Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: I Believe in Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to announce at UD that I believe in evolution.

Living things are not now as they once were, so they must have evolved.

There you have it: I believe in evolution. In fact, I assert that evolution is a fact based on the evidence, and not a hypothesis or “theory.”

I have major proof that evolution is true: I was once a little baby, and now I’m a great big baby! What further proof could be required to support the fact that evolution is true? And my evolution didn’t take even one generation; it took a zero generation. (I tried “zero generations” but that didn’t quite seem to work logically, since zero is obviously not multiple. I need to work out the tricky math here. I’m currently investigating multiverse theory in an attempt to resolve this mathematical conundrum.)

Now that I have come to my senses and accepted evolution as not only being true, but established fact based on evidence, how can I resolve my few remaining doubts? (I’m sure that these doubts are based upon my complete ignorance of the empirically verified research of Darwinian scientists, who have worked out all the details. I’ve searched for such research high and low, and always seem to come up empty-handed. Obviously, I must be searching in the wrong place.)

Here is one of my few remaining doubts about the fact of evolution: After writing this post I’m going to sit down at my Baldwin grand piano and practice Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.

If I understand evolutionary theory appropriately, this means that I, Rachmaninoff, his music, my piano, the people who designed and built my piano, and every aspect of every living thing was the product of the Darwinian mechanisms of random changes filtered by natural selection, which turned a bacterium into Rachmaninoff in about 10^17 seconds. I’ve done the math, and this seems highly unlikely. Obviously I’m missing something here (silly me!).

Once again, I want to emphasize that I have now converted to the obvious, factual, irrefutable, scientific truth of evolution.

I just have a few remaining doubts about the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism. I’m sure that this deplorable lack of scientific understanding on my part will be cleared up promptly by qualified Darwinian scientists.

I’m astute, well educated, and experienced in a number of computational, scientific, mathematical, and engineering disciplines. I’m thoroughly open to any logically persuasive argumentation concerning my very few and obviously inconsequential doubts concerning my thorough and irrevocable belief in evolution.

Comments
Elizabeth Liddle:
Science cannot distinguish the natural from the supernatural
Elizabeth Liddle:
science does NOT have the methodology to establish whether a cause is natural or not.
Elizabeth Liddle:
it [Science] can only tell us what is not supernatural.
Science can only tell us what is natural. But Science cannot distinguish the natural from the supernatural. And Science has no methodology to establish whether a cause is natural or not. But Science can only tell us what is not supernatural. Stop. Read. Ponder.Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
Steve Point . . . Gkairosfocus
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Once upon a time, Moses, Elizabeth Liddle, and Stephanie Abrams (Meteorologist from the Weather Channel) were walking by the Red Sea. Suddenly, under the influence of Divine inspiration, Moses looked toward heaven, raised his arms, and parted the waters. Stephanie: Good grief! I have been studying the weather for years. I know for a fact that nature cannot do this. Only one reasonable inference is possible. This is a supernatural event. Lizzie: Scientific methodology forbids such a conclusion. Stephanie: The methodology employed depends on the question that is being asked or the problem that is being solved. Once the scientist decides on a question, only he/she can develop the appropriate methodology. Based on methodologies I already use, I can easily fine-tune them on the spot to draw this conclusion. Lizzie: You don’t understand. Science must study nature as if nature is all there is. Stephanie: Are you saying that, as a scientist, I must suspend my knowledge that the wind, acting alone, cannot create such a phenomenon. Are you saying that I am obliged to forget the fact that the waters parted at the very same time that Moses raised his arms? Is that what you are saying? Lizzie: That’s right. The scientist may not draw conclusions based on evidence if those conclusions would allow a “divine foot in the door.” Stephanie: But what if the Divine really did stick His foot in the door. Lizzie: The facts in evidence do not matter in those kinds of circumstances because, as I said, science cannot address them. Stephanie: But I am a scientist using my best judgment. Doesn’t that count? Lizzie: No. Scientists are not allowed to use their best judgment. Methodological Naturalism forbids it. Stephanie. I never heard of such a rule. Where did it come from? Lizzie. I made it up. Stephanie: Well, if that is the case, why did you not apply it to big bang cosmology, which clearly allows a Divine foot in the door? Lizzie: I will have to get back with you on that one. I can tell you this, though, if you pursue this line of thought any further, you will lose your job. Moses: May I speak? Lizzie: No.StephenB
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Either we agree that scientific methodology is intrinsically limited to the “natural” world, in which case there is no censorship, no “a priori commitment” because, simply, no other methodology is possible within the scientific domain, or we say that science should, could, but, culpably won’t extend its methodology to cover the supernatural, in which case, my question is: how do you propose to do it?
