). What's your point?

My point is that many Christians have no problem with methodological naturalism as a means to explore the laws that God established for the universe He created.
Your insinuation that only metaphysical naturalism can be acceptable in science shows that you are a merely a troll, and not very bright at that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your insinuation that only metaphysical naturalism can be acceptable in science...

Except for the fact that I never said, insinuated, or even hinted at that in any way, shape, or form.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Except for the fact that I never said, insinuated, or even hinted at that in any way, shape, or form.

You may not have said, "insinuated," but you did insinuate it, nevertheless.

 

[Jose Fly]

You may not have said, "insinuated," but you did insinuate it, nevertheless.

Can you pick the specific part of my post that insinuates that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can you pick the specific part of my post that insinuates that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

It is implied in the very title of this thread.
"Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?"

 

[Jose Fly]

It is implied in the very title of this thread.
"Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?"

Pay better attention...I didn't write the OP. You said that I made the insinuation, so you need to show where I did that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pay better attention...I didn't write the OP. You said that I made the insinuation, so you need to show where I did that.

That is weird, I thought you were merely a sock puppet for Greg Jennings when he wants to do heavy duty trolling.

Oh well.

You may not have written the OP, but you did write this:

Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". The amusing part is in watching creationists trying to explain why that is so. :chuckle:

You obviously are in agreement with the insinuation from the OP.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is weird, I thought you were merely a sock puppet for Greg Jennings when he wants to do heavy duty trolling.

Oh well.

Your error is noted.

You obviously are in agreement with the insinuation from the OP.

I agreed with exactly what I discussed, i.e., that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid. How exactly does that insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

 

[PureX]

Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?

Scientific organizations don't generally think about creationism one way or another.

The few scientists and scientific institutions that have considered the question, seriously, have rejected it. The material evidence simply does not support the theory.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Scientific organizations don't generally think about creationism one way or another.

The few scientists and scientific institutions that have considered the question, seriously, have rejected it. The material evidence simply does not support the theory.

The interpretation of the available evidence supports Creationism, the misinterpretation of the same evidence supports a general theory of evolution (but none of the specific ones).

 

[genuineoriginal]

I agreed with exactly what I discussed, i.e., that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid. How exactly does that insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

Are you claiming that you think Creationism is a valid belief, so long as scientists stick to methodological naturalism in their work?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you claiming that you think Creationism is a valid belief, so long as scientists stick to methodological naturalism in their work?

No. Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism.

Now again, how does me saying that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism.

Very well.

We have now moved past any insinuation on your part that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science to an explicit statement by you.

:e4e:

 

[PureX]

The interpretation of the available evidence supports Creationism, the misinterpretation of the same evidence supports a general theory of evolution (but none of the specific ones).

No scientific organization interprets the data religiously. So no scientific organization has ever concluded that the data supports creationism. And the fact that you have to stoop to dishonest misrepresentations like this only serves as evidence of the moral bankruptcy that's fueling belief in literal creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Very well.

We have now moved past any insinuation on your part that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science to an explicit statement by you.

????????? So you don't even know that metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are different things?

I guess that explains a lot.

 

[genuineoriginal]

????????? So you don't even know that metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are different things?

I am the one that brought up the difference in this thread, so of course I know the difference.

I guess that explains a lot.

Your lack of ability to comprehend basic concepts does explain a lot.

Let me try to explain what you did.

You stated, "Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism."

This is a false statement on your part, since belief in the creation does not affect "the way they practice science".
Invoking the supernatural violates metaphysical naturalism, since metaphysical naturalism "is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."

Your statement says that without belief in metaphysical naturalism scientists are unable to practice methodological naturalism.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am the one that brought up the difference in this thread, so of course I know the difference.

Then I have greatly overestimated you.

Let me try to explain what you did.

You stated, "Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism."

This is a false statement on your part, since belief in the creation does not affect "the way they practice science".

Yes it does. Once you allow supernatural explanations in, science becomes an "anything goes" enterprise.

Invoking the supernatural violates metaphysical naturalism, since metaphysical naturalism "is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."

*sigh*

Here, educate yourself....

Methodological Naturalism: Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.

Your statement says that without belief in metaphysical naturalism scientists are unable to practice methodological naturalism.

Nope. A person can believe whatever they want regarding God and still practice methodological naturalism (science). That's why people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller can be both top-notch scientists as well as practicing Christians. However, were they to try and assert "God did that" as an explanation for something in their scientific work, they would be violating methodological naturalism (see above), yet would remain metaphysical supernaturalists.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A person can believe whatever they want regarding God and still practice methodological naturalism (science). That's why people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller can be both top-notch scientists as well as practicing Christians. However, were they to try and assert "God did that" as an explanation for something in their scientific work, they would be violating methodological naturalism (see above), yet would remain metaphysical supernaturalists.

Yes.

When did you change your mind and decide to accept this?