0026 In 1981, the ship, The Creation Science, encounters the leviathan swimming in the celestial waters.  The captain loses a leg to stand on, but realizes that he can fashion a new leg even better than the first.  He repairs the ship and re-brands her, The Intelligent Design.  In 2005, this ship lures the leviathan down from its heavenly deep, once again.

In this interval, philosopher Larry Laudan vigorously attacks the foundation of the leviathan’s first victory.  He pulls teeth.  He demolishes the argument that science and religion may be distinguished on the basis of method.

Finally, The Intelligent Design opens sail with a methodology identical to the empirio-schematic judgment and coherent with its content-level nested form.  The normal context of disciplinary language_3a, describing methods, brings the actuality of metaphysically-open models_2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in observations and measurments_1a.

0027 Once again, here is the two-level interscope for methodological_a naturalism_b.

0028 Pennock wants to defend the demarcation of science and religion.  Method does not offer sufficient critieria.  So, he configures a new foundation.  He calls it “methodological naturalism”.  But, the “method_a” has already been neutralized by Laudan.  So, “naturalism_b” is the key.

To this end, in section 5 of this article, Pennock constructs a weak version of the distinction between science and religion, one that grants many of Laudan’s points.  Tellingly, instead of referring to the ship’s new name, The Intelligent Design, Pennock sticks to the old label, The Creation Science.

Pennock writes four sub-sections (O-R).

0029 The first (O) concerns the dustbin of history.

Creation Science is not even a bad science.  For example, some say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.  Others say that Noah’s Flood is global.  These models are not supported by data.

0030 The second (P) concerns disciplinary language.

The ship, The Creation Science, has no coherent disciplinary language, outside of Biblical interpretation.  The language of Intelligent Design is also incoherent.  Even if one observes phenomena associated to impossible events, one cannot conclude that the events are miraculous.

Okay, one can conclude that the events are miraculous.  But, that would violate the rules of the naturalist intellect_3b.

0031 The third (Q) is pragmatic.

Methodological naturalists recognize science.  Why can’t philosophers like Laudan?  Why are courses on the philosophy of science not taught by theologians?

What do the sailors on The Intelligent Design hear?

Someone in the waters asks, “Why are courses on the philosophy of religion not taught by scientists?  Er… I mean… taught by highly certified naturalists who self-identify as ‘not religious’?”

Oh, never mind, they are.

0032 The fourth (R) is empirical.

Science educators say that there is a real distinction between science and non-science, such as Creation Science.  The National Science Teacher’s Association insists that scientific claims are not religious.

Or, should I say that the empirio-schematic judgment is not religious?

What about “scientific” or methodological naturalism?

Is that not religious?

Of course, the rule of naturalism says, “No metaphysics.”

Who is surprised that no mechanical or mathematical models appeal to supernatural forces?

Pennock finally feels the sharp point of an issue that cannot be confronted.  He states that his account explicates “scientific” naturalism as a methodological commitment, not a metaphysical one.  The ground rule of “no metaphysics” is… um… not metaphysical.

0033 Say what?

What is the philosopher’s task?

Is it possible for a philosopher to accept that the claim to be “not religious” may, indeed, be not religious?

Since when do philosophers spout tautologies?

Take a glance, once again, at the two-level interscope for methodological naturalism.

There is a certain circularity to the structure.  The content-level_a is the empirio-schematic judgment.  The empirio-schematic judgment is the actuality₂ of the situation level_b.

0034 Where does the ground rule of “no metaphysics” come from?

Does it come from inside the circle?

Does it come from outside the circle?

Why is the perspective level empty?

What does that imply?

0035 In the sixth section of Robert Pennock’s Essay, titled “Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited”, the author speculates why Larry Laudan fails to see a demarcation between science and religion.  After all, it is so easy to see.  Look at the rules.

Religion inspires the nautical mission of The Intelligent Design, in an inverted world, where Big Government (il)Liberalism commands the waters above and the world of tradition sublimates into the atmosphere below.  The ocean is our ceiling.  The air is our floor.

A thousand points of light shine in the immense celestial ocean.  Each illumination is immersed in its own righteousness.  A leviathan swims high in these heavenly, dense, waters.  This leviathan addresses the issue of public education.  The states require it.  The states pay for it.  The states perform it.  It works even as Big Government (il)Liberalism turns the ocean into the sky.  How it weighs upon us.

The U.S. Constitution says that the government shall not establish a religion.  So, public education may teach science, which is not “religious”, but not Creation Science nor Intelligent Design, which are religious.

Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.

Pennock writes in triumph.

0036 Section 6 of Pennock’s essay diagnoses and rehabilitates Laudan.

Why does Laudan fail at recognizing the distinction between science and religion?

Pennock offers four reasons (S-V).

0037 First (S), Laudan does not take the creationist’s claims seriously.  Creationists hold epistemological assumptions unfamiliar to science.

What does this mean?

The crew of The Creation Science promotes bad method.  They do not adhere to the empirio-schematic judgment, because their disciplinary language includes metaphysics (that is, Christian theology).

0038 Second (T), Laudan does not frame the demarcation problem properly.  We should not expect a “strict” line, based on criteria about methods.

To me, this means that the two-level interscope confuses.  There are always two issues, one related to situation and one related to content.  Here, the content level concerns scientific practice (that is, method).  The situation level pertains to the Naturalist’s judgment (that includes, “no metaphysics”).

0039 Third (U), Laudan is influenced by Karl Popper’s claims that falsification defines scientific methodology.

Once again, the content level is the focus of attention.

0040 Fourth (V), the 2005 Kitzmiller decision does not appeal to falsification as demarcation criteria.  Rather, it appeals to the very issue that Laudan seems to miss:  The naturalist intellect_3b rules out metaphysics.

Pennock wonders, more or less, “What should we think about philosophers (such as Laudan), if they cannot distinguish between science and sectarian religion posing as science?”

I suspect both Pennock and his foil, Laudan, recognize the difference.

The question is, “What makes the difference real?”

Laudan says that the distinction is not real, because we cannot ascertain clear and valid demarcation criteria.

Well, he may not really say that.  Pennock’s foil says that.

0041 The real difference concerns following the rules.  Naturalism rules metaphysics out.  Religion rules metaphysics in.  The demarcation should express that fact that the rule of “no metaphysics” applies to naturalism but not Christian factions… I mean to say… “religion”.

To me, the issue shifts from methods to something more ambiguous.  How does one decide whether the naturalist intellect’s rule is valid or not?  The decision cannot be based on physics.  The decision must be based on metaphysics.

The rule, “no metaphysics”, must ultimately be based on metaphysics.

0042 That means that free will enters the picture.

Pennock takes the naturalist rule at face value.  Naturalism rules out metaphysics.  Therefore, it is “not religious”.  Does this mean that any institution that self-identifies as “not religious” can also say that it is “scientific”?  Can this rule be gamed?

After all, this is precisely the issue in both 1981 McLean and 2005 Kitzmiller contests.  Creation science blatantly tries to game the rule.  Later, Intelligent Design (ID) games the rule in a much more sophisticated style. ID mimics the empirio-schematic judgment, occupying the content-level, while (sneakily) violating the naturalist’s rule of “no metaphysics”.

ID’s logic is easy to see.  If an evolved attribute, such as a bacteria’s flagellum, is not possible, then a miracle must have occurred.  A “mythical being” must have intervened.

0043 What does this “mythical being” do?

The mythical being does not cobble together phenomena.  The mythical being creates a noumenon, the thing itself.

The merit to ID can thus be articulated, by saying, “God creates a noumenon and the scientists observe and measure its phenomena.  Sometimes, phenomena do not fully account for their noumenon.  This is the case for the bacteria’s flagellum and other biological structures.”

0044 Here is a picture of that statement.

0045 What potentiates the naturalist intellect_3b?

The dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena_1b, does.  This dyad belongs to what is_1b in the Naturalist’s judgment.  This element is imbued with firstness, because phenomena are defined by their potential_1b to be observed and measured_1a and a noumenon_1b has the potential_1b of being discussed_3a by the naturalist intellect_3b.

The two components of this dyad tie into the content-level nested form of methodology.  A noumenon_1b stands as the presence that is referred to in disciplinary language_3a.  Its phenomena_1b virtually (meaning, “in virtue”) emerges from and situates observations and measurements_1a.  The contiguity_1b is [cannot be objectified as].

0047 What does this imply?

The contiguity between a noumenon and its phenomena_1b cannot be explained by physics.

But, the naturalist intellect_3b has a rule that says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”

0048 Hmmm. Have I located the metaphysical commitment within the Naturalist’s judgment?

The naturalist intellect_3b assigns the metaphysical aspect of creation to the noumenon_1b, which cannot be objectified as its phenomena_1b.  So, disciplinary language_3a assumes the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon_1b, but dares not speak of it, for fear of violating the rule of “no metaphysics”_3b.

Physics cannot justify the rule of the naturalist intellect.  So, it must be metaphysical.

Also, the source of this commitment comes from the empty perspective level_c.

0049 The naturalist_3b hides the source_2c of its metaphysical rule of “no metaphysics”.

What does this imply?

The system can be gamed.

0050 How?

We can cobble together phenomena in a manner that will tempt us into believing that a noumenon exists.

For example, in the 19^th century, various physical phenomena point to a noumenon, which scientists label “the ether”.  The ether transports force through vacuum.  As it turns out, the ether is completely imaginary.  It is a mythical being.

0051 If science is “not religious”, then can a “not religious” religion game Pennock’s criteria, not from the side of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (which cannot shake the designation, “religious”), but from the side of the Big Government (il)Liberalism (where self-identification as “not religious” is common)?

0052 The world is inverted.  Above us stands the celestial ocean of Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).  Below ushovers an atmosphere where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are designated “religions”, and therefore excluded, by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, from public (that is, state) institutions, especially schools.  Their sublimation begins during the 1960s.

Die-hard Christians respond by generating something that appears to be science.  Creation science makes claims about natural events verifying Biblical witness.

In 1981, the leviathan of BG(il)L public education sweeps down to the surface and attacks the little ship, The Creation Science, and ruins its effectiveness.  Creation Science does not properly follow style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  The McLean case distinguishes between science and religion on the basis of methodology.

0054 The captain of the ship lost one leg.  But, he fashions a new one in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  He rebuilds the ship, branding it The Intelligent Design.

In 2005, the leviathan is again provoked to come down through the celestial waters and attack the ship.  The ship has a lance that pierces the skin of the leviathan.  The Intelligent Design forces experts, such as Pennock, to come up with a demarcation that is situational.  Intelligent Design does not follow the rule of the naturalist intellect.  That rule says, “No metaphysics.”

In addition, the naturalist’s rule is not based on anything physical.  So, the rule must be metaphysical.

0055 These comments reveal how the rule plays out.  Metaphysics must be hidden within the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon_1b, which is contiguous with those properties that can be observed and measured, the phenomena_1b.  The [contiguity] mirrors the rule.  A noumenon_1b [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena_1b.

Here is how that looks.

0056 What does The Intelligent Design do that the Creation Science does not?

The Intelligent Design is equipped with an empirio-schematic judgment that observes and measures phenomena that do not fully add up to their noumenon, the thing itself.  ID favors things that are very complicated, such as the bacteria’s flagellum or the human immune system, where many components are observed and measured_1a.  Their corresponding phenomena_1b can never explain the thing itself: the bacteria swims and the human recovers from an illness.  The models_2aare never sufficient.  The whole is so much greater than the parts.  The investigator experiences awe.  The investigator is struck by a noumenon, but cannot say so, since “religion” is banished from disciplinary language.

The empirio-schematic judgment_2b is supposed to virtually emerge from (and situate) mechanical and mathematical models_2a.  Methodological_a naturalism_b has a redundancy.  The situation-level actuality_2b re-capitulates the content-level nested form_a.  The situation-level actuality_2b completes the content-level nested form_a.  There should be no surplus_2b, because any surplus_2b flows into something_1b that cannot be objectified as phenomena_1b.  This something_1b is where metaphysics is hidden, according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect_3b.  ID aims to show that the noumenon_1b has a life_c of its own, a life_1c that his hidden by the rule of the naturalist intellect_3b on the order of someone or something upstairs_2c.

Here is how that looks.

0057 That’s one way to game Pennock’s system.In 2005, the celestial leviathan mauls, but does not destroy the ship, The Intelligent Design.  Plus, the leviathan takes a lance into its flank.  The lance reveals the barbed fact that the leviathan depends on a metaphysical rule, stating that metaphysics is not allowed in science. The rope tied to the lance is long.  Perhaps, 14 years long.  Cheers.

0058 The other way to game the system comes from the thousand points of light, floating where the leviathan swims, in the heights of the celestial waters.  On the surface, we humble folk see these points of illumination self-identify as “not religious”.  So, we think that they are not Christian, Jewish or Islamic factions.

Ah, but the meaning of the word “religion” changes.

Is the term still limited to the above-mentioned factions?

Must we continue the charade?

The same goes for the term, “metaphysics”.

Does this term only apply to Christian, Jewish or Islamic theologies?

Or, does the term also apply to the righteousness_1aC underlying Big Government (il)Liberal agendas_2aC?

0059 If Big Government (il)Liberal institutions (BG(il)L) self-identify as “not religious”, then they must be compatible with science.  Their organizational objectives may be taught in public schools, especially when their methodology takes on the style of the empirio-schematic judgment and ends up establishing a noumenon, corresponding to what the phenomena add up to.

Now, here comes a really big sentence.

While ID_3a observes and measures_1a phenomena_1b and demonstrates that the noumenon_1b is greater than what available mechanical and mathematical models_2a predict, BG(il)L institutions_3a rely on ideologically informed models_2a applied to selected observations and measurements_1a in order to establish phenomena_1a that guarantee the relevance of their situation-level empirio-schematic judgment_2b.

