EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[MysticPhD]

Lol..... you're definately not an engineer then are you.

I was.

Realistically nothing we do is certain, we account for randomness and probability but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is a formalization of ignorance that we have to account for BECAUSE we have no understanding of the source . . . caprice of God? The names are not explanations they are admissions of ignorance masquerading as scientific explanations.

As a studying/part-time working Geotech, randomness is so frequent its absurb. Ever dug in the ground before? Soil and rock strata are so random and non-uniform that probability and educated guesses are the best we can do. If you're going to attack that i suggest you never enter a high rise building or drive on a highway ever again

I attack nothing . . . it is being misrepresented to the average person as scientific explanation and knowledge . . . it is NOT . . . it is prediction using formalized ignorance.

 

[fantome profane]

The default is the one that assumes there is "No God" behind what is being discovered and validated by science . . . THAT is not neutral. It represents an atheist bias. Science does not have to address how God could be behind what they discover . . . but they should not dismiss it cavalierly AS IF they have some scientific reason for doing so.

But this is one of the limits of science, one of the limits that define science. Science must follow Methodological Naturalism. That is that it must consider only natural causes for natural phenomena. Methodological Naturalism is different from Metaphysical Naturalism in that it does not deny the existence of the “supernatural” or “divine”, simply that these things are outside of the “method”. When scientific explanations are proposed they are natural explanations. This does not prevent people from proposing other explanaitons, but if they are not natural explanaitons they are not scientific explanations and cannot be considered as part of a scientific theory. Non natural explanaitons are and must be “dismissed” from science.

But I was wondering if you could find a quote from any article published in a scientific journal that states there is no “God”? Or is it as Autodidact suggest that you object to scientists expressing their personal opinions on metaphysical matters?

NO, the source of the opposition to teachin gevolution is an anti-scientific mystical thinking movement in modern Christianity.

Wrong . . . it is the fundamentalists and literalists that oppose evolution. Mystics tend to accept ALL scientific knowledge.

To be fair it is not all of modern Christianity, but a certain segment of Christianity that is promoting this anti-science fraud and a certain segment of Christianity that is falling for it. But this is not the fault of science, nor is it the fault of scientists. There has been religiously based oppostion (to some extent) to Darwin’s theory from the day it was published.

Random means we have no understanding (ignorance) of the appearance of the phenomenon we are predicting. Yet when we employ our artificial magic math we can predict or assign probabilities to the appearance AS IF it were scientifically understood.

No, that is absolutely not what random means. You are making an assumption that there are unknown variables that can account for the results, but this has not been proven and there is evidence to the contrary. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

 

[MysticPhD]

But this is one of the limits of science, one of the limits that define science. Science must follow Methodological Naturalism. That is that it must consider only natural causes for natural phenomena. Methodological Naturalism is different from Metaphysical Naturalism in that it does not deny the existence of the “supernatural” or “divine”, simply that these things are outside of the “method”. When scientific explanations are proposed they are natural explanations. This does not prevent people from proposing other explanaitons, but if they are not natural explanaitons they are not scientific explanations and cannot be considered as part of a scientific theory. Non natural explanaitons are and must be “dismissed” from science.

Agree . . . but NON-EXPLANATIONS should NOT be presented as scientific explanations. Probability is formalized ignorance used for prediction . . . not an explanation.

But I was wondering if you could find a quote from any article published in a scientific journal that states there is no “God”? Or is it as Autodidact suggest that you object to scientists expressing their personal opinions on metaphysical matters?

It is the acceptance as explanation of formalized ignorance using mathematical jargon to masquerade as scientific knowledge that I object to. Science need not say ANYTHING about God . . . but they should not pretend they are explaining when they are only predicting.

To be fair it is not all of modern Christianity, but a certain segment of Christianity that is promoting this anti-science fraud and a certain segment of Christianity that is falling for it. But this is not the fault of science, nor is it the fault of scientists. There has been religiously based oppostion (to some extent) to Darwin’s theory from the day it was published.

That's what I said . . . fundamentalists and literalists.

No, that is absolutely not what random means. You are making an assumption that there are unknown variables that can account for the results, but this has not been proven and there is evidence to the contrary. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Intimately. It is the users of the term random that make the assumptions that the mathematical rubric is representative of what is actually being modeled. Reality does not operate under mathematical rules just because we can apply those rules to our "measures" for predictive purposes. The very assumption that what we "measure" is itself a discrete phenomenon is absurd. It is a complex "energy event" in time captured by us in a specific form.

 

[darkendless]

I was. It is a formalization of ignorance that we have to account for BECAUSE we have no understanding of the source . . . caprice of God? The names are not explanations they are admissions of ignorance masquerading as scientific explanations.I attack nothing . . . it is being misrepresented to the average person as scientific explanation and knowledge . . . it is NOT . . . it is prediction using formalized ignorance.

I think its just saving ourselves a giant hassle. Trying to account for soil variables are so numerous and incomprehendable that infrastructure would just... never happen. We'd spend our lives on one project trying to eliminate insignificant varibles with a probability of <1% of making a difference.
We understand whats happening and the major factors contributing to the formation of our soils and foundation areas, but there are millions of minor factors we simply ignore and account for by adding safety factors.
Often the current level of science is safe enough, if it wasn't, we'd keep looking. But then again, there aren't many highrise collapses around here so our ignorance goes un noticed.

 

[MysticPhD]

I think its just saving ourselves a giant hassle. Trying to account for soil variables are so numerous and incomprehendable that infrastructure would just... never happen. We'd spend our lives on one project trying to eliminate insignificant varibles with a probability of <1% of making a difference.
We understand whats happening and the major factors contributing to the formation of our soils and foundation areas, but there are millions of minor factors we simply ignore and account for by adding safety factors.
Often the current level of science is safe enough, if it wasn't, we'd keep looking. But then again, there aren't many highrise collapses around here so our ignorance goes un noticed.

As a former Stress Analyst on the Titan missile launcher, I appreciate the pragmatics . . . but as a philosopher, I get annoyed when it is misrepresented in those areas (such as the source of mutations) as EXPLANATIONS eliminating any role for God.

 

[darkendless]

As a former Stress Analyst on the Titan missile launcher, I appreciate the pragmatics . . . but as a philosopher, I get annoyed when it is misrepresented in those areas (such as the source of mutations) as EXPLANATIONS eliminating any role for God.

I apologise for my assumption before, thats pretty cool.

My experience is that people with no idea what they're talking about usually jump to many conclusions. People in the loop usually know that conclusions are more complicated than what most would expect.
I was the same before i went out and got some work experience. Heck i used to think engineers got paid to work in this country, they spend most of their time playing golf

 

[painted wolf]

No one is suggesting that . . . the supernatural does not exist. Everything is natural or God. The misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about God need not be accepted or accommodated. But the misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about nature not being God needn't either.

How does one test for God? How should I adjust my experiments for miracles?

What is objective about placing something in the supernatural category or non-existent category because of our ignorance of it. We needn't appeal to it or resort to it in our explanations . . . but neither should we disparage it or ignore it as non-existent either.

I'm not saying ignore it... but if it can't be tested and shown to be real, then one has to wonder if it's not just imagination. Open minded is not the same as non-critical.

Randomness and probability are formalized mathematical descriptions of ignorance (what we don't understand) for purposes of prediction.

So I can't say that I have a 50% probability of getting heads when I flip a coin?
As a Biologist I don't use a lot of randomness and probability theory in my work... my Physics and Chemistry friends do however and it doesn't seem to hurt their work.

You don't . . . it does not exist.

How then do I adjust to test for god?

You don't adjust it at all . . . but you don't imply that God was not involved . . . only that we have no idea what was involved other than what we can validate scientifically. Explanations using randomness or probabilities are NOT explanations . . . just predictions using formalized ignorance.

If we can validate it scientifically why should we add another layer of magic to it? Sure God could be making all the atoms dance but why should we mention that in a scientific paper on the motion of atoms?
What purpose does that serve other than to make you feel better?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

As a former Stress Analyst on the Titan missile launcher, I appreciate the pragmatics . . . but as a philosopher, I get annoyed when it is misrepresented in those areas (such as the source of mutations) as EXPLANATIONS eliminating any role for God.

We know what causes mutations... Genetics is not that big a mystery anymore.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

We know what causes mutations... Genetics is not that big a mystery anymore.
wa:do

You miss the point. We understand the processes of mutation . . . not the source.

 

[Magic Man]

The default is the one that assumes there is "No God" behind what is being discovered and validated by science . . . THAT is not neutral. It represents an atheist bias. Science does not have to address how God could be behind what they discover . . . but they should not dismiss it cavalierly AS IF they have some scientific reason for doing so. Stop insisting that their mathematical fictions (randomness, probability) are scientific explanations. They are formalized mathematical concepts of ignorance designed to facilitate prediction of things we do not understand. They can not eliminate or even suggest that God is NOT behind what they are predicting.

No evidence for something = not using it for the sake of science, but does not equal saying it's not true. Again, science has no position on God. It doesn't say God doesn't exist and it doesn't say God exists. Science doesn't assume "No God", it just doesn't take God into account for the purposes of scientific experiments.

You're right that they cannot eliminate or even suggest that God is not behind what they are predicting. Who cares? They don't want to. That's not the point. The point is to explain things that we sense.

 

[fantome profane]

You miss the point. We understand the processes of mutation . . . not the source.

Could you define for us what you mean by “source”?

 

[MysticPhD]

How does one test for God? How should I adjust my experiments for miracles?

You don't.

I'm not saying ignore it... but if it can't be tested and shown to be real, then one has to wonder if it's not just imagination. Open minded is not the same as non-critical.

You accept nature non-critically. Philosophically what is it? Why is it? What establishes its attributes? (Hint: usual non answer . . . "it just is")

So I can't say that I have a 50% probability of getting heads when I flip a coin?

Silly question.

As a Biologist I don't use a lot of randomness and probability theory in my work... my Physics and Chemistry friends do however and it doesn't seem to hurt their work.

