Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154925554.926761.245210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:
<snip>


what prevents these methods from being applied to origins, as
creationists are wont to do?

The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those
methods. If they did, they would _easily_ see that their line of
reasoning (attempting to validate a creation-myth using a perverted
version of science and resorting to blunt lies to do it) is not only
doomed to be fruitless, but also counterproductive. It actually keeps
them from using those methods.

if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning,
then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith is what
they use.


Faith <> Reasoning. Assuming your conclusion again.

show me how faith works, and why it cannot be applied to evolution.


Asked and answered several times. But for the record, "evolution"
refers to an empirical observation or to a scientific theory which
explains those observatoins.

where answered? i want to see the process of faith, and applied to some
kind of double blind data so i can know it is valid. then i want you to
explain why it cannot be applied to evolution.


I didn't claim faith was a "process", or that it could be applied to
"double blind data". I did not say you should adopt a faith, or that
you could know it is "valid".

However, when we use the word "evolution" with regards to biology, we
are making a scientific statement, and scientific support is expected.










evolution appears true because the
great spirit wants you to think it appears true.


The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific conclusion
based
on empirical evidence.

The Theory of God is not supported at all by the scientific method or
any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to
come to believe in him.

There is. The fact that you don't see it does not prevent others from
seeing it. Oh and before you ask, it is _not_ susceptible to scientific
reasoning. That is reserved for other avenues of understanding.

then explain how it works and why it cant be applied to evolution.


Evolution is either a specific empirical observation, or a scientific theory
which explains a variety of empirical data.

so what? if kent hovind has FAITH that evolution is false, and you
agree that FAITH is valid, then either kent hovind is applying faith
incorrectly, or you have no grounds to critisize him.


Maybe evolution is false. All scientific conclusions are considered
tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Maybe
the world is recreated in every moment by each conscious observer. But
there is no scientific evidence of this. Intelligent Design claims to
have scientific evidence of intelligent intervention in the history of
life, but they do not.

if somebody can claim that the universe is recereated in every moment
by each conscious observer on the grounds of faith, then intelligent
design advocates can claim thta they have scientific evidence on the
grounds of faith.


That is not a valid syllogism. The phrase "scientific evidence" has a
specific meaning. Intelligent Design advocates conflate and confuse
this meaning for political purposes.


that you do not share their faith does not make their
claim false.


Their claim is false.






so, feel free to tell me how faith works and why kent hovind is not
allowed to apply it to evolution.





what prevents this other route from also concluding evolution to be
false?

The fact that it says nothing about the subjects science has chosen to
study.

you cant say this until you describe the method itself.


Now, I know we discussed this. You even responded while ignoring the point
and repeating the error here. There may be no method to religious belief.
Some people may just believe. What is the method of falling love? The
question doesn't make sense.

if there is no method, then why do you not join me in agreeing to their
insanity?


I said there may be no method. Some claim direct mystical experiences.
That you are lacking in the ability to perceive a spirit world is not
incumbent on others.

what is a "direct mystical experience" and how does it logically imply
the existence of non-natural objects?


Logic is not necessarily involved in direct experience.






falling in love definitely has a method; if you think it does not, i
pity the fact that you have never fallen in love.


If you require a method to fall in love, then I pity you that you have
yet to fall in love. (An uncontrolled tumble, without choice, hence the
analogy to "fall".)

the fact that *i* do not control it does not mean there is no method.


If you claim there is a method to falling in love, then you have
redefined that term as well.


every single neuron in my brain is following perfectly natural laws
when i fall in love.


That is not the proper use of "method". Tripping and falling may follow
natural law, but it is not a "method", but a "mistake". Again, you want
to redefine words.

method: a way, technique, or process of or for doing something.

Perhaps you are conflating it with the art of seduction, which does
entail methodology.


if you can show me a non-natural element somewhere
in there, then again, im all ears.



<snip>


the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.


That is your metaphysical belief. But I would point out that you can't
demonstrate this empirically. It probably doesn't even make sense as a valid
scientific hypothesis. You must be deriving this belief from somewhere else
in your psyche.

no, it is not a metaphysical belief, it is a definition.


Natural. Assuming your conclusion. Again.


natural: having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one
that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious.

supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the
visible observable universe.

Merriam-Webster
http://www.m-w.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29


From your cite (and related articles):

Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature, known in Latin as
philosophia naturalis, is a term applied to the objective study of
nature and the physical universe that was regnant before the
development of modern science.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world,
physical universe, material world or material universe.

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism,
experimentation, and methodological naturalism.

Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com





Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



anything that
exists is natural. if any gods exist, they are natural. when youre
ready to show me how the existence of gods can be demonstrated, whether
by science, faith, or some other method, i am all ears.

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of ... But for the record, "evolution" ... not dispute the evidence of evolution or accuse scientists of ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT How to stump dem evilooshunusts
    ... evolution, and a third are unhappy schools teach it." ... concept of time is like St. Augustine's (present-present, ... The problem comes when scientific evidence is posited as a competing faith and then perceived as failing as a faith when contrasted with scripture. ... I don't care if someone "believes" in evolution, so long as they acknowledge the scientific evidence and what it points to and what it means in historical terms. ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use ... then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • How many fallacies can Pagano fit into a single paragraph?
    ... more faith to believe in evolution..." ... "t takes more faith to believe in evolution... ... Because whatever is observed is not novelty, ... creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly ...
    (talk.origins)