Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Jayhawker Soule]

They assume naturalism is true (there is no purpose or design), prior to any study of biology.

It is a warranted assumption.

 

[Autodidact]

Nick:
Do you understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick:
Do you understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism?

Good question.. Jay and I have been around this distinction before. And Jay is right, methodological naturalism is warranted and I will concede that point.

It is when the philosophy of naturalism is promoted based on supposed "scientific evidence" that I am skeptical.

We know, as a matter of scientific certainty, that despite appearing to have been designed, the many different species on earth actually evolved via natural processes.

It certainly appears that many different species evolved, I will agree with that, but if I am not mistaken the OP is challenging whether it was "via natural processes".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good question.. Jay and I have been around this distinction before. And Jay is right, methodological naturalism is warranted and I will concede that point.

It is when the philosophy of naturalism is promoted based on supposed "scientific evidence" that I am skeptical.

"Supposed"? Philosophical naturalism is reasonably inferred from the ubiquitous success of scientific method. From Barbara Forrest:

The gaps in scientific knowledge which have historically functioned as entry points for divine creativity are considerably narrower than they were just a generation ago. Every expansion in scientific knowledge has left in its wake a more shrunken space of possibilities from which to infer the plausibility of supernaturalism. Science is yielding an increasingly expansive and supportable picture of continuity between humans and other life forms, and between living organisms and the rest of the cosmos from whose elements, such as the carbon produced during the evolution of stars, these organisms are constituted. The more expansive the continuity, the firmer the foundation for the inference from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism, and the less plausible the non-naturalistic explanations.

Since philosophical naturalism is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has been validated by its epistemological and technological success, then every expansion in scientific understanding lends it further confirmation. For example, should life be genuinely created in the laboratory from the non-organic elements which presently comprise living organisms, this discovery would add tremendous weight to philosophical naturalism. Should cognitive science and neurobiology succeed conclusively in explaining the phenomenon of human consciousness, mind-body dualism would be completely undermined, and philosophical naturalism would again be immeasurably strengthened.

For philosophical naturalism, this is better than logical entailment, which would make it the only permissible conclusion of methodological naturalism. Relationships of logical necessity need not reflect any state of affairs in the world, whereas expansions of empirically verifiable knowledge always do. The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.​

 

[Autodidact]

Good question.. Jay and I have been around this distinction before. And Jay is right, methodological naturalism is warranted and I will concede that point.

It is when the philosophy of naturalism is promoted based on supposed "scientific evidence" that I am skeptical.

Well fine, but that has nothing to do with whether ToE is correct or not. That would be a subject for a thread on the existence of God.

It certainly appears that many different species evolved, I will agree with that, but if I am not mistaken the OP is challenging whether it was "via natural processes".

I think the OP challenges the ToE. That is, it's not about whether God was involved, but about whether new species derive from old ones via descent with modification plus natural selection. The OP claims that for some reason mutations cannot benefit the organism, despite there having been many observed instances of just that happening. The OP is not about whether there is a God. If you want to discuss this issue, I suggest a new thread.

btw supersport is a Lamarckist, not an anti-naturalist.

 

[Autodidact]

oops, double-post

 

[painted wolf]

supernatrlism hasn't exactly shown itself to be a relyable alternative.

wa:do

 

[Nick Soapdish]

"Supposed"? Philosophical naturalism is reasonably inferred from the ubiquitous success of scientific method. From Barbara Forrest:

The gaps in scientific knowledge which have historically functioned as entry points for divine creativity are considerably narrower than they were just a generation ago. Every expansion in scientific knowledge has left in its wake a more shrunken space of possibilities from which to infer the plausibility of supernaturalism. Science is yielding an increasingly expansive and supportable picture of continuity between humans and other life forms, and between living organisms and the rest of the cosmos from whose elements, such as the carbon produced during the evolution of stars, these organisms are constituted. The more expansive the continuity, the firmer the foundation for the inference from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism, and the less plausible the non-naturalistic explanations.

Since philosophical naturalism is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has been validated by its epistemological and technological success, then every expansion in scientific understanding lends it further confirmation. For example, should life be genuinely created in the laboratory from the non-organic elements which presently comprise living organisms, this discovery would add tremendous weight to philosophical naturalism. Should cognitive science and neurobiology succeed conclusively in explaining the phenomenon of human consciousness, mind-body dualism would be completely undermined, and philosophical naturalism would again be immeasurably strengthened.

For philosophical naturalism, this is better than logical entailment, which would make it the only permissible conclusion of methodological naturalism. Relationships of logical necessity need not reflect any state of affairs in the world, whereas expansions of empirically verifiable knowledge always do. The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.​

To borrow your effect Jay, this quote is intellectual elitism poppycock. I am amazed that people can get so wrapped up in their intellectual labyrinths that they don't see what is obvious to so many people about the world around them.

