if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

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.

Speaking from my own religious convictions, i could explain until i'm
blue in the face, and you'd _still_ not understand. Som things can be
understood with the mind, others only with the heart (metaphorically
speaking, of course).

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.

They cannor be explained rationally, since they aren't rational but
emotional. They do not lend themselves for textbooks, but are usually
explained using metaphors, analogies and archetypical figures and
situations. For some brief introductions into this world of thinking,
reread (for instance) the tales of the Grimm Brothers.

if that is the case, then you are not allowed to say that these methods
give you knowledge about the existence of gods.


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.

Consistency is not a Good Thing (tm) by definition. If you consistently
treat all patients with a couple of aspirins and let them come back in
the morning, you'll soon loose all your patients. I, for one, would
immediately switch my favorite doctor.

Same goes for consistently treating your patients in exactly the same
way. An 80-year-old with arthritis requires a different approach than
an 8 year old with a tummy-ache that doesn't go away.

wow, you gonna open a scarecrow store with all that straw?


<snip>

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?

Why don't you meditate on that question? Perhaps it will help you on
your way to enlightenment. A straight session of "Just Sitting" will
do. Or "Just Walking" if you prefer...

define "enlightenment."


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.


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.


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.


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.

Which implies you have knowledge of "truth". It has been a subject i'm
very much interested in. Tell me more. How do you _scientifically_
determine what the "truth" is, especially when it comes to non-natural
entities?

In case you hadn't noticed the sting in it, ask Mr. Wilkins. He's the
resident professional on those matters. Popper had something to say on
that, it think, but as i've heard even he's not above criticism...

the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.
something outside nature is outside of existence. if any conscious
universe creators exist, then they are natural beings subject to
natural laws. not necessarily the laws of our universe, but laws
nonetheless.


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.

Show me a man who'se always consistent, and i'll show you a corpse.
Consistency is for computers. Living things just make it up as they go
along.

some people try to correct their inconsistencies, others wallow in it
like a pig in its own filth.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: FYI
    ... uttered the example of a giraffe's neck in conjunction with the ToE. ... (Kinda like science.) ... "The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is ... the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)