if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154807496.650123.286560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"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/


what you are saying is completely beside the point.
if one does not
assume naturalism in all cases, why should they assume it in any case?


Because people can make distinctions between science and other avenues of
understanding.

what other avenues? this is the original question i asked in the
thread, and it has not been answered. people love to claim that other
methods of understanding exist when science cannot address their gods,
yet they are lax in explaining those methods and how they are supposed
to work.



the fact that the evidence supports a naturalistic explanation is
entirely irrelevant, because somebody who does not assume naturalism
does not care about evidence anyway.


Sure they do. A doctor who believes in the intrinsic worth of an injured
little girl, or perhaps even the existence of her soul, may use scientific
methods to treat the body of the girl in order to relieve her suffering. Our
doctor cares very much about the evidence.

You keep saying this example is irrelevant, but it is a typical real-life
example of someone holding and using scientific and objective methods while
maintaining a belief in unscientific values or even the supernatural.


the fact that people do it does not make those people consistent.


it is inconsistent to care about
evidence for arbitrarily chosen ideas (scientific theories) and to not
care about evidence for other arbitrarily chosen ideas (great spirits
and such).


They may be considered orthogonal.

in what way?




if we do not assume naturalism, then there is no basis upon which to
establish *any* naturalistic idea, because non-naturalistic entities
are not constrained by any rules.


To assert a claim is scientific requires validation by the scientific
method. The scientific method is not the only valid method of human inquiry,
and for many aspects of human existence may not be the best method of
inquiry. It is apparently the only one you recognize, but your personal
predilections are not binding on others.

again, what are these other methods, and how are they supposed to work?
what prevents these methods from being applied to origins, as
creationists are wont to do?



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



the christian god
appears to exist because the great spirit wants you to think it appears
to exist. whatever you think is, is because the great spirit wants it
that way, and thus objective truth is irrelevant.


It is certainly not irrelevant. You merely assert that.

it is irrelevant. if non-natural entities are considered, then all bets
are off as to any notions of truth.



this is what happens
when you reject naturalism.



Your syllogism fails as there are plenty of people who are more than capable
of holding unscientifically metaphysical, philosophical and religious
beliefs and still confidently apply the scientific method.

again, the fact that they do so does not mean they are being
consistent.



--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... That would go beyond the evidence. ... Just because the majority of scientists don't accept what a single ... NATURALISM, not the level of evidence available at the time. ... Have you heard of the God of the gaps fallacy? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... That would go beyond the evidence. ... Just because the majority of scientists don't accept what a single ... NATURALISM, not the level of evidence available at the time. ... Have you heard of the God of the gaps fallacy? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: See how evolutionists lie to your face....
    ... ...and yet you are unable to offer any evidence to support this ... Naturalism). ... Evolution says Naturalism is true; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... ID used by SETI scientists, in particular, could also be applied to ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... Methodological naturalism is just a fancy way of saying that we humans ...
    (talk.origins)
  • OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
    ... That method relies on evidence and ... > then evolution theory, even though wrong, must be retained because it ... > scientists mean by default when they refer to evolution theory). ... > PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)