In effect, certain phenomena_1b may be deemed to be so salient that a noumenon_1b becomes manifest, thereby warranting the attention of a naturalist intellect_3b and establishing the legitimacy of a discipline’s language, models and observations_2b.

Phenomena_1b may be manufactured in order to project realness into the corresponding noumenon_1b.  This is the work of the experts in state education.

0060 In order to fully appreciate what comes next, the reader may consider the masterwork, How to Define the Word “Religion” (available at smashwords), especially the chapter on presence.

How do BG(il)L institutions, while self-identifying as “not religious”, establish their doctrines in public schools?  How do “not religious” institutions establish a state religion?

Clearly, they game Michael Ruse’s demarcation criteria.  They pretend to be a science by mimicking the methodology (just like ID does).  But, they do not get caught (like ID gets caught).

Then, they game Robert Pennock’s demarcation criteria, by self-identifying as “not religious”. Therefore, they not subject to scrutiny when they violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

0061 So how are BG(il)L institutions religious?

There are two types of religion, based on two distinctly different objects in the society tier_C.  One_2cC is assumed_3cC.  This relational object_2cC builds civilizations or destroys them.  The other_2aC belongs to institutions_3aC.  Organizational objects_2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC.

Organizational objects_2aC are religious.

0062 Only two associations are required (S and T).

The organizational objective_2aC of a “not religious” BG(il)L institution_3aC goes with a noumenon_1b (S), which is where metaphysics is quietly stuffed according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect_3b.

By focusing on observations and measurements_2a that contribute to the feeling that the corresponding phenomena_1b are real, these institutions generate the impression of a metaphysics-filled noumenon_1b, the thing itself, which may take on a life of its own.  Both apparent phenomena_1b and their spectral noumenon_1b support a situation-level actuality_2b that reifies the entire content level_a.

Righteousness_1aC associates with the entire content level of methodological_a naturalism_b (T).

Scientific method is the foundation of BG(il)L belief.

Righteousness mimics the empirio-schematic judgment by promoting a disciplinary language_3a, ideologically-informed mechanical models_2a and selective observations and measurements_1a.  The content-level nested form_a establishes the realness of the situation-level actuality_2a, by establishing irrefutable phenomena_1b.  The realness of the situation-level actuality_2a, plus the unassailable status of the phenomena_1b, establish an undeniable noumenon_1b, containing a metaphysically informed BG(il)L organizational objective_2aC.

In 1981, The Creation Science is attacked by the leviathan for a crude imitation of what BG(il)L institutions have been doing for over two decades.  In 2005, The Intelligent Design is mauled for a more sophisiticated imitation.  Our world is indeed upside down.

Say what?  

In each BG(il)L institution, observations and measurements_1a are selected to support mechanistic and ideological models_2a and guide the believer’s definition of words_3a.  The “not religious” believer then accepts the realness of the corresponding phenomena_1b and the realness of the corresponding noumenon_1b.

Remember, the phenomena_1b carry the imprint of selective observations_1a, righteousness-inspired models_2a and virtue-signaling disciplinary language_3a.  These elements_a are inherently meta- (crossing out of) -physical (material and instrumental causality), even though couched in the methodology of science.

Remember, the noumenon_1b carries a BG(il)L organizational objective_2aC, which is inherently religious.

In sum, the veracity of a BG(il)L institution’s empirio-schematic judgment_2b is supported by the righteousness of the content-level’s disciplinary language_3a, models_2a and observations_1a.  The BG(il)L’s phenomena_1b cannot be refuted. The BG(il)L’s noumenon_1b is undeniable.  Those who question the veracity of the institution’s normal context_3a, actualities_2aand potentials_1a must be regarded as not properly informed.  They are not righteous_1aC.

What are public schools supposed to do?

Properly inform students?

Or indoctrinate them with “not religious” values?

0063 Here is diagram of how BG(il)L institutions game the system.

0064 Surely, the Christians have given the leviathan enough rope.  Pull the creature in and let these heavenly waters descend.  Perhaps, the celestial ocean of BG(il)L will fall on its own.  Can a sea of government liquidity levitate on borrowed and printed money?  How long can this inversion continue?

Can it reign for a thousand years?

Pennock’s essay is intended to clarify the 2005 Kitzmiller case and to provide a rule of thumb to distinguish science and religion.  These comments show how Pennock’s rule can be gamed.  It was gamed before his participation in the debate.  It is being gamed after.

0065 What is the problem?

Is methodical naturalism crowding Christianity from the public square?

Or, is methodological naturalism allowing “not religious” BG(il)L doctrines into the public square?

Clearly, both dynamics are at play.

0066 I thank Robert Pennock for his challenging article.