Re: News: Hiccups, hernias and flatulence some intelligent design.

On May 21, 9:38 am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 05:46:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

<rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip a lot of stuff>

Hmm. Really, it's that the tone of your statement, "If you reject
evolution, you must also reject all science" - sounded like asking of
the opposing candidate, "Why do you hate America?" And it's foul
play. And if you treat Bill as a hostile antagonist, I think it'll be
a long time before you successfully beat the truth into him. Let's
persuade.

I have, in the past, complained when others hit too hard and
antagonistically at posters who do not seem to deserve such treatment
so it is hard for me to see when I might do the same myself. So I
apologize to you, Bill, for coming down too strongly on you.

Here is what I see as the important point. Bill wrote: "Evolution is
the context within which most people interpret their
observations about nature. In that context the logic works. But any
theory of evolution depends entirely on one or more assumptions about
nature. One of those assumptions is that nature is sufficient to
explain itself; nothing outside of nature is needed to explain nature.
From that the logic flows inevitably to its conclusion. " Bill then
seems to argue that these assumptions then automatically exclude other
explanations for what we see in biology. I accept that argument as
valid.

My point in lumping evolution with all science is that the assumption
described, that nature is sufficient to explain itself and nothing
outside of nature is needed, is exactly the assumption underlying all
science and so if you reject evolution on that basis then you must
reject all science on the same basis.

I think assumptions have value but only if they're revisited from to
time. The assumption that nature is self-sufficient has been a useful
starting place for the scientific study for quite a while, so we know
it's a safe assumption in that one case. The mistake I think people
make is assuming the assumption is also a complete description of
nature in every case.

For science a Big Bang hypothesis and all that followed from it has
value. Since science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and
processes, the only option is to assume a natural first cause. But see
the limited scope of the assumption. Science is not saying that nature
is all there is but that nature is all science will study. All
evidence must necessarily be derived from nature to explain nature,
scientifically. To jump to the conclusion that the self-imposed
limitations on science exactly coincide with the actual extent and
composition of the universe, goes too far. It says that science
already knows everything about all there is to know before even
studying it.

For many this misunderstanding goes even further. Every observation in
nature must be wholly natural, they believe. While this belief may be
true, there is no way to know if it is, so defending it leads to all
manner of confusion. In the present case we're talking about design in
nature and the general response is that there can be no design because
there can be no Designer. All appearances of design are, therefore
required to be interpreted in a wholly natural context. Once
interpreted as natural, these appearances are then explained as if
they were natural. All data of every kind must be made to agree with
the initial assumption.

It may be, as some argue, that design often makes more sense and more
clearly describes reality than a naturalistic explanation, but since
the assumption of the self-sufficiency of nature prohibits design, the
naturalistic explanation will always win. What really is or is not the
nature of nature, it should be obvious that some of the assumptions
some people depend on have serious flaws. Thing is people have these
assumptions without knowing it and defend them relentlessly without
understanding why people like me think they're wasting everyone's
time.

Bill

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: On the Great Chain of Being
    ... My own love of science revolves around a view of it as ... reader/writer/thinker about the nature of our discourse, ... > EVOLUTION: ON THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... Intelligent design is: "X couldn't have possibly come into existence ... the whole concept of nature to be re-thought. ... Being a defender of science, the answer should be obvious: ... scientists that there are far more than the three dimensions (four is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... Science had always proven these facts. ... Divine intelligence and design is not seen in reality or nature. ... Evolution does not say that "Divine intelligence and design" is not seen ... And why can't God use such forces as his means of creation? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Okimoto, Elsberry, Miller & Jones
    ... nature because one party rejects the existence of God while the other ... same explanation of nature that Richard Dawkins accepts, ... Atheist explanation of nature (evolution) is also the Christian ... God was never a tenant of science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT - When America feared and reviled Catholics
    ... The natural universe exists from a natural cause. ... That's your science, right there. ... Yeah, and you don't know how nature existed, as you have just admitted. ... I could dig out the bibles in the house and take pictures. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)