First off, the "God of the gaps" notion is nonsense. The fact that we can learn how the physical world works and predict its outcomes is necessary for us to have any power of volition. We could not function if we did not understand how the world around us worked. To claim that this somehow narrows our need for God presents a very deflated concept of God. A person's appeal to God has to do with the purpose of our lives, not the mechanics. You never hear someone pray, "oh God, I understand how water boils".

The subtle message behind this statement by Barbara Forrest is that the only reason to believe in God is to explain physical phenomenon. Of course it is easy to get rid of God by delegating Him to such a shallow purpose.

The more direct message behind her statement is that there is no room for supernature, and without the supernatural, we cannot have "divine creativity".

So let's look at what our science actually tells us. I offer two counter arguments.

1) In our deepest view of the physical world, we find uncertainty. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been accepted by the scientific community for 80 years. If we have a 50% chance of outcome A, and 50% chance of outcome B, there is no measurement, formula or derivation we can use to know the outcome. There is an outcome, either A or B, but there appears to be no reason behind it. Is that natural? With this in mind, only the blind insistence from an atheist can call out, "there cannot be any supernatural involvement!". This uncertainty, underneath it all, reminds me of Matthew 19:26, "With God, all things are possible".

I offer no proof that this "uncertainty" is tied to "divine creativity", but at least it demonstrates that the scientific method does not have the power to eliminate the possibility of the supernatural.

2) Science is based on inductive reasoning, which cannot guarantee all events must follow our formulas. It offers no assurance that a supernatural event cannot occur which defies our understanding of the physical world.

So to promote philosophical naturalism as "reasonably inferred" from the success of the scientific method is a bit of a narrow view and one that cannot be taken seriously by any theist.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Well fine, but that has nothing to do with whether ToE is correct or not. That would be a subject for a thread on the existence of God.

I think the OP challenges the ToE. That is, it's not about whether God was involved, but about whether new species derive from old ones via descent with modification plus natural selection. The OP claims that for some reason mutations cannot benefit the organism, despite there having been many observed instances of just that happening. The OP is not about whether there is a God. If you want to discuss this issue, I suggest a new thread.

btw supersport is a Lamarckist, not an anti-naturalist.

I do not mean to imply that my belief system matches supersport, or vice versa, but his challenge is of interest to me and seems relevant in the whole evolution vs. creationism argument. Naturalists will tell you that the argument is won, yet if the above aspects of ToE have never been observed and are relegated to "our best explanation that we have", the argument to me, seems very much alive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First off, the "God of the gaps" notion is nonsense. The fact that we can learn how the physical world works and predict its outcomes is necessary for us to have any power of volition. We could not function if we did not understand how the world around us worked. To claim that this somehow narrows our need for God ...

Discuss your "need for God" with your therapist ... :slap:

Science is based on inductive reasoning, which cannot guarantee all events must follow our formulas. It offers no assurance that a supernatural event cannot occur which defies our understanding of the physical world.

Nope - no assurances. Sorry about that.

So to promote philosophical naturalism as "reasonably inferred" from the success of the scientific method is a bit of a narrow view and one that cannot be taken seriously by any theist.

So the theist cannot take ontological naturalism seriously. What a news flash ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Naturalists will tell you that the argument is won, yet if the above aspects of ToE have never been observed and are relegated to "our best explanation that we have", ...

Short of the delusion of revelation, we are always "relegated to 'our best explanation that we have'". At issue is: what makes it 'best'? And here Soapdish simply wallows in intellectual drivel and deceit, acknowledging, on the one hand, the warrant of methodological naturalism while applauding the fact that perverse opposition to the pervasive consensus of scientific inquiry is alive and well.

 

[painted wolf]

regardless of this banter about naturalism, the facts are that mutations have been observed. Bennifical ones, sudden ones et cet.

Superspoerts points have all been refuted. Eppigenetics and phenotypic plasticity arn't detrimental to evolution at all.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

To borrow your effect Jay, this quote is intellectual elitism poppycock. I am amazed that people can get so wrapped up in their intellectual labyrinths that they don't see what is obvious to so many people about the world around them.

First off, the "God of the gaps" notion is nonsense. The fact that we can learn how the physical world works and predict its outcomes is necessary for us to have any power of volition. We could not function if we did not understand how the world around us worked. To claim that this somehow narrows our need for God presents a very deflated concept of God. A person's appeal to God has to do with the purpose of our lives, not the mechanics. You never hear someone pray, "oh God, I understand how water boils".

The subtle message behind this statement by Barbara Forrest is that the only reason to believe in God is to explain physical phenomenon. Of course it is easy to get rid of God by delegating Him to such a shallow purpose.

The more direct message behind her statement is that there is no room for supernature, and without the supernatural, we cannot have "divine creativity".

So let's look at what our science actually tells us. I offer two counter arguments.

1) In our deepest view of the physical world, we find uncertainty. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been accepted by the scientific community for 80 years. If we have a 50% chance of outcome A, and 50% chance of outcome B, there is no measurement, formula or derivation we can use to know the outcome. There is an outcome, either A or B, but there appears to be no reason behind it. Is that natural? With this in mind, only the blind insistence from an atheist can call out, "there cannot be any supernatural involvement!". This uncertainty, underneath it all, reminds me of Matthew 19:26, "With God, all things are possible".

I offer no proof that this "uncertainty" is tied to "divine creativity", but at least it demonstrates that the scientific method does not have the power to eliminate the possibility of the supernatural.

2) Science is based on inductive reasoning, which cannot guarantee all events must follow our formulas. It offers no assurance that a supernatural event cannot occur which defies our understanding of the physical world.

So to promote philosophical naturalism as "reasonably inferred" from the success of the scientific method is a bit of a narrow view and one that cannot be taken seriously by any theist.

I actually pretty much agree with you Nick, that God of the Gaps is nonsense, and theists should stop appealing to it. (See SuperNatural's current thread for a bad example.) Not only is it a bad argument, but it reduces any God for which it is used, until, as someone said, He's out on the windowsill clinging with his fingernails. (I do think you should be able to make your argument without claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of ignoramus. Reasonable minds can disagree. I can respond to you without asking why anyone is such a moron as to invent an invisible sky-friend, which is a much nicer and more effective way to do it, don't you think?)

Accepting this pushes the God question into much more interesting and philosophical territory, where IMO it belongs. God, if any, exists only in the spiritual realm. The question then becomes what that means, whether it matters, and how we could know.

And yes, I strongly agree that, as far as science goes, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. Not only uncertainty but utter mystery is at the core of everything. As Some Smart Famous Guy said, the universe in not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. Once you start talking about origins of universes and infinity, you are clearly in the neighborhood where we don't understand, can't understand, and IMO will never understand.

For me, I just stop there and have my mind blown. To me, a theist puts the word "God" in the placeholder for the mysterious, amazing, ineffable, unconquerable nature of (you should excuse the expression) ultimate reality. It seems like the need to know, to understand, is filled with something that they feel they can know, an anthropomorphizing of something that we cannot ever grasp. I prefer just to leave "I don't know" in that place, be amazed, and let the scientists explore that void.

Or, to look at it from a different angle, for me if I can't perceive it in some way, it's the functional equivalent of not existing. When a metaphysical naturalist says that nothing exists that cannot be perceived, you could also look at that as an epistemological attitude. If it can't be perceived, what difference does it make? If it makes no difference, it might as well not exist, so let's carry on as if it doesn't. But if you prefer to think it does, O.K., as long as you don't claim that it makes any difference.

Also I don't think any of this can ever get you to a specific God, a God who has books written about Him, who shows his backside and opens holes in firmaments, who converses with people and impregnates women. That kind of God does intervene in the natural world in perceivable ways, and requires good solid evidence to believe in--evidence which is lacking.

p.s. This is a de-rail.

 

[Autodidact]

I do not mean to imply that my belief system matches supersport, or vice versa, but his challenge is of interest to me and seems relevant in the whole evolution vs. creationism argument. Naturalists will tell you that the argument is won, yet if the above aspects of ToE have never been observed and are relegated to "our best explanation that we have", the argument to me, seems very much alive.

He's mistaken. Scientists have often observed mutations occurring, mutations both detrimental and beneficial to the organism. In fact, there is an approximate number of mutations in every instance of reproduction, just as you make an approximate number of typoes per page; it's unavoidable. It's true that most are nuetral, a few are negative and don't survive, and a few are beneficial. Scientists have even observed new species emerging in fast-reproducing organisms.

The argument was won a hundred years ago.

Think about it--it was a new hypothesis. It had to fight the gauntlet of scientific scrutiny, and it won. Do you think all the biologists had some kind of pre-existing prejudice in favor of that particular outcome? Or do you think the scientific method works?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Short of the delusion of revelation, we are always "relegated to 'our best explanation that we have'". At issue is: what makes it 'best'? And here Soapdish simply wallows in intellectual drivel and deceit, acknowledging, on the one hand, the warrant of methodological naturalism while applauding the fact that perverse opposition to the pervasive consensus of scientific inquiry is alive and well.

Pervasive consensus of scientific inquiry? That would be a fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority. What evidenced theorem do we have that demonstrates the non-existence of a creator God? Or the impossibility of a divine creativity in the probabilistic outcomes of chromosomal reproduction?