Yet elsewhere you write:
Science cannot distinguish the natural from the supernatural; it [Science] can only tell us what is not supernatural.
And again:
I’m saying that science does NOT have the methodology to establish whether a cause is natural or not. I’ve said that several times.
So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're the one wanting to have their cake and eat it to. You're the one who needs to pick one. You truly fail to see the inherent contradiction on your positions?Mung
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
In that case we are quite close, Eugene S! I think I am saying that you (generic you) can't have your cake and eat it. Either we agree that scientific methodology is intrinsically limited to the "natural" world, in which case there is no censorship, no "a priori commitment" because, simply, no other methodology is possible within the scientific domain, or we say taht science should, could, but, culpably won't extend its methodology to cover the supernatural, in which case, my question is: how do you propose to do it? (Again, generic "you"!) In other words either science is innocent, but intrinsically limited, or guilty, in which case I need demonstration of how it could do otherwise. Pick one, guys :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, If you are saying that there is a limit to science in principle, then I agree. What I was trying to say is that naturalism is limited in its means. Since perhaps the times of the Industrial Revolution we have been taught that nature is a machine. "Weirdness", as you put it, revealed by science in the XX century essentially shows that it is not the case. "The fine-tuning is falsible". I can see no problem with that in principle (unless of course falsifiability involves imaginary multiverses).Eugene S
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Mung: you say you are using my definition - I've used several, as several have been presented. I'd like to know what how you are defining it; when I know that, I will express my claim in your terms,then, I hope, it will be clear. But I can't make myself clear to you until I know how you are understanding the term "natural" and whether you are regarding "supernatural" as its antonym, or alternatively "artificial", as kairosfocus suggested. In either case I need to know how you are defining the difference between the members of each antonymic pair. Thanks. LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle @6:
Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything. It [Science] does not possess the methodology to discover any other kind of cause. What methodology would you recommend for investigating an un-natural/supernatural cause?
I'm using your definition. If you don't like what I wrote in @65, are you now saying that science does have the tools to determine whether a cause is natural? Because over on another thread, you're saying just the opposite. It either does it it doesn't Lizzie, there's no middle position to take on the matter.Mung
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Well, Mung, before we go further, can you tell me how you are defining "supernatural"? Otherwise we will continue to talk past each other :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
All I’m saying is that science does not have tools to determine whether a cause is “supernatural”.
Perhaps what you meant to say was: All I’m saying is that science does not have tools to determine whether a cause is “natural”. That is your stance, correct? I would not be misrepresenting you to say that is what you believe, would I?Mung
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: Positivism has already been disqualified as a universal paradigm by quantum effects, so there ARE things we cannot reliably measure and therefore there ARE things for which there CANNOT be a naturalistic methodology based on observation -> measurement – prediction. In maths, incompleteness results show the same, as has been pointed out in this thread and in others multiple times. So there IS part of reality we cannot rationally comprehend (observe/measure/predict). But most remarkably, there ARE pointers to this reality, that are discernible by our rational reasoning (e.g. the fine-tuning of the universe). I am afraid you are holding on to assumptions of the 17th century. I think your methodological mistake is that you are trying to use everywhere tools that are only good for one purpose.
Well, no, I'm not. All I'm saying is that science does not have tools to determine whether a cause is "supernatural". However, you want to define "supernatural" in a way that includes quantum weirdness, then obviously that ceases to be true, but in that case all we can infer is "quantum weirdness", not a creator God. Certainly not a specific God. And I don't think the fine-tuning argument works, for several reasons, but the foremost reasons is that again, "supernatural" has to be the null, and is therefore an argument-of-the-gaps. Fine tuning is falsifiable.Elizabeth Liddle
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Hi Gil, What other fairy tales do you believe in now? Do you believe the one about how the giraffe got it's long neck, or the one about how the leopard got it's spots?Mung
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
I liked esp. Rachmaninoff out of a bacterium in 10^17 seconds! Elizabeth: Positivism has already been disqualified as a universal paradigm by quantum effects, so there ARE things we cannot reliably measure and therefore there ARE things for which there CANNOT be a naturalistic methodology based on observation -> measurement - prediction. In maths, incompleteness results show the same, as has been pointed out in this thread and in others multiple times. So there IS part of reality we cannot rationally comprehend (observe/measure/predict). But most remarkably, there ARE pointers to this reality, that are discernible by our rational reasoning (e.g. the fine-tuning of the universe). I am afraid you are holding on to assumptions of the 17th century. I think your methodological mistake is that you are trying to use everywhere tools that are only good for one purpose.Eugene S
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Meant to write: "it can only push back its limits".Elizabeth Liddle
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Nullasalus:
Well, that does wonders to the claim that science is bound by methodological naturalism. And what’s natural? Why, anything that science can investigate of course. So much for the common claim that science has never discovered evidence of the supernatural. It damn well couldn’t, since anything ever inferred or discovered by science becomes natural on the spot. This is rich.
But it's exactly the point! Science cannot "investigate the supernatural". It can only reach the arbitrary end of a causal chain. The only way it can test whether there is another link to the chain is by pulling on it. i.e. as I said, "supernatural" in science, can only be the null. It can never be the study hypothesis. And that is the limitation - not censorship but inherent in the methodology. Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. It can push back its limits.Elizabeth Liddle
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Lizzie, I think bottom line for science that does not interject metaphysical assumptions is that science seeks out causes for phenomena based on their evidential effect(s). These causes must be reasonable. They don't necessarily have to be "natural" as we define it. Science has operated quite well without naturalistic assumptions. That it leaves some questions unanswered as far as who or what ultimately did the "causing" is inconsequential. The Big Bang theory I think is the obvious example of this. Try to come up with a reasonable natural explanation for what caused the Big Bang. Well what caused that cause? As you can see you don't avoid the absurd when it comes to causation if you go about it from that perspective. One could leave well enough alone and not deal with the problem of infinite regresses of causes, or one could reasonably go in the direction of theism; which solves the problem with inference to a necessary and uncaused first cause. Either way one could remain scientific. Where one departs from being scientific is when a natural explanation is forced upon the genesis of the cosmos. It is only for that position that there is no empirical data. If one says that the empirical data is nature itself, one is begging the question. Without a first cause for nature it could not and would not exist.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
And, indeed, if Ghost Hunters or whoever, demonstrate that psi forces exist, in scientific terms they will simply have extended the range of “natural” phenomena we know about in the world. ... Better to say that anything investigable by science is, by definition, natural. Well, that does wonders to the claim that science is bound by methodological naturalism. And what's natural? Why, anything that science can investigate of course. So much for the common claim that science has never discovered evidence of the supernatural. It damn well couldn't, since anything ever inferred or discovered by science becomes natural on the spot. This is rich.nullasalus
