For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists

[exchemist]

And I think I agree with this assessment. But, for example, there is nothing preventing science from investigating ghosts, determining if they are a real phenomenon, and figuring out the conditions in which they appear and the patterns they show.

Even in the 'blood' example above, the first line would be, of course, to find a natural explanation. Just like the first line would be to explain the orbit of Mercury in terms of Newtonian dynamics. But, if such fails, and if patterns of behavior are observed and verified, that is enough to start doing science. The hypothesis of a supernatural agency, isn't in and of itself, a deal-breaker for science *if* it has observable patterns of behavior that can be correlated and compared to other observations.

Now, if supernatural means 'not subject to observable patterns of behavior', then you would be correct. At that point science cannot do anything. But 'having observable and testable patterns of behavior' is enough to do science even if those patterns are not 'natural' (whatever that means).

Right. We are down to a definition of supernatural.

The way I look at it is that science is always finding new phenomena, which are not readily explicable by existing theories. Dark matter for instance? Do we treat dark matter as supernatural, because it does not seem to fit our model of physics? Nope. We acknowledge there appears to be more to learn about nature.

For this reason, it seems to me that something truly supernatural would have to be capriciously, not predictably, outside the known laws of nature. A miracle, effectively. In which chasing ghosts is a good metaphor for any attempt to study such things.

 

[Polymath257]

Right. We are down to a definition of supernatural.

The way I look at it is that science is always finding new phenomena, which are not readily explicable by existing theories. Dark matter for instance? Do we treat dark matter as supernatural, because it does not seem to fit our model of physics? Nope. We acknowledge there appears to be more to learn about nature.

For this reason, it seems to me that something truly supernatural would have to be capriciously, not predictably, outside the known laws of nature. A miracle, effectively. In which chasing ghosts is a good metaphor for any attempt to study such things.

And I agree. That's part of why I define 'physical' recursively: anything that interacts with the physical is also physical. Any patterns of behavior are *by definition* physical laws.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that the term 'supernatural' is coherent.

 

[blü 2]

ALL species are transitional. But handfish show what certain transitions (from fins to legs) might have looked like.

Of course, they may be going back from legs to fins.

 

[nPeace]

ALL species are transitional.

If you are referring to species, as within a single population - according to scientific terminologies or kind, as mentioned in the Bible, I believe that changes do take place, hence the variety we see within that population, or kind.
However, aside from that, there is no evidence, for example, of this:

Persons only assume, by inference that, evolution took place at a macro level.
This is what you are referring to.
If so, how is it that these walking fish are supposed to be the transition between fish with gills, and fins, and tetrapod with lungs and feet, yet these walking fish existed 370-380 million years ago, and exists today, and they are not "living fossils"?

But handfish show what certain transitions (from fins to legs) might have looked like.

I like that you say, "might have looked like." It certainly is highly likely that was not the case at all.
In fact the variety of fish we see today, and the variety of every other organism, is seen in the fossil record.
We have today, animals with gills, and lungs; feet and fins; wings and no flight; beaks and "teeth"; etc.

It appears to me, that evolution on a small scale was part of God's purpose, but as it says in the Bible, God created everything according to their kind. Hence we have a diversity, of plants, flowers, trees, and animals... and mankind - us.

Well it is a bit more nuanced than that.

You are right that there are some people who are philosophical materialists or physicalists. Such people have a worldview in which they have decided that only the observable material world is real, and that anything outside that is fiction or fantasy. A good number of scientists, though far from all of them, hold this worldview.

Science itself says nothing about philosophical worldviews. It is concerned only with finding explanations of nature in terms of nature, by observing patterns and relationships and building predictive models of aspects of the physical world. But, because its job is to explain nature in terms of nature, there is no place in science for the supernatural. The very many scientists who are also religious believers have no trouble with that.

So it is important to distinguish between people arguing to keep supernatural ideas out of science, which is something we should all agree is important, and people who reject supernatural ideas entirely, due to their personal philosophical conviction.

I believe I understand, you are speaking of Methodological naturalism,
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. There are two main reasons for pursuing this strategy. First, some scientists believe that there is no supernatural: they begin with the assumption that God does not exist (see atheism) and that there is no life after death (see also Atheism and life after death). Second, some scientists believe it is possible that supernatural causes (such as God and angels) may exist, but they assume that any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard and therefore impossible to study systematically.
...in contrast to Philosophical naturalism.
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

I understand the argument presented, and I do not believe that scientists need to go beyond Methodological naturalism, in order to be open-minded. As you say, some scientists accept the probabilities and possibilities of things that may not be currently known.
In other words, not believing in something or believing in something is not a gauge for determining who is reasonable from who isn't.

There are various fields of study, and we don't expect that one field of study will cover all aspects of life.
For example, some people seem to think that every single thing must be studied using one strict and rigid method, and if it can't be subjected to that method, then it should be dismissed.
I don't find that reasonable. What about you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are referring to species, as within a single population - according to scientific terminologies or kind, as mentioned in the Bible, I believe that changes do take place, hence the variety we see within that population, or kind.
However, aside from that, there is no evidence, for example, of this:

Persons only assume, by inference that, evolution took place at a macro level.
This is what you are referring to.
If so, how is it that these walking fish are supposed to be the transition between fish with gills, and fins, and tetrapod with lungs and feet, yet these walking fish existed 370-380 million years ago, and exists today, and they are not "living fossils"?

This only tells us that you do not even understand the concept of evidence when you make such an obviously false claim Nor do you understand evolution. You seem to think that there is some sort of goal in evolution. The only goal is survival. Over a long period of time following one lineage it can look as if there was a direction, but then one is just ignoring all of the side branches. Some successful, most are not.

I like that you say, "might have looked like." It certainly is highly likely that was not the case at all.
In fact the variety of fish we see today, and the variety of every other organism, is seen in the fossil record.
We have today, animals with gills, and lungs; feet and fins; wings and no flight; beaks and "teeth"; etc.

Now that is an obviously false statement that you cannot support. Why even bring it up?

It appears to me, that evolution on a small scale was part of God's purpose, but as it says in the Bible, God created everything according to their kind. Hence we have a diversity, of plants, flowers, trees, and animals... and mankind - us.

And yet creationists cannot properly define "kind". Tell me, how would you tell if two groups of organisms are the same "kind" or not? If you can't tell me then your "kinds" claim is unsubstantiated and worthless.

I believe I understand, you are speaking of Methodological naturalism,
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. There are two main reasons for pursuing this strategy. First, some scientists believe that there is no supernatural: they begin with the assumption that God does not exist (see atheism) and that there is no life after death (see also Atheism and life after death). Second, some scientists believe it is possible that supernatural causes (such as God and angels) may exist, but they assume that any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard and therefore impossible to study systematically.
...in contrast to Philosophical naturalism.
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

I understand the argument presented, and I do not believe that scientists need to go beyond Methodological naturalism, in order to be open-minded. As you say, some scientists accept the probabilities and possibilities of things that may not be currently known.
In other words, not believing in something or believing in something is not a gauge for determining who is reasonable from who isn't.

How would you go beyond methodological naturalism? If you can find a way that works go for it. But to date only methodological naturalism appears to be the only thing that drives us forward. Or as Dawkins said:

"Science, it works . . . *****es".

There are various fields of study, and we don't expect that one field of study will cover all aspects of life.
For example, some people seem to think that every single thing must be studied using one strict and rigid method, and if it can't be subjected to that method, then it should be dismissed.
I don't find that reasonable. What about you?

You appear to be attempting to construct a strawman. There are problems where Methodological Naturalism is not applied. We are talking about problems that should have that applied to them and appears to give the only answers. Once again if you can find some other way knock yourself out. Who knows, a Nobel Prize may be in the offing if you do so.

 

[exchemist]

I


I believe I understand, you are speaking of Methodological naturalism,
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. There are two main reasons for pursuing this strategy. First, some scientists believe that there is no supernatural: they begin with the assumption that God does not exist (see atheism) and that there is no life after death (see also Atheism and life after death). Second, some scientists believe it is possible that supernatural causes (such as God and angels) may exist, but they assume that any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard and therefore impossible to study systematically.
...in contrast to Philosophical naturalism.
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

I understand the argument presented, and I do not believe that scientists need to go beyond Methodological naturalism, in order to be open-minded. As you say, some scientists accept the probabilities and possibilities of things that may not be currently known.
In other words, not believing in something or believing in something is not a gauge for determining who is reasonable from who isn't.

