Stephen T-B

There is a dichotomy here between two mutually-excluding world-views: that of Mr Vanderzyden in which god / gods / magic / a spiritual dimension (call it what you like) has / have a physical effect upon the physical world, and that of the rationalists in which they do not.

(Since the human mind produces physical effects, the rationalists argue it is mechanistic; Mr V., however, argues it is spiritual, and sees it as clinching his argument. The debate won’t be settled here, or possibly anywhere, and since nothing is to be gained from an endless exchange of claim and counter claim, I shall leave this issue on one side, and try to find areas of agreement.)

1) If Mr V. were to dive head-first from a sixth floor window and land on a concrete slab, he would sustain multiple injuries.

Why?

To find an explanation, we would all look for a physical effect, regardless of our world view, and in this case settle on gravity. (Looking for a philosophical explanation would be a total waste of time, and a person could peruse the world’s scriptures until his eyes wore out and he would still be none the wiser in terms of this particular inquiry - agreed Mr V?).
Physical events are not amenable to philosophical / religious explanations.

2) If the "supernatural" were indeed part and parcel of the "natural" world, we would know it for sure.
Mr V. would know it for sure when he returned home from a Sunday service to find his house was made of chocolate. I would know it for sure if my dog stood up on its hind legs and gave an impression of John Wayne.

Mr V. would know it for sure if his car (sorry, automobile) took off and flew him to the moon; I would know it for sure if I came home and found I could enter my house by walking through the wall.

We might both be sure of it if we found that our lead / mercury fillings had turned to gold.

Any of these events would lend themselves to endless philosophical speculation, and those of a religious turn of mind would be justified in stating that the supernatural forces wielded by a supernatural being were here in stark, undeniable evidence.

The point I make is that supernatural whimsy is not evident in the physical world. If it were, we would know about it. There would be no argument. No debate. No dissent. There would be no division between "natural" and "supernatural." The natural would be supernatural, and the supernatural would be natural. There would no atheists and no agnostics. There would be no scientists, and priests would rule the world.

Mr V. holds a belief in which the supernatural and the natural merge. Thus there is no conflict in his mind between the real world and the world of the Bible. The Bible, he believes, is proof of this convergence.

It is, however, only a belief, and since religious Beliefs are not open to objective validation, it is a matter of faith, not fact, whethe his belief system is more sensible than another.

And no religious belief is able to explain why an apple falls to the ground.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

K

Vanderzyden:

Others have asked this before, but I think it is really appropriate to ask again here.

If you find methodological naturalism lacking and would prefer including supernatural explanations, should murders be investigated the same way? Should we not rule out that the devil or demons or elves or even God murdered someone?

If you do indeed believe that methodological naturalism is important in foresic science, why not other branches of science as well. If, on the other hand, you believe that crime investigations that don't include supernatural explanations are lacking, please indicate how.

Jack the Bodiless

Vander, this was the phrase you used which prompted this thread:
And you used this in the context of evolution.

I have two questions at this point.

1. Please explain how a scientific theory which you agree with (e.g. the theory that the Earth is approximately spherical rather than flat) "withstands critique from non-scientific disciplines such as philisophy". How is such a critique applied?

2. Please explain why evolution fails. If this is not your position (i.e. you haven't yet tested evolution in this fashion), then please explain HOW evolution can be tested in this fashion, and how you will judge if it has passed. I presume you will not interpret an inability to apply the test as equivalent to failure of the test?
Well, we've already seen that you are somewhat hazy about what "Darwinism" is. But this statement doesn't seem to make sense in ANY context. You think that you would not be able to enjoy many technological advances if they were founded on methodological naturalism? Does this mean that you "don't enjoy" using the Internet, even though you admit that computers work?

Or are you under the impression that computers, or perhaps some other technology that you enjoy, are NOT based on methodological naturalism?

And in what sense is either methodological naturalism or evolution a "crumbling edifice"? There is no evidence which contradicts either, hence no sign of this "crumbling". Evolution, in particular, is becoming ever stronger with every new transitional fossil and every new sequenced genome.

Oolon Colluphid

As has already been pointed out, it was Darwin’s daughter, not a niece. But Darwin also wrote something far more telling:

The more one studies nature, the easier it is to be ‘angry’ at anything that could create such monstrosities as ichneumon wasps, phorid flies, hookworms and Ebola Zaire. If such an entity did exist, that is. I suggest you look up those organisms, Vander. If so-called designs reflect the work of a creator, can we draw any conclusions from these designs?

Actually Vander, the whole quote that that comes from is relevant here:

Happy pondering

Oolon

Nat

"Oh, one other related disagreement is in the utility of evolution. I insist that it has been of no benefit so far."

Then you are clearly an idiot.

Why is every body bothering to engage an idiot? Especially one that has ignored so many posts that have discussed exactly why the ToE is useful (and exceedingly so).

Oolon Colluphid

That’s because it is not.... unless this supernatural intelligence is a drunken part-timer, a mere journeyman specialising in some areas but not others, or a committee. <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">Please see this thread for details.</a> I’ve bumped it for you previously; please don’t make me inflict it on the regulars again by reposting that information in this thread. Instead, please address the points there, or admit the designer is not as advertised.

To repeat: unless you can find some plausible explanations for the items in that thread, supernatural intelligent design is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Oolon

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Xixax

It's excruciating to read through some of Van's responses.... if you call them that. The messages he posts can barely be considered actually responding to the items he quotes. Instead, he uses those quotes as a launching pad to rant on again about the epistimology of whoever is posting.

I'm going back to lurking, I don't have the patience of some of you here right now.

Kevin Dorner

Nah, he'll just ignore it as usual.

But it's one of the best reads/threads I have ever seen here. Thanks for working on it.

Dr. Lamoreaux might want to consider a variant of this thread as some of the evidence for evolution; it's not only very hard to explain some of these features as the work of a designer (who wasn't trying to be deceptive) but they are easily understood regardless of one's educational level in biology.

There's one line in there that asks "Not only is that odd (why can't sperm be made at body temperature?)" There would seem to be an excellent evolutionary reason why: if sperm can only survive at a slightly lower temperature than body temperature, and die when they are subjected to body temperature, then this would be a method to weed out the malformed ones, ensuring that only the strongest survive to reach the ovum, having to survive exposure to body temperature all the way there.

Another nice example in the topic of "wasted seed" are apomictic plants that require pollen to begin their reproductive process, but then reproduce asexually and don't use the pollen's genetic material, which wastes it. Yet they continue to produce pollen because the ability has not yet become vestigial.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Ab_Normal

How about:

Thus stating that "Darwinists" don't care if other people get murdered.

Kevin Dorner

I dunno why these propagandizers aren't campaigning to get chemistry out of high schools or disclaimers all over the textbooks.

It was the chemists who totalled up the elemental cost of a human body (iron in the form of rusty nails, carbon as soot, etc.) as about $1.98. A biologist would tote up the cost of fully formed chemicals (ie proteins, lipids, saccharides, etc.) and this turns out to be several million dollars. Clearly, chemistry puts far less value on a human life. Should we get rid of it from schools too?

Chemistry was used to make the Zyklon-B used in Nazi gas chambers, the mustard gas Saddam Hussein used against the Kurds (causing horrendous birth defects,) the DDT that killed off protected birds of prey, etc.

Chemistry doesn't allow for "intelligent design" or supernatural influences either.

Clearly, the propaganda has been directed in the wrong direction.