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


"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.


--
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. ... Scientists often hold such ... Most of us, if we were to see a seriously injured child, ... Instead, by treating the child as a material object, they ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
    ... methodological naturalism in order to qualify as scientists. ... I'm told that there's is no real conflict between science and religion. ... argument that good scientists should be atheists, not tend to be but should be. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
    ... naturalism to philosophical naturalism is not simply a trend but ... Maybe that's true of most scientists? ... I was practising methodological naturalism without a license when I was ... religion on this point when in fact, as a rule, none does. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
    ... naturalism to philosophical naturalism is not simply a trend but ... Maybe that's true of most scientists? ... religion on this point when in fact, as a rule, none does. ... one could deny that a serious conflict exists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
    ... methodological naturalism in order to qualify as scientists. ... atheists, not tend to be but should be. ... further they don't think any god or gods exist. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast