If it has no effect on the real, verifiable world it is irrelevant.
That doesn’t explain the behavior of other people, or the regularity and intractability of the external world. Solipsism isn’t as simple as it looks.
Not if the creationists have their way. It won’t work, of course, but it’ll still be called biotechnology.
I see Inteligent design like the ink blot test, one can see in it what they want.
A designer would have to have a place to exist before it could be a designer,so one would ask, who made the place for the designer? What inteligence created it’s place?
Monavis
The Theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure only has explanatory power for the existence of the Universe. It lacks explanatory power for the apparent development of complexity in living organisms over time.
Ockham’s razor is not the oft-quoted “the simplest explanation is the correct one.” It is “don’t multiply entities needlessly”. The simplest explanation that explains all the observations is the one to run with.
No problem as far as you personnaly are concerned. However, religion makes the claim than God brought the universe into being and affects the physical world now. I don’t see how you can simultaneously accept that and the scientific explanation for happenings in the physical world. It would appear to me that the only way to reconcile science and a supernatural God is to be a Diest and argue for a God who does nothing.
I guess it might be better to be a Deist.
This could be my question! Except change out humans, for life in general.
Sorry for the mess.
Good point - there are two issues here.
Firstly, I’m glad you used the term “physical world”. 
I don’t want to go as far as saying that all theists believe there is a “spiritual world” as well as the physical one, but I find it difficult to concieve of a “theistic materialist” (as opposed to a deist materialist, of course). I would argue that a commitment to a scientific explanation of physical phenomena doesn’t automatically carry with it a rejection of a mode of existence other than the physical - a scientist must be a methological naturalist, but not necessarily a metaphysical materialist. It’s also debatable whether “naturalism” and “materialism” are identical. Even if we accept that it’s unscientific to accept the intervention of God in the material world, I don’t think that commits us to reject the intervention of God in the spiritual world - particularly, in the realm of human thoughts and mental experience.
Secondly, there’s the issue of divine intervention in the physical world - miracles, to put it bluntly. I agree that no scientist should use a miracle as an explanation for anything. However, I would also say that the statement “miracles cannot occur” is metaphysical rather than a scientific. I agree with Hume that there can be no evidence for the occurrence of a miracle that science ought to accept, but I would still argue that it’s possible to believe in the possibility of miracles without compromising one’s belief in the constancy of Natural Law.
There’s also the issue of chance, of the non-deterministic. If there is such a thing as “chance” in the physical world (a point which is debatable, even for the strictest of materialistic atheists), then I feel that it can provide a - route? - by which God can influence material affairs without violating the self-consistency of nature to which science is committed.
I’m very reluctant to use personal testimony here, however, I hope I can put it in sufficiently general terms to remain credible. There was an occasion in the past where my life was saved by an exceptional piece of “good luck”, or a “coincidence”, or however it can be described. It did not violate the laws of nature. I wouldn’t have noticed it if it had happened at a non-critical time. The odds on it occurring were presumably not that long - shorter than winning the lottery, at least. Many thousands of people die each day without having such a coincidence to save them. And, of course, if it hadn’t happened, I wouldn’t be here to mention it. But I still feel that “miraculous” is the most - satisfying - word to describe my escape, and it undoubtedly reinforced my belief in God.
I accept this isn’t evidence which will convince the sceptical, and I feel no particular need to do so. However, I hope it goes a little way to explaining my own personal ability to reconcile my acceptance of science with my religious faith.
There might be all sorts of things go on in a realm which does not interact with our physical world. However if anything in one of them ever does affect our physical world it becomes a natural, physical thing and isn’t supernatural or spiritual any more. And in that case it becomes subject to scientific study.
It would be pedantic to deny the possibility of some future miracle. However there is notevidence for past miracles other than the testimony of those who I would refer to as naive or superstitious or both.
Even chance events are repeatable if you consider the ensemble. Otherwise gambling casinos would be gambling instead of betting on a sure thing, and they couldn’t stand that. Even on the quantum level where chance rules, highly accurate and repeatable experiments are done all of the time.
That’s right, it isn’t evidence. Many have had exceedingly close calls and come through but that doesn’t say anything important about a supernatural power directing such outcomes. As you point out, such a postulated supernatural being’s action is highly erratic with believers in such a being on the losing end as often as unbelievers.
There’s no simpler explanation than “God did it”, unfortunately.
Well, the courts in Pennsylvania have just ruled against ID, so you can all loosen your sphincters now.
Actually, despite believing in God, I do not think that that observation is accurate. “All” the observations would include the layering of successively complex fossils in the strata, bad designs (mammalian eyes, equine digestive tracts), and a host of other phenomena that simply identifying as creative acts attributed to the Creator raise as many questions as it purports to answer.
“God did it” is the most simplistic answer, but that is not quite the same thing.
Natural, yes. Physical, not necessarily. I assume you’re familiar with Penrose’s theory of “quantum consciousness”?
I agree that chance events may lead to predictable results in the long run. What about the short run?
This might be better continued in another thread, as we’re well away from the subject of ID.
You mean Penrose’s speculation?
True, but I’ve written all I know about the subject so it would be a short thread which isn’t worth doing.
Quantum mechanics is physical.
You are a few years behind. Even he acknowledges grave doubts about whether such an additional explanatory entity given the progress in cognitive science these days.
Thanks for the correction, and I apologise for using the word “theory” earlier, considering the thread title.
My point was that advocacy of full-blown Cartesian substance dualism (which Penrose certainly seemed to be doing twenty years ago) is not necessarily inconsistent with a naturalistic approach to the world as a whole. Someone can be a naturalist without being a materialist; a spiritual world that’s still part of nature, and that can be studied scientifically, isn’t an inconsistent concept.
That’s not to say that developments in cognitive science will never be able to explain all of psychology by purely mechanistic processes. However, an assertion that this will definitely happen is not, in my opinion, an essential part of science; any more than the assertion “God does not exist” is.