Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with

in article 1176022559.453369.258450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx at richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
on 4/8/07 1:55 AM:

On Apr 8, 6:46 am, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article 1175960521.732359.133...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx at richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
on 4/7/07 8:42 AM:

<snip>

In what way is your assertion falsified?

How is it possible to determine if life was created not by the naturalistic
process which was carried out in the lab, but by the intervention of some
supernatural being who provided the spark which produced it?

I imagine you aren't going to just throw a bunch of stuff in a flask and come
back later to see what developed. I would think the experiments will be well
controlled and documented. It should be possible to detect changes that
cannot be explained by natural laws. If everything can be explained
naturally, then my hypothesis is wrong.

If there is something which can be detected the assumption of science is that
it can be explained by "natural law".

This always seems to lead to a dilemma. You seem to be saying that a miracle
cannot be detected even though it has to be detected in order to be called a
miracle. Say two children are playing on the sidewalk and from the 20th
floor a piano falls strait toward the kids. People on the street are
watching in horror at what is about to happen. But then the piano hits 20
feet away. You find that the event was video taped and through analysis you
find that at about the 10th floor the piano's trajectory changes for no
physical reason.

Was the miracle detected? Of course. So I think you need to restate your
sentence. I don't think science should assume that anything that can be
detected can be explained naturalistically.

The only other option you have is to say that miracles never happen and this
is just a story of an impossible occurrence. In which case why are you going
on and on about the possibility of it happening during the abiogenesis
experiment.

If our current understanding of "natural law" does not explain what is
detected, the assumption of science is that our understanding of "natural law"
is deficient, not that we have detected the intervention of something beyond
"natural law".

You can easily get out on a very silly and small branch going down this
path. Let's say you are at the wedding feast at Cana. You, being a
scientist, ask to take a sample of the water in the containers before they
are brought to Jesus and a sample of the wine. How long will your
investigation last? I'm sure it would be somewhat longer than Thomas's.

It is *because* science makes this assumption that our knowledge of "natural
law" has expanded so greatly over the past couple of centuries.

Well then let's just get on with the experiment and quit quibbling over what
ifs.

Science does not make any distinction between "natural" and "non- natural" or
supernatural. It does not need to. If something can be observed or measured,
we can investigate it using the tools of science. If it can't, we can't.

Good, let's do it.

<snip>

If you think that it can be falsified, please describe how you would do so?
Producing life in the laboratory would not falsify your assertion that it
can only be created "outside the box", because there is no way of testing
for supernatural intervention.

Richard, you are wrong about two points. First, you misstated my hypothesis,
thus creating a strawman, when you changed it to life can only be created
outside the box.

What else do you mean by

" 1. Natural

Four dimensional space-time that we experience and comprehend naturally, also
simply referred to as our box.

2. Unnatural (or non-natural if you like)

Actually supernatural. Anything happening of existing in part or completely
outside four dimensional space-time, also simply referred to as outside our
box. "

My hypothesis only requires definition 1.

That is not my hypothesis.

So when you write :
"It should be possible to detect changes that cannot be explained by natural
laws. If everything can be explained naturally, then my hypothesis is wrong."

what are we supposed to understand?

You are suppose to understand that my hypothesis is, Life cannot arise by
natural means. The statement you just quoted was in response to you worries
that if scientist did create life in vitro, God might have sneaked in and
done it without us watching and leaving no detectable trace. I don't know
why you are worried about this because my hypothesis would still be wrong.

Second, I have told you how it would be easily falsified, but you keep
pretending that I haven't. Does that sound honest to you?

You have asserted that it can be falsified, but you are wrong. Your assertion
is not an hypothesis which can be tested using the tools of science because
you specifically impose a priori assumptions about what science can and cannot
explain. What else can you mean by "cannot be explained by natural laws"?
Science does not need to explain everything in terms of known "natural laws".
If there are phenomena which can be observed and measured which know "natural
law" cannot explain, then science revises it's understanding of "natural law".

You are attempting to squeeze science into a box which does not exist.

Science squeezes itself into a box that must exist.

George Evans

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
    ... How is it possible to determine if life was created not by the naturalistic ... it can be explained by "natural law". ... You seem to be saying that a miracle ... I don't think science should assume that anything that can be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Life may have been pouffed into existence by a supernatural being 3 and ... you are correct in your assertion that it is a miracle. ... science to address miracles. ... the universe did not pouffed into existance last Thursday. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... (the creation/origination of life out of the ashes of the BB ... We observe the evidence. ... science to address miracles. ... That would be then a miracle causing the event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Hence "you" did not observe it and you have to rely ... That makes it nolonger science but history. ... Since there was no life shortly after the BB, ... What does "miracle" mean? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open question for the Creationists in the crowd
    ... You realize that would not be a good reason to reject God right? ... necessary for life to form naturally. ... The next miracle would be to find something to eat and a ... Science fiction or evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)