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Barb and Lizzie, "I think Richard Lewontin is the scientist quoted with regards to this commitment." Well that's part of it for sure, but I think that the institutions, which vocally "support" science education such as the NCSE are in on the scheme. Frankly, to not recognize this is really quite revealing regarding one's own metaphysical assumptions. I disagree with you Lizzie that it is up to theists to define "supernatural" when it's folks like philosopher Barbara Forrest making the charge that naturalism is the default position for any reasonable person; and she does so in comparison with what she terms "supernaturalism." "...supernaturalism is little more than a logical possibility." "Philosophical naturalism is emphatically not an arbitrary philosophical preference, but rather the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion--if by reasonable one means both empirically grounded and logically coherent." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html Well in my estimation "supernaturalism" is not even a logical possibility when you have no coherent definition for what you mean by it. It's really an arbitrary distinction used to place religious belief outside of the bounds of reason. She said it, not me. There are many others who have said something quite similar to Forrest's charge. It's not an isolated POV from Forrest, rather it permeates a general consensus; particularly among those who view themselves as scientifically literate.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle writes at #54: “If scientists are being accused of having an “a priori commitment to naturalism”, what do the accusers mean by that?” I think Richard Lewontin is the scientist quoted with regards to this commitment. He states that “we [scientists] cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” So, in other words, he absolutely won’t consider anything that can’t be experimented with/on or empirically discovered.Barb
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
OK, thanks CannuckianYankee. I have got as far as Chapter 6 of The Signature in the Cell. Wrt one of your other points: I'm not sure what you mean by naturalists refusing to define the supernatural. It seems to me that if science is being accused of ruling out the supernatural, that it is those leveling the charge who need to make clear what they think science is ruling out. That's really been my point all along. If scientists are being accused of having an "a priori commitment to naturalism", what do the accusers mean by that? Because as I see it, scientists are simply committed to finding ever-more-explanatory models. If that is to be labeled "naturalism" then what is wrong with it? If "naturalism" is supposed to be something else, what is it supposed to be?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Natural means either existing in or produced by nature. Humans exist in nature and therefor are natural. However there isn't any evidence that humans were produced by nature. Therefor humans could have a supernatural, or at least artifial, cause.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Lizzie, "Can you give an example?" Have you read "Signature in the Cell" yet? I don't think examples are necessary for the point being made as it's simply a matter of failure of imagination outside what one has narrowly defined as science, on the part of strict naturalists; who seem to be monopolizing the dispensation of scientific knowledge. However, I give you ID as an example. Joseph pointed out in the above post that it's really an issue of moving goal posts. Right now one of the goal posts is "supernaturalism" inadequately defined in order to keep science focused on "natural" causes as naturalists define them. So when I say I try to look at the big picture, and what disturbs me is trying to find a reasonable "natural" explanation for the creation of the universe, arguments such as Meyer's ( as well as the fine tuning arguments from Gonzalez and others) begin to sound a whole lot more rational and grounded in science than materialistic arguments, which must begin with a priori assumptions about the "nature of nature." Please understand that part of the thinking among theists regarding these issues is that what we call supernatural is not necessarily so. There could be dimensions outside of what we experience as "natural," which also operate under specified and ordered parameters, and which can affect our own physical dimension; and we have good empirical evidence that at least something outside of the universe has affected the universe. If it now comes to pass that we have empirical data pointing to their existence and we accepted them scientifically, we would not then define them as outside science, but I think we would render them as anomalies; which don't adhere to the law-like properties we find in our own dimension. While we couldn't exactly call such hypothesized or real entities natural in the strictly naturalistic sense as physical reality; we could infer that a strict adherence to laws such as what we find in our own universe would render such entities just as natural as we view our own natural universe. And quite frankly, the ordered adherence to law is precisely how naturalism is appropriately defined. But even if they don't operate according to law, we still don't have an argument that their presence is outside of science. You stated yourself that we can detect "art" or design. While design may be limited to law, it is not necessarily so. Some of the greatest achievements in design have been so precisely because they deviated from convention. This does not render them outside the limits of scientific convention. It simply means that there are other parameters for science that lie outside or beyond our current understanding of law and principle. Agents act, and they don't always act according to narrowly defined law and principle, but we can still detect that they are exercising agency. The problem with naturalists is they assume that any deviation from that law-like nature would greatly affect our ability to do science; such that even to posit or think about the possibility of forces outside of "nature" becomes anathema to science - even if one were to hypothesize an entity or existence in a realm where law-like principles are still in operation, while defying of our own laws of nature. But the goalposts have been set such that the scientific establishment prohibits any deviations into such fields; and I'm not talking about astrology or ufology or any of what are likely and justifiably referred to as "pseudoscience." ID is one such proposal that has gone outside the goalposts of "naturalism" as arbitrarily defined by naturalists themselves. Once naturalists see that their inability or refusal to precisely define what they mean by "supernatural" other than that there exists phenomena which they can't explain by a naturalist methodology, and so they either ignore or leave it as a gap to be eventually filled in by naturalistic causal explanations, I think science will begin to fall into line. That will take the commitment of an altogether new generation of scientists. Another example is in the neuro sciences and the science of mind. I think you have acknowledged that evolutionary psychology is inadequate to account for what makes us human. What is adequate then? If the mind is something outside the physical parameters of the brain, what makes it so? These are questions that are not permitted in a strictly naturalistic scientific environment; yet they are legitimately scientific questions.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Joseph, we really need to get something straight: When I ask for a definition, I am not "moving goal posts". I am attempting to find out where they are. If you want to know where I stand, then give me the definition of natural you are using, and I will tell you. And if someone gives me a different definition, then I will probably give them a different answer. Not because I have moved the goal posts but because the goal posts have moved. But if someone says that scientists have an a priori commitment to "natural" causes, then that person needs to say what they mean. I assumed a certain meaning. It turned out that a number of people defined natural differently from the way that I had assumed it was meant. Fine. But if "natural" excludes such things as "mind" and "quantum effects" then clearly, scientists do not have an a priori commitment to natural causes, because both are investigated by scientists. If it does not exclude such things, then I ask what it is supposed to exclude. What is it exactly that scientists are being accused of excluding?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
EL:
And, indeed, if Ghost Hunters or whoever, demonstrate that psi forces exist, in scientific terms they will simply have extended the range of “natural” phenomena we know about in the world.
At least she flat out admits she will move the goalposts. Too bad she still refuses to address the issue of natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because natural processes only exist in nature. But then again I predict a changing of the definition of "natural"...Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Good essay, CannuckianYankee. I would agree with a lot of it. Possibly all, except your last sentence:
But when a reasonable explanation can be given for phenomena, which trumps “natural” explanations (i.e. is more reasonable), it is not justifiable to rule out such explanations simply because they don’t jive with my metaphysical assumptions.
Can you give an example?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Lizzie, "Oh, and BTW, I disagree with Dawkins on this. He’s made exactly the mistake I think that UDists often make, which is to confuse a “supernatural” cause with an “intelligent” cause. Intelligent causes are well within the domain of scientific investigation." You're quite new to this forum, so I don't think you're privy to a lot of the discussion we've had on this matter from several years ago. If intelligent causes are well within the domain of scientific investigation, it should not matter what we believe about such causes whether they are "supernatural" or not. The main issue is that intelligence can be detected by scientific methodology. This is not an issue of gaps - everything in science has gaps that are often filled in with metaphysical assumptions, and sometimes left alone as a mystery. What is at issue is your contention that every cause in nature must be "natural" as defined by naturalism. Now part of that discussion we had several years ago, and we continue to discuss from time to time is how these terms "natural" and "supernatural" are defined. The problem is that we are well aware of what natural means, but "supernatural" is a construct for something that we can't explain in terms of natural processes. I personally believe that it's ill-defined, and I agree with you that we should leave it outside of science; but that's as far as my agreement with you goes. I believe that the whole issue over methodological naturalism is an extremely important one. We don't have the luxury of defining science as only looking for natural causes as defined by naturalists, but as looking for reasonable causes; and the two are not the same thing. It's possible to accept reasonable causes whether they are part of natural processes or not and remain scientific. For example; one could accept that there are "supernatural" causes and still reject specific claims of the supernatural from a scientific perspective. This is done quite often. I believe it was Joseph who mentioned Ghost Hunters (not Ghost