Any deceit is solely your perception; I intend none. There is a reason for the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. A scientist is reasonably entitled to follow a process of methodological naturalism as a matter of efficiency while not subscribing to philosophical naturalism.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I actually pretty much agree with you Nick, that God of the Gaps is nonsense, and theists should stop appealing to it. (See SuperNatural's current thread for a bad example.) Not only is it a bad argument, but it reduces any God for which it is used, until, as someone said, He's out on the windowsill clinging with his fingernails. (I do think you should be able to make your argument without claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of ignoramus. Reasonable minds can disagree. I can respond to you without asking why anyone is such a moron as to invent an invisible sky-friend, which is a much nicer and more effective way to do it, don't you think?)

Certainly, but I am used to it.

Accepting this pushes the God question into much more interesting and philosophical territory, where IMO it belongs. God, if any, exists only in the spiritual realm. The question then becomes what that means, whether it matters, and how we could know.

And yes, I strongly agree that, as far as science goes, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. Not only uncertainty but utter mystery is at the core of everything. As Some Smart Famous Guy said, the universe in not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. Once you start talking about origins of universes and infinity, you are clearly in the neighborhood where we don't understand, can't understand, and IMO will never understand.

For me, I just stop there and have my mind blown. To me, a theist puts the word "God" in the placeholder for the mysterious, amazing, ineffable, unconquerable nature of (you should excuse the expression) ultimate reality. It seems like the need to know, to understand, is filled with something that they feel they can know, an anthropomorphizing of something that we cannot ever grasp. I prefer just to leave "I don't know" in that place, be amazed, and let the scientists explore that void.

Or, to look at it from a different angle, for me if I can't perceive it in some way, it's the functional equivalent of not existing. When a metaphysical naturalist says that nothing exists that cannot be perceived, you could also look at that as an epistemological attitude. If it can't be perceived, what difference does it make? If it makes no difference, it might as well not exist, so let's carry on as if it doesn't. But if you prefer to think it does, O.K., as long as you don't claim that it makes any difference.

Also I don't think any of this can ever get you to a specific God, a God who has books written about Him, who shows his backside and opens holes in firmaments, who converses with people and impregnates women. That kind of God does intervene in the natural world in perceivable ways, and requires good solid evidence to believe in--evidence which is lacking.

I believe the metaphysical naturalist is referring to perceptions of our physical senses. If we are limited to our physical senses to obtain knowledge, then I would agree with you. But supposing the possibility of revelation and a priori knowledge changes the conclusion.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

regardless of this banter about naturalism, the facts are that mutations have been observed. Bennifical ones, sudden ones et cet.

Superspoerts points have all been refuted. Eppigenetics and phenotypic plasticity arn't detrimental to evolution at all.

wa:do

He's mistaken. Scientists have often observed mutations occurring, mutations both detrimental and beneficial to the organism. In fact, there is an approximate number of mutations in every instance of reproduction, just as you make an approximate number of typoes per page; it's unavoidable. It's true that most are nuetral, a few are negative and don't survive, and a few are beneficial. Scientists have even observed new species emerging in fast-reproducing organisms.

The argument was won a hundred years ago.

I am not armed to refute either of you so I will take your word for it.

"Arthur, you have no historical perspective. Science in those days worked in broad strokes. They got right to the point. Nowadays, it's all just molecule, molecule, molecule. Nothing ever happens big." -- The Tick

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pervasive consensus of scientific inquiry? That would be a fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority.

Nice job distorting the text quoted. Where, precisely, do I maintain that the consensus of scientific inquiry is true by virtue of it being a consensus?

What evidenced theorem do we have that demonstrates the non-existence of a creator God?

Good grief. Stop wasting our time with this drivel.

A scientist is reasonably entitled to follow a process of methodological naturalism as a matter of efficiency ...

Efficiency? What a joke ...

 

[Jose Fly]

Given that some here are apparently questioning the "ability of natural mechanisms" to achieve certain ends, I'm curious: what specific supernatural mechanisms constitute the alternatives?

I also note that I asked some very specific follow-up questions to the OP, yet they went unaddressed. Interesting, that.

 

[doppelganger]

Given that some here are apparently questioning the "ability of natural mechanisms" to achieve certain ends, I'm curious: what specific supernatural mechanisms constitute the alternatives?

That's always the problem, isn't it? Science works in terms of competing models. You can complain about the places where a given model doesn't completely fit the evidence, but unless you have an alternative scientific model or revision to the current model that better fits the known evidence, it doesn't change the fact that the model you are complaining about remains the most probable model from among the choices available. I've never received an answer in any of these threads about the ID/Evolution "debate" (and I use the term loosely) as to what specifically the alternative model would be that fits the evidence better than the current theory of biological evolution.

There's a rather obvious reason for that . . . :sarcastic