There are various fields of study, and we don't expect that one field of study will cover all aspects of life.
For example, some people seem to think that every single thing must be studied using one strict and rigid method, and if it can't be subjected to that method, then it should be dismissed.
I don't find that reasonable. What about you?

Absolutely, methodological naturalism is intrinsic to science. It always has been, since the inception of modern science after the Renaissance, even though the early scientists were often men of the cloth. They realised that nature could be understood in terms of nature - rather than simply resorting to God as a (non-)explanation - if they looked hard enough.

As for my views, I've consistently argued on this forum for using the intellectual toolkit appropriate to the task at hand. For the studying nature, that toolkit is science. For the search for meaning to our lives, inspiration for how to live and relate to others, understanding of love, loss and a myriad other personal experiences of being human, science does not help much. There are other toolkits for that, mainly to be found in the Humanities, including, for many, religion.

The arguments get heated only when somebody tries to shoehorn God into science, or to force a physicalist worldview down the throats of those that don't share it. When that happens I man the barricades to repel the invasion.

(I may reply separately to your stuff about trying to distinguish between macro and micro evolution, which I consider misguided.)

 

[Audie]

This only tells us that you do not even understand the concept of evidence when you make such an obviously false claim Nor do you understand evolution. You seem to think that there is some sort of goal in evolution. The only goal is survival.

No goal but there is a goal? Tsk

In the evenr, survival is the result, not the goal.

 

[Audie]

Of course, they may be going back from legs to fins.

Its been tried. All you get is some darn porpoise ,
maybe a ichthyosaur or two.

 

[Audie]

Are you calling abiogenesis, science?!

It is not. It is philiosophy, only an hypothesis

So, best to explain a mystery with "god" and look
no further?

Would you say that the search for planets outside
our own solar system was just philosophy, until
they found some?

And if it was "just" a hypothesis, the search was
unscientific, but became "science"when they found
some.??

Back when people thought all disease had suprenatural
causes, was it just "philosophy" to question that,
and look for real causes?

 

[exchemist]

If you are referring to species, as within a single population - according to scientific terminologies or kind, as mentioned in the Bible, I believe that changes do take place, hence the variety we see within that population, or kind.
However, aside from that, there is no evidence, for example, of this:

Persons only assume, by inference that, evolution took place at a macro level.
This is what you are referring to.
If so, how is it that these walking fish are supposed to be the transition between fish with gills, and fins, and tetrapod with lungs and feet, yet these walking fish existed 370-380 million years ago, and exists today, and they are not "living fossils"?


I like that you say, "might have looked like." It certainly is highly likely that was not the case at all.
In fact the variety of fish we see today, and the variety of every other organism, is seen in the fossil record.
We have today, animals with gills, and lungs; feet and fins; wings and no flight; beaks and "teeth"; etc.

It appears to me, that evolution on a small scale was part of God's purpose, but as it says in the Bible, God created everything according to their kind. Hence we have a diversity, of plants, flowers, trees, and animals... and mankind - us.

Yes, if you are a religious believer, God created the diversity of life, just as He created the heavens. The issue is merely how it was - and is still being - done. Unless you are a benighted literalist (you don't seem to be), there is nothing in the bible that precludes it all happening by means of evolution. I have never understood why so many religious people in the USA get hung up on evolution. Why do they think God could not have allowed life to unfold, in the same way as the universe itself unfolds, according to laws of nature? What is it that troubles you about it happening through evolution?

As for transitional forms, this is a dreadful old myth of creationism and I have never understood why it is so hard to dispel. The fossil record is full of forms that are mixtures of one thing and another *. Surely you have heard of Archaeopteryx, haven't you? What do you think that is? A bird? Or a dinosaur? Both? What about Tiktaalik? What about Pakicetus, and the DNA evidence that shows the closest land relative of the whale is the hippopotamus? It all fits, or most of it does - there will always be adjustments and classification errors of course.

So no, it is not just inference, it is direct evidence in many cases, from which science, quite reasonably, then infers similar processes for the rest. Just as we classify elements in the Periodic Table, so that we can infer how potassium will react - roughly speaking- if we know how sodium reacts.


* Robert Asher's book "Evolution and Belief", which I recommend, has a table of over a hundred "transitional" fossils. And that is just the vertebrates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No goal but there is a goal? Tsk

In the evenr, survival is the result, not the goal.

Okay, I should have been clearer. There is no goal in the sense of a species. We were not the goal of evolution. Not were great blue whales.

 

[Audie]

As for transitional forms, this is a dreadful old myth of creationism and I have never understood why it is so hard to dispel. The fossil record is full of forms that are mixtures of one thing and another *. Surely you have heard of Archaeopteryx, haven't you? What do you think that is? A bird? Or a dinosaur? Both? What about Tiktaalik? What about Pakicetus, and the DNA evidence that shows the closest land relative of the whale is the hippopotamus? It all fits, or most of it does - there will always be adjustments and classification errors of course.

So no, it is not just inference, it is direct evidence in many cases, from which science, quite reasonably, then infers similar processes for the rest. Just as we classify elements in the Periodic Table, so that we can infer how potassium will react - roughly speaking- if we know how sodium reacts.


* Robert Asher's book "Religion and Belief", which I recommend, has a table of over a hundred "transitional" fossils. And that is just the vertebrates.

I think the reason they cannot see "transitional" forms
as real -aside from it being anti god and so on-
is that their source of info is about inevitably going
to be a creationist source.

One side detail is that as creationist sources
are Christian, and, the others are atheist,
which would they choose for credibility?

 

[Audie]

Okay, I should have been clearer. There is no goal in the sense of a species. We were not the goal of evolution. Not were great blue whales.

Uh, no. Not clearer, correcter. Go forth and
err no more.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, if you are a religious believer, God created the diversity of life, just as He created the heavens. The issue is merely how it was - and is still being - done. Unless you are a benighted literalist (you don't seem to be), there is nothing in the bible that precludes it all happening by means of evolution. I have never understood why so many religious people in the USA get hung up on evolution. Why do they think God could not have allowed life to unfold, in the same way as the universe itself unfolds, according to laws of nature? What is it that troubles you about it happening through evolution?

As for transitional forms, this is a dreadful old myth of creationism and I have never understood why it is so hard to dispel. The fossil record is full of forms that are mixtures of one thing and another *. Surely you have heard of Archaeopteryx, haven't you? What do you think that is? A bird? Or a dinosaur? Both? What about Tiktaalik? What about Pakicetus, and the DNA evidence that shows the closest land relative of the whale is the hippopotamus? It all fits, or most of it does - there will always be adjustments and classification errors of course.

So no, it is not just inference, it is direct evidence in many cases, from which science, quite reasonably, then infers similar processes for the rest. Just as we classify elements in the Periodic Table, so that we can infer how potassium will react - roughly speaking- if we know how sodium reacts.


* Robert Asher's book "Religion and Belief", which I recommend, has a table of over a hundred "transitional" fossils. And that is just the vertebrates.

I went through all of this already, but let's go through it step by step.
I go by evidence. You say you have evidence. Okay. Let's start with Archaeopteryx.

So, I am a layman, and I want to study the evidence for Archaeopteryx being a mixture of one thing and another.
Where would you recommend I go? I am not able to travel. I have a computer, and internet access.
Can I find a credible source on the internet?
Is this a good one? Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
I find Wikipedia goes into details, so I like to use it rather than other sites like this Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil, which doesn't give you much.

Any suggestions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I went through all of this already, but let's go through it step by step.
I go by evidence. You say you have evidence. Okay. Let's start with Archaeopteryx.

So, I am a layman, and I want to study the evidence for Archaeopteryx being a mixture of one thing and another.
Where would you recommend I go? I am not able to travel. I have a computer, and internet access.
Can I find a credible source on the internet?
Is this a good one? Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
I find Wikipedia goes into details, so I like to use it rather than other sites like this Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil, which doesn't give you much.

Any suggestions?

First you have to understand what a transitional fossil is. What do you think one should see?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

there is nothing preventing science from investigating ghosts, determining if they are a real phenomenon, and figuring out the conditions in which they appear and the patterns they show.

See, this just happens to be the problem. (Now, bear with me, please, @Polymath257). What if these intelligent supernatural entities’ goals are deception and confusion, only to mislead? Then they would not follow any patterns....it might reveal them.

You remember about a week ago, you said you thought death was just non-existence, and I agreed w/ you that that’s what the Bible really says? Yet, we have all these accounts of people “seeing ghosts”, like Abraham Lincoln and countless others!

Now, please consider: if what the Bible says is true, that the dead are really non-existent, then some intelligent forces are behind these ghost sightings, actually impostering dead people, misleading people into thinking the dead are alive!!

I know it sounds wild, but there are just too many occurrences of these “hauntings”, I guess you could say, for them to be arbitrarily discounted.

This is just one aspect of the evidence in how they mislead others.

So your last paragraph......

Now, if supernatural means 'not subject to observable patterns of behavior', then you would be correct. At that point science cannot do anything. But 'having observable and testable patterns of behavior' is enough to do science even if those patterns are not 'natural' (whatever that means).

....really brings home the gist, to me: ghost hunters have detected phenomena and recorded it, like with the Doris Bithers case, but they are not testable, because these beings don’t want to follow any recognizable patterns.

So what do you do with that?

 

[Polymath257]

See, this just happens to be the problem. (Now, bear with me, please, @Polymath257). What if these intelligent supernatural entities’ goals are deception and confusion, only to mislead? Then they would not follow any patterns....it might reveal them.

You remember about a week ago, you said you thought death was just non-existence, and I agreed w/ you that that’s what the Bible really says? Yet, we have all these accounts of people “seeing ghosts”, like Abraham Lincoln and countless others!

Now, please consider: if what the Bible says is true, that the dead are really non-existent, then some intelligent forces are behind these ghost sightings, actually impostering dead people, misleading people into thinking the dead are alive!!

I know it sounds wild, but there are just too many occurrences of these “hauntings”, I guess you could say, for them to be arbitrarily discounted.

On the contrary, whenever they have been investigated, natural phenomena are found to be at the base. People are very good at scaring themselves.

This is just one aspect of the evidence in how they mislead others.

I don't think there is a separate 'they' here. It is people freaking themselves out.

So your last paragraph......

....really brings home the gist, to me: ghost hunters have detected phenomena and recorded it, like with the Doris Bithers case, but they are not testable, because these beings don’t want to follow any recognizable patterns.

So what do you do with that?

I say people are very good at scaring themselves, especially when subject to superstitious beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

That's only true for you because you can't accept a claim on faith alone. So, you're making an argument that would only persuade people who would already agree with you. Preaching to the choir.

Name something you cannot accept on faith alone.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[exchemist]

I went through all of this already, but let's go through it step by step.
I go by evidence. You say you have evidence. Okay. Let's start with Archaeopteryx.

So, I am a layman, and I want to study the evidence for Archaeopteryx being a mixture of one thing and another.
Where would you recommend I go? I am not able to travel. I have a computer, and internet access.
Can I find a credible source on the internet?
Is this a good one? Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
I find Wikipedia goes into details, so I like to use it rather than other sites like this Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil, which doesn't give you much.

Any suggestions?

Anywhere will do. Archaeopteryx is pretty standard. Does it have dinosaur features, or bird features, or some of both?

Secondly, since the issue here is really about religion (the science is to all intents and purposes settled), I'd be really interested if you can address my question of why you find the idea of God building His creation through the working out of evolution unsatisfactory. As I say, I have never seen an issue with this but clearly some Americans do think it is a problem. What is the objection?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't think there is a separate 'they' here. It is people freaking themselves out.

Well, I’m glad you at least said “I think”, not ‘I know.’

But we have people like Winston Churchill and other respected individuals seeing these things.

Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia

Most have no idea of the extent of these....conspiracies, you could call them.

But the Scriptures give us clear warning: invisible intelligent forces are “misleading the entire inhabited Earth.” (Revelation 12:9; Revelation 12:12).
Whether through false religion or other means, they just want to promote confusion and turmoil.....anything to draw people away from finding out the truth....like about the condition of the dead, and many other issues.

Although the Scriptures warned the Israelites to stay away from occult activities (Deuteronomy 18:10-12), the counsel is advantageous for all, aiding humans to avoid direct control by them; too bad many people don’t take the Bible seriously.

These intelligent beings are doing a good job, since their objective is deception.

Thanks for your time.