It is not just my pet-peeve, the linkage between proposing to tie all scientists to mn, and the use of judgemental especially atheistic words such as purposeless, has been noticed by more creationists / theologians.
But the history of life amply demonstrates purpose-less-ness (eek that’s a horrible word). Why else the seven mass extinctions and countless smaller extinctions? Why else are 99.9% of all species that have ever lived now dead? If there were a purpose to life’s history, it would seem to be for life to die out.
I suggest that in stead of using blind, evolutionists use the adjective stupid for evolution. I think this more precisely denotes the absence of intelligence, which is apparently required by MN. So in stead of the blind process of evolution, it's better to refer to the stupid proces of evolution. Only social convention precludes this more accurate definition.
I agree. 'Blind' doesn’t connote the absence of thought behind evolution. However, rather than 'stupid', I would suggest 'unthinking' or 'thought-less'. 'Stupid' suggests foolish, implying intelligence but low intelligence. Since evolution requires no intelligence at all, stupid is not quite right.
However, if a designer is the alternative, I wholeheartedly concur. Stupid is exactly the word we’re looking for to describe the designer of
these things.
Basing claims on evidence is a common feature of every person that ever lived,
Not true. Theologians manage without evidence all the time.
it has nothing especially to do with the success of western science, as before that has more to do with the ideal I stated earlier, which is not as common but expressely advocated in "western" science. The focus on MN is a sad attempt to religionize a common function of the human mind as somehow something special, or should I say sacred, with the intention to attach meandering thoughts about good and evil as mechanical to "The Method".
Speaking of meandering thoughts, that was an impressively meandering paragraph!
What you seem to be missing is that, if the supernatural were part of ‘how the world works’, then science would have to investigate that too. It would be a case of We’ve got these laws of nature... but ooh look, here and there they don’t apply. Let’s try and find out why they don’t apply.
I maintain that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Not that the things generally called supernatural don’t exist, but rather that it is science’s job to find out about the world -- even if that includes weird anomalies to the normal running of things. So if telekinesis, telepathy, spoon-bending or gods were part of how the world works, then science would have to try to find out about them, because these things would be part of the universe we’re trying to find out about.
The problem with the supernatural is not that it’s rejected necessarily by science (or ‘methodological naturalism’ if you prefer), it’s just that it’s so damned slippery. Supernaturalism falls at the first hurdle, because whenever you try to look into it, it vanishes. The more you try to eliminate the trickery, fakery and delusion possibilities, the scanter becomes the evidence for the supernatural.
And on the other hand, whenever a non-supernatural explanation can be proposed, over and over again it turns out to fit the facts better.
Just what are we to do in such a situation, other than to leave supernaturalism as the explanation of last resort?
TTFN, DT
™ Version 4.2
