Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155148290.461781.13100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis Arndt wrote:
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154552986.092199.121440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis Arndt wrote:
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154539930.203952.26130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis Arndt wrote:
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154427044.303912.254930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dennis Arndt wrote:

<...>

The viewpoint that the natural world is all one needs to
consider in answering the question of origins certainly
is a viewpoint of ultimate reality. To include a
supernatural deity in this consideration would force one
to admit that there might be something outside the natural
world that is real and that was involved in the origin of
existing forms of life within the natural world.

No, including a supernatural deity in this consideration, without
evidence for its existence, would make for bad science.


The support I provided for the theory of direct creation presented
at the beginning of this thread is evidence for the existence of
an orderly creator.

Rhetoric is not evidence.

You must have missed the pointers to physical evidence documented
on the web at the Talk.Origins Archive and other similar places.

All I've noticed is you dodging the question and producing no evidence
in this thread.

You must have missed it. It was there in the original post.

What I saw was your statements being shot to pieces by a half-dozen
people (or more).

Then you did see the evidence.

Conclusion One: Methodological naturalism is not sufficient
for valid scientific enquiry. Orderliness is necessary.

Not even close. All you've demonstrated is the need for
controlled
conditions while conducting experiments. If this is your idea of
"refutation," it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Controlling conditions during experiments provides orderliness.
This sometimes means excluding or taking special means to
account for natural events that might interfere with the
experiments.

You still have not demonstrated that "Methodological naturalism is
not
sufficient for valid scientific enquiry."

If valid scientific enquiry is allowed to provide a well-developed but
false explanation for origins, then methodological naturalism is
sufficient.

Rhetoric and sweeping generalizations are not an explanation. You
still have not demonstrated that "Methodological naturalism is not
sufficient for valid scientific enquiry."

What would convince you, then?

As science has been based on methodological naturalism for some time,
and all current scientific knowledge is based on it, you'll have an
uphill climb trying to convince someone that it's not working. But
since it's your claim, the onus is on you to support it, perhaps by
providing a repeatable experiment that proves your point. Your
"thought experiments" fell far short of the mark.


I can understand your commitment to what you see as a proven
approach. I also understand the uphill climb. I have learned
some things by presenting this for review. That, I think, is part
of the purpose of review.

Dennis

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... Dennis Arndt wrote: ... evidence for its existence, ... You still have not demonstrated that "Methodological naturalism is ... false explanation for origins, then methodological naturalism is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... Dennis Arndt wrote: ... evidence for its existence, ... You still have not demonstrated that "Methodological naturalism is not ... false explanation for origins, then methodological naturalism is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: May i have your attention please.
    ... related to biological and physical origins. ... And when new evidence is presented that demonstrates the existing ... The theory of evolution is by far the best scientific theory we have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Didnt Absolute Truth Used to Be, Well, Absolute?
    ... Just as with the debate ... which side is right (either in the steroid debate or the origins ... Evidence is actually interpreted, and we ... someone's head and says imagine a bullet in your head. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Faith and Skepticism
    ... > We have the same type of evidence for the origin of Christianity that ... > tries to disprove the origins of Christianity. ... place IN HISTORY, so it's only consistent to assess them by applying ...
    (soc.religion.christian)