Busters), which is basically a rather juvenile show in which people go into "haunted" places and by using various electronic instruments, try to detect the presence of ghosts. I do have some skepticism regarding the initial assumptions, and this is quite a scientific perspective, which does not dismiss the existence of ghosts altogether. My contention with this practice begins with an understanding of how the whole modern ghost cultural phenomenon started with the spiritualism movement of the late 1800s in Western countries, and much of the beliefs about ghosts in popular culture today stem from that particular view. I would agree with you if you find the methodology there to be totally overlooking some assumptions that must be made. They don't appear to be involved in ruling out natural causes for what they detect as ghosts. They begin with the assumption, stemming from a cultural phenomenon that started in the late 1800s, and they run with it. I don't think it's at all scientific, and I would agree (if it's your view) that ghosts at least in that particular instance are not being detected. However, I do believe that ghosts can be experienced and encountered. Are they natural? Perhaps; I don't know. The people who produce Ghost Hunters seem to believe so. You can see I'm sure, that it is possible to believe in something that we define as "supernatural" and yet reject certain claims regarding supernatural detection using the instruments of science. I think it's a flawed methodology as depicted on the show simply because they don't show the actual existence or experience of apparitions. The only thing in my thinking that would make such investigations scientific is if actual apparitions had been encountered and filmed. Otherwise, they are forcing an assumption on a situation they have created, and there are perfectly "natural" explanations for what the instruments are detecting - drafts and such; which do not necessarily imply the presence of ghosts. We could determine the cause of what is interpreted as apparitions from purely natural explanations. But what we can't do is rule out that they are supernatural if we can't find a natural explanation. That would not be scientific, but interjecting a particular metaphysical assumption that eventually there will be a natural explanation, simply because we have a history of finding natural explanations for other formerly mysterious phenomena, is also a faulty way of thinking about these issues. That's no way to do science. To state altogether that what is supernatural (without adequately defining what that means precisely) cannot be investigated scientifically is to infuse science with metaphysics; the very thing you're objecting to. So it's not IDists who have infused science with metaphysics, but materialists with the insistence that all phenomena can be explained "naturally," even so far as the creation of the universe itself. I don't think materialists do much thinking in that area. They accept as a given that the universe has a perfectly natural cause, even if it is not yet known. That's quite an assumption to make. I don't know about you, but in my thinking, I start with the universe as a whole. I try to see the whole picture, and I can't for the life of me, given my understanding and experience with natural causes; figure out how the universe could have had a "natural" cause as we currently define it. In fact, logically it becomes absurd to even think in those terms. This allows me to determine that there is at least one instance in creation where there must be a cause that is not "natural" as we define it; and with that, I have to be open to the possibility that there are other causes that may not be "natural" as we define them. This does not force me to accept all claims of "supernatural" causes simply because I can find no other explanation and I must fill in the gap with something. For me some things are better left as a mystery than resorting to conclusion jumping. But when a reasonable explanation can be given for phenomena, which trumps "natural" explanations (i.e. is more reasonable), it is not justifiable to rule out such explanations simply because they don't jive with my metaphysical assumptions.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Well, ba77, I simply don't accept your premise :) I think "filtered accidents" (nice phrase btw) can account for the phenomena you say they can't. But if you regard me as insane for thinking so, so be it :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
of related note on the irreconcilability of General relativity and Quantum Mechanics: Quantum Mechanics and Relativity - The Collapse Of Physics? - video - with notes on plausible solution materialists have missed http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
I would agree with that, Neil. And, indeed, if Ghost Hunters or whoever, demonstrate that psi forces exist, in scientific terms they will simply have extended the range of "natural" phenomena we know about in the world. This is why I continue to think that the charge that scientists are a priori committed to naturalism is a straw man. Better to say that anything investigable by science is, by definition, natural. If we find incontrovertible evidence for design in living things, then we must posit a natural designer, just as we posit a natural designer when find a watch on a heath :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
F/N: my no 27 is in mod, though I separately posted.kairosfocus
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply