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


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154771793.219255.217990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154738382.843123.154810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

rev.goetz wrote:
snex wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
snex wrote:
then what are the base assumptions of ID? how can those
assumptions
be
validated?

But I am an evolutionist that does not assume naturalism.

James Goetz

<devils advocate>
if you do not assume naturalism, then how do you arrive at a
conclusion
of evolution? you might say "based upon the evidence," but if you do
not assume naturalism, in what way is evidence a valid indicator of
anything?
</devil's advocate>

I see two possibilities: 1) common descent from 1 or 2 ancestors; 2)
God made life on earth appear as common descent from 1 or 2 ancestors
but God did something different. And I have no theological or
philosophical or biological reason to believe # 2:)

James Goetz

if you do not assume naturalism, then why do you need a reason?



When we say "Theory of Evolution", we are referring to a scientific
theory.
It is a strongly supported conclusion, the result of scientific
investigation. You can believe that the universe was created Last
Thursday,
but still understand that there is no scientific evidence to support this
belief, and recognize that the world looks, from the scientific
perspective,
as if it is much older. A common instance of this is the faith in an
immortal soul outside the purview of science. Scientists often hold such
views and are quite capable of acting scientifically.

Consider this. Most of us, if we were to see a seriously injured child,
would break down in a spasm of grief and agony. But medical personnel are
trained to put aside their belief in the child's intrinsic worth (however
that is determined by the individual), and treat the child as a material
object; bones and sinews, pumps and valves, electrical and chemical
interactions. What good is a surgeon who (understandably) sobs
uncontrollably. Instead, by treating the child as a material object,
they
are able to perhaps save a child's life. Though they may very well
believe
that the child is much more than a material object, something of great
value, perhaps even with an immortal soul, only by treating the child as
a
material object are they capable of applying their skill derived from
objective scientific knowledge.

this doesnt address the issue. what i am asking is, if one does not
assume naturalism, then upon what basis does evidence even matter?


<snipped, but not necessarily complete>

snex: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...then what are the
base assumptions of ID? how can those assumptions be validated?

rev.goetz: But I am an evolutionist that does not assume naturalism.

snex: this doesnt address the issue. what i am asking is, if one does not
assume naturalism, then upon what basis does evidence even matter?

Inez: It seems to me that there is a rather important difference between the
science of evolution assuming naturalism and you personally assuming
naturalism.

rev.goetz: Yes.


Science does make the metaphysical assumption of naturalism*. However, one
doesn't have to make the assumption of naturalism generally. You can believe
in a natural and supernatural world and still be proficient and accepting of
science.

If you claim that the Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory, then
it requires validation by the scientific method. Intelligent Design claims
to be a scientific theory, and this makes it a falsehood which uses language
of science to confuse and deceive. Contrariwise, If someone claims "the
voice of the Great Spirit speaks in the wind", this statement is not meant
to have scientific validity.

The confusion comes from whether or not your question is limited to the
assumptions within science. When an honest mystic reads "assumes
naturalism", the mystic might think you mean generally. Whereas, the honest
mystic might rightly agree that the Theory of Evolution is a strongly
supported scientific theory, he may still believe the Great Spirit moves in
the treetops.

Back to my example. A doctor assumes, for the limited purpose of applying
the science of medicine, that the patient is a bag of chemicals - but few
doctors believe this completely describes, or is even the most important
aspect, of an injured little girl.


--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html


* I believe a case can be made that the scientific method only requires the
assumption of the validity of memory, and by extension the written record of
data collected by the senses. Objectivity becomes the consistency of these
memories between observers, and the validity of the generalizations of
natural philosophy are defined as the consistency of such memories over
time.





--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres -
one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



.

Relevant Pages

  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... But I am an evolutionist that does not assume naturalism. ... When we say "Theory of Evolution", we are referring to a scientific ... immortal soul outside the purview of science. ... Scientists often hold ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: The truth of ID is self-evident
    ... freely chosen by the scientists! ... I would be very dubious of saying methodological naturalism ... science declares itself unable to say anything about the supernatural. ... bought into ID are the creationists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ... proposing a supernatural being responsible for natural events. ... When you were complaining about the "naturalistic thinking" of scientists. ... use of methodological naturalism. ... try to get me to argue against your claims attacking evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... thousands of scientific fields in which he has not practiced science. ... how scientists work, how they apply for funding, how they organise ... naturalism which says that while doing science, ... It does not say that miracles ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Perhaps slightly off topic
    ... You took issue with my response to A.Carlson early in this topic (it is ... suggestion that your understanding of science was limited. ... Scientists don't "hold onto" theories. ... it's naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading