A Challenge for the Discovery Institute: Methodological Naturalism

The Discovery Institute's stated goal is the overthrow of scientific materialism. What does that mean, and why do they want to overthrow it? I have a challenge for the Discovery Institute in return. Can they produce some example of how a supernatural explanation has defeated scientific materialism in the past?

For more information on this topic, I recommend the work of scientists Robert Pennock and Tom Schneider.

How did they know it was the lettuce?, an article by Robert T Pennock
https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html

More about Dr. Pennock at his Michigan State faculty page
https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/

And his battle against IDC
https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/DISE_PennockVsIDC.html

Evolution simulation and information theory by Tom D Schneider, National Cancer Institute
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Discovery
• Institute
• Intelligent
• Design
• evolution
• Methodological
• naturalism
• science
• materialism
• supernatural

[pastafarianprophet]

". . . they really want the direct intervention of supernatural beings to be taught alongside the existing scientific explanations." That really is what it boils down to! Very well done!

[NUTCASE71733]

@petion2010

Exactly. I'm sick of the Christian Taliban saying science has no answers when they use science without knowing it. It's like the stereotyped jock student saying booksmarts get you no where and they look up porn on the internet.

[petion2010]

@NUTCASE71733 Religion has lost the war since the moment churches started using lighting rods and religious people started vaccinating their children. The supernatural offers nothing to better understand our world.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Gilbertus1986

Mendell's work with plants ultimately paved the way for genetics which proves evolution, you idiot.And Paseur's discovery of bacteria was another blow to religious dogma as well. Let's not forget Einstein showed us how the sun and stars work via atomic fusion.

[odinata]

@Gilbertus1986

Bert, you are losing this argument.

Your religious opinions aren't going to find purchase here, let alone replace the science you can't seem to grasp.

Organisms evolve.

No Designer can be named by you, let alone be proven....

[odinata]

@Gilbertus1986

You were just showing me that Newton believed in God in support of your position.

What Newton wasn't able to do is the same thing you have so far been able to do, which is prove it.

Your claim that Design is necessary is so far a failure...

[Gilbertus1986]

If you cannot comment with honest intent then I have nothing else to say to you, You ARE a troll, using ad hominems, slander rather than logic and reason. Obviously you have nothing intellectual to say so I won't respond further.

[Gilbertus1986]

I'm not using an appeal to authority, I WAS JUST SHOWING YOU THAT IN THE PAST SCIENCE WAS NOT ALL ABOUT NATURALISM..

Open your eyes, look at what I write rather than you're own interpretation.. What you claim is a red herring, attempting to detrac the topic, which is that SCIENCE isn't naturalistic in nature.

[odinata]

@Gilbertus1986

You were throwing out an appeal to authority with Newton proclaiming his belief in God to BACK YOUR POSITION.

Moron.

[Gilbertus1986]

I was quoting NEWTON you Moron!

Showing you that in the past SCIENCE was about idealism, (designer orientated)

Newton was one the greatest physicists (after Einstein, who also believed in a designer)