Of course, it all depends on how one defines the word, \u201creligion\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
0014 In section 3, Pennock considers the philosophy behind the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover <\/em>decision and establishes five points (H-L).<\/p>\n\n\n\n First (H), Kitzmiller does not follow the criteria used in the McLean case (points A-E).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second (I), Kitzmiller relies on a ballpark demarcation (a ground rule, so to speak). Creationism violates this ground rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third (J), the ground rule is methodological naturalism. This rule says, \u201cMetaphysics is not allowed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word, \u201cmetaphysics\u201d, is rooted in two terms, meta-<\/em> (to cross over) and -physics<\/em> (the physical). Naturalism does not allow its followers to pass out of the realm of phenomena<\/em>. Phenomena<\/em> consists in that which is observable and measurable<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0015 Pennock dwells on this point (J) at length.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To me, he describes the Naturalist\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allow me to elaborate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A judgment is a primal triadic relation, consisting in three elements: relation<\/em>, what is<\/em> and what ought to be<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0016 The relation<\/em> is the naturalist intellect<\/em>, which rules out metaphysics. This relation is imbued with Peirce\u2019s category of thirdness. Thirdness associates with a normal context3<\/sub>, as described in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0017 What is<\/em> consists of phenomena<\/em>. Phenomena<\/em> are observable and measurable features of a thing or event<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a certain philosophical emptiness to phenomena<\/em>. After all, phenomena<\/em> do not constitute the thing itself<\/em>, even though some may imagine that this is the case. The thing itself<\/em> cannot be objectified as its phenomena<\/em>. So, there is a word for the thing itself: \u201cnoumenon<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does this imply?<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is<\/em> may be expressed as a continuity between two real elements, a noumenon and its phenomena<\/em>. That continuity is placed in brackets for notational clarity. What is<\/em> consists of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This dyad belongs to the category of firstness. Firstness is the monadic realm of possibility. Phenomena<\/em> have the potential to be observed and measured<\/em>. A noumenon<\/em> has the potential of capturing the attention of the naturalist intellect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0018 What ought to be<\/em> consists of another judgment, where disciplinary language (relation<\/em>, thirdness) brings together mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be<\/em>, secondness) with observations and measurements (what is<\/em>, firstness). This triadic relation is called \u201cthe empirio-schematic judgment\u201d and first appears in Comments on Jacques Maritain\u2019s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The empirio-schematic judgment, what ought to be<\/em>, in the Naturalist\u2019s judgment, is imbued with secondness, the character of actuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a diagram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0019 Fourth (K), the ground rule of \u201cno metaphysics\u201d does not appeal to the criterion of falsifiability (E).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At this point, I can see that the criteria espoused by Michael Ruse<\/em> applies to portions of the Naturalist\u2019s judgment<\/em>. A and B cohere to the naturalist intellect (relation) and the selection of noumena (what is)<\/em>. Noumena<\/em> must be things that have observable and measurable facets to their forms<\/em>. C, D and E pertain to the connection between the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be) and phenomena (what is).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of the metaphor of inversion, Michael Ruse\u2019s criteria keep us firmly fixed in the celestial waters, where the leviathan of the \u201cnot religious\u201d sciences<\/em> swims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0020 In order to appreciate this whale of a topic,<\/em> swimming in the heights of state-funded liquidity, I unfold the Naturalist\u2019s and the empirio-schematic judgments into category-based nested forms, based on their assigned categories. The result is a two-level interscope<\/p>\n\n\n\n The interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is the diagram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0021 Methodologicala<\/sub> naturalismb<\/sub> may be depicted as a two-level interscope. Method goes with the empirio-schematic judgment. Naturalism goes with the Naturalist\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The naturalist intellect3b<\/sub> rules out metaphysics. This rule is Pennock\u2019s last point (L). The rule, \u201cno metaphysics\u201d, comes from an occluded perspective level. The rule<\/em> does not reveal what is in the perspective level<\/em>. Indeed, the naturalist views the rule as coming from the content level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Disciplinary language for each science3a<\/sub><\/em> follows the rule of the naturalist\u2019s intellect3b<\/sub><\/em>. Any disciplinary language3a<\/sub> that discusses metaphysics<\/em> cannot be labeled as a \u201cscience\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, in this situation, the word, \u201cmetaphysics\u201d, is code for Christian theology. But, that is not what \u201cmetaphysics\u201d really means, as previously noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This exclusion follows the logic of normal contexts. Normal contexts exclude, align or complement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0022 Creation science talks about metaphysics, while pretending not to.So, in the 1981 McLean vs Arkansas<\/em> trial, the leviathan in the celestial waters of BG(il)L<\/em> descends to upset the boat, The Creation Science<\/em>, and bites off the leg of its captain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0013 Okay. I must hold, in my mind, the upside-down celestial waters. Within these waters, a leviathan swims, asking the questions, \u201cCan Intelligent Design be taught as a science? How do we demark science and non-science (that is, religion)?\u201d But, those on the surface, the sailors on the ship, The Creation Science, suspect that the leviathan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[39,53,52,54,55,56,57,34,50,44],"class_list":["post-4646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-defining-religion","tag-category-based-nested-form","tag-creation-science","tag-demarcation","tag-intelligent-design","tag-interscope","tag-kitzmiller","tag-mclean","tag-peirce","tag-religion","tag-science"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.raziemah.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/200516-pennock-image-02.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.raziemah.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/200516-pennock-image-03.png\")