It doesn't hurt anyone's work. It is very useful for prediction . . . but not explaining what is actually going on.

How then do I adjust to test for god?

You don't.

If we can validate it scientifically why should we add another layer of magic to it? Sure God could be making all the atoms dance but why should we mention that in a scientific paper on the motion of atoms?
What purpose does that serve other than to make you feel better?
wa:do

You shouldn't. But you should NOT imply that you have explained and understand what "makes atoms dance" using our artificial mathematics rubric AS IF that is a scientific explanation (essentially an alternative to God).

 

[Magic Man]

You shouldn't.

Exactly. You can't and shouldn't try to.

But you should NOT imply that you have explained and understand what "makes atoms dance" using our artificial mathematics rubric AS IF that is a scientific explanation (essentially an alternative to God).

Well, shouldn't you be able to imply you know those things when...you know those things? From your perspective, no one should say they know those things because that's God. Well, we can explain them without God, too, so why shouldn't we? You're assuming everyone should assume that God is behind it all. You're more than welcome to believe that, but it's just as plausible that He's not. If you want to add something to "what makes atoms dance", then fine, but nothing needs to be added to claim we understand it.

 

[themadhair]

But you should NOT imply that you have explained and understand what "makes atoms dance" using our artificial mathematics rubric AS IF that is a scientific explanation (essentially an alternative to God).

You mean an explanation that makes predictions and is useful DOES NOT constitute an alternative to god (which neither makes predictions nor is useful)?? This strikes me as the preposterous ravings of a scientific illiterate.

 

[painted wolf]

You accept nature non-critically. Philosophically what is it? Why is it? What establishes its attributes? (Hint: usual non answer . . . "it just is")

Hardly. As a scientist I make it my job to critically examine nature on a regular basis.
"Nature" is a highly complex set of interactions between a myriad of forces on the micro and macroscopic level.
"Magic man did it" is just as vapid a non-answer as "it just is".

Philosophical issues are not scientific issues. I keep my science and my metaphysics separate.
Philosophy is about feelings and interpretations, science is about testable fact the limitation of bias.

You shouldn't. But you should NOT imply that you have explained and understand what "makes atoms dance" using our artificial mathematics rubric AS IF that is a scientific explanation (essentially an alternative to God).

So essentially you want God to be used to plug the gaps then? That is IMHO a poor use for God.
You seem to have more of a problem with Math in general than Science in particular.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

.Yes . . . and it has no place in an empirical science classroom masquerading as empirical fact.

Which is why you will never find it there. No science teacher in a public school has or would teach the non-existence of God.

 

[Autodidact]

The default is the one that assumes there is "No God" behind what is being discovered and validated by science . . . THAT is not neutral. It represents an atheist bias. Science does not have to address how God could be behind what they discover . . . but they should not dismiss it cavalierly AS IF they have some scientific reason for doing so.

It doesn't. Science is neutral on the question.

Stop insisting that their mathematical fictions (randomness, probability) are scientific explanations. They are formalized mathematical concepts of ignorance designed to facilitate prediction of things we do not understand. They can not eliminate or even suggest that God is NOT behind what they are predicting.

Mathematical fictions?!? I have to take issue with you there. That's just wrong. They are mathematical realities. Nevertheless they do not take any position on the question of whether God is responsible for them.

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong . . . it is the fundamentalists and literalists that oppose evolution. Mystics tend to accept ALL scientific knowledge.

Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.

When they deceptively imply that the more scientifically probable view is that there is no God . . . they overstep.Yes . . . and it has no place in an empirical science classroom masquerading as empirical fact.

They don't deceptively imply it, they come right out and lie. The whole purpose and point of the ID movement is to get just exactly this to be taught as science in the science classroom. There is no such comparable atheist movement trying to get the non-existence of God taught as science in the science classroom. The two are not comparable.

Random means we have no understanding (ignorance) of the appearance of the phenomenon we are predicting.

At least, not the random ones.

Yet when we employ our artificial magic math we can predict or assign probabilities to the appearance AS IF it were scientifically understood.

We don't assign probabilities to the random stuff, but to the non-random.

 

[Autodidact]

No one is suggesting that . . . the supernatural does not exist. Everything is natural or God.

I thought you said God was everyting and identical with the natural.

The misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about God need not be accepted or accommodated. But the misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about nature not being God needn't either.

I thought you just said that everything is either natural or God, not both. I'm confused.

What is objective about placing something in the supernatural category or non-existent category because of our ignorance of it.

If we're ignorant of it, it may as well not exist for us. Not only do we happen to be ignorant, but it is defined as something as which we can only be ignorant--that is, it's unknowable. That's the functional equivalent of non-existent.

We needn't appeal to it or resort to it in our explanations . . . but neither should we disparage it or ignore it as non-existent either.

Nor should we assume it does exist. After all, how would we know?


So you're an agnostic then?

 

[Autodidact]

Agree . . . but NON-EXPLANATIONS should NOT be presented as scientific explanations.

They're not. Why do you keep saying this, when you've agreed it's not true? They're presented as what they are--philosophical arguments.