It's not an assumption. All the data we have suggests natural causes. There is no data that suggests supernatural causes.
What is a "supernatural cause" anyway?
If something exists that effects nature, it would be a natural cause, would it not?
It's still natural even if we don't know about it.
1. Are you claiming that your god does not exist ?
2. Exactly.
3. Yes. If we can define the worst possible world we can use science to figure out what is morally right and morally wrong.
If you've read some Sam Harris, you may be aware of his concept of worst possible misery for everyone...
Common descent only covers an individual group of organisms. In this case the group of organisms spans all known life on earth, and it appears we are all part of the same big family.
But it doesn't exclude separate lineages. Lets say for instance we were to find life in another solar system...
1. I get that's your claim, the question is, why do you think that the scientific method cannot be used to learn about the origins of the universe?
2. Sure, remember it is a given that all premises are true
Something is eating space
Space munching fairy princesses are the only things capable...
Yeah, sort of.
DNA is compared in many different ways to look for similarities. Shared, damaged genes for example are a big hint cause they shouldn't be under any selective pressure to be kept around.
In it self, DNA provides plenty of evidence for common ancestry.
But other methods are...
The mutation just sticks around by chance. There is no selective pressure for a neutral mutation, so other factors decide whether your genes are passed on.
If you are already well adapted to your environment and you have some neutral mutations in your genome, then your children will likely...
1. What do you mean? Are you saying the methodology of naturalistic science cannot be used to explain the origins of natural phenomenons?
2. We can argue for the existence of space munching fairy princesses using logical arguments, as long as we modify our logical principles so that...
Like I said, if shared DNA was the only factor, we could draw many different conclusions from it. Yours could be a valid hypothesis if you could reasonably explain observed (micro)evolution. If DNA was copied perfectly from generation to generation, if mutations weren't inherited, I would find...
I was using "proof" in the absolute sense, and I don't think we can prove anything that way except things we define as true.
I agree though that macro evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would even say its the only rational explanation we have given the current evidence.
It doesn't prove it. Nothing will ever prove evolution.
This is science, math, the best we can do is draw logical conclusions from the available evidence.
We see DNA.
We see that every living thing that we know is made up of strings of DNA.
We see that the characteristics of an organism are...
Knowledge of evolution doesn't cause racism, racist people use misrepresentations of evolution to justify their racism.
If people were properly educated on evolution, they wouldn't be able to do that.
Seems to me the point is to teach creationism in a positive way. Rather than trying to pick out holes in the theory of evolution, teach the science of creationism. If we imagine a world where the theory of evolution does not exist, what would a theory of creation look like?
Surely if...