luvluv

It's really simple.

Scientists assume a priori that the origin of life, for instance, had an IMMEDIATE naturalistic cause. That is to say, they assume a priori that accidental, purposeless, material forces MUST be responsible for the origin of life on planet earth.

It was I, I believe, who first pointed out that this is not necessarily the case even if one started out with the a priori assumption of naturalism. For the record, so no one tells me this for the umpteenth time, I know that alien species are entirely recconcillable to naturalism.

What they are not recconcilable to are the scientist's dream of totally sufficient fully naturalistic IMMEDIATE causes of the origin of life or things like the Cambrian explosion.

You seem to think that mainstream science is willing to consider the notion that any kind of intelligence was involved with the development of life on earth AT ALL, and I think that is a naive notion. I don't think they have in any great numbers attempted any such thing, even though every once and a while someone in the origin of life field insists that it is the only logical explanation.

No I am saying that scientists are lying when they say that the development of life on this planet absolutely has to have naturalistic IMMEDIATE causes. Those who suggest that the immediate cause of the origin of life on earth is purposeful panspermia carried out by a superior race are as likely to be laughed out of the room as creationists.

I guess I failed to make the distinction between an immediate cause of the origin of life or species and a distant one. A distant one is certainly compatible with naturalism, but not with the methodological naturalism of scientists.

Clutch

luvluv, thank you. It's much clearer now what you're saying, though at least as unclear as to why you're saying it.

Here's what's uncontestable:

(A) Not many biologists are working on a research programme for the possible "seeding" of Earth by hyper-advanced aliens.

But your contention is twofold:

(B) There is a great deal of evidence for the "seeding" of Earth by hyper-advanced aliens.

(C) What explains (A) is some unprincipled apriorism on the part of biologists.

My point is also twofold:

(D) You've given precisely no reason to regard (B) as true.

(E) You've given precisely no reason to regard (C) as true.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, "they" do not. Some may. Others may not. Most, however, do not have an "a priori" assumption about anything, beyond an initial assumption as a basis for a possible theory, which is then rigorously tested and verified as best as possible to determine its veracity, if any. All of which is based upon centuries of scientific investigation into all forms of our existence.

You make it seem as if all scientists just woke up one morning and went, "let's just assume everything without any evidence, past discoveries or methods of investigation to base anything upon and then teach the world those assumptions without providing any of our methods or the evidence we do have to support them."

You know that is a horrendously misleading, false declaration.

No, "they" do not. Some might. Some might not. Most, again, have no such "a priori" assumptions toward anything at all! "A priori" assumptions would be anathema to any scientist worth his or her salt and any ordinary assumptions they might have would be based on something(evidence; a previous theory; speculation; etc) that would allow them to support their avenue of investigation sufficiently to undertake it (it's called a "theory"). Regardless, if those initial non-a-priori-assumptions were subsequently found to be groundless, they would be discarded after no verifiable support could be found!

You know this is true, so why are you discrediting yourself in this manner?

Which means that their existence would also be the result of a naturalistic cause; presumably the same naturalistic cause as the rest of the universe. Positing their existence and/or possible meddling in the instigation of evolution on Earth is legitimate, I suppose, as speculation, but does not change the fact that if we can find our own origin, we would ipso facto find theirs as well.



Whether life started on Earth and only exists on Earth or was transplanted artificially would be irrelevant. Wherever life is, it would follow the same naturalistic "laws" (for lack of a better term) that we have evidence for here, yes? Or are you, again, indirectly positing that these alleged "aliens" are "outside" of nature? You keep repeating that you are not, which means that wherever life originally started, it would still follow the same evolutionary process, but yield different results (again, as evidenced here by the billions of different species).

Do you see now why we keep wondering why you are positing aliens, since that only means that Earth was colonized? By implication, you are indirectly positing aliens who created life and not just transplanted life from their world to our world.

While that may explain how life got here (transplantation, or "colonizing"), it doesn't illuminate how life began in this naturalistic universe.

Then I suggest you present your evidence directly to these "scientists" you keep maligning as a whole. Other than interesting speculation (supported by others, mind you, who have already theorized about a possible pre-historic meteorite carrying bio-organisms that you might want to look into), what compelling evidence do you present for your speculation? Anything tangible at all, other than this "might" be the case?

As you well know, it "might" be the case that a mystical fariy god king willed us into existence, but where is the evidence for such a "theory?"

Scientists, by and large, look for evidence to test and support their theories, so your railing against "them" and making wild accusations in general about "their" a priori assumptions is grossly unfounded.

Do you have any specific scientist you wish to accuse and any evidence to present that we can review to determine whether or not any "a priori" assumptions were made by that specific scientist? Or do you wish to continue with this unfounded, general indictment on "science" as a whole?

While cute, what evidence do you have to support your a priori assumption against "mainstream science?" You're hurling wild, generalized, unfounded accusations without making a compelling case in the slightest.

Just because a scientist states his or her confidence that they will find a naturalistic explanation does not mean that they just "a priori assume" this is the case!

If a flying saucer were to land on the Great Lawn here in NY with proof that they were the ones who instigated evolution here on Earth, scientists would be the first ones on the scene to rigourously test and verify such a remarkable event.

Absent such evidence, however, kindly explain to us why "scientists" (to continue with your use of generalizations) would have to factor this into their theories? What purpose would it serve? What conclusions could be based on such a baseless supposition?

A scientist has a theory and seeks to prove it. You have a theory, yet I don't see any proof being offered that would make it a compelling argument that should be factored in, so why must they? Because you're angry that they don't?

Again, then, I would respectfully ask you to take it up with any scientists you might happen to know, but I would be on my guard if you started by accusing them of being guilty of basing any conclusions solely on "a priori assumptions." You might get a beaker full of acid thrown in your face.

I sincerely doubt any scientist seriously argues with other scientists that it is "the only logical explanation." If they did, they should turn their smock in at the door. It is a possible explanation, but by no means is it "the only logical explanation," simply because you think it is, not to mention, again, that all it does is expand the origin of life to now include our extra-terrestrial colonizers.

Well, I guess that depends on which "room" they may be presenting their theory, but this only demonstrates a quite necessary and proper skepticism on the part of scientists in general. Many scientists have been "laughed" out of the proverbial "room" and then later demonstrated to be correct. That's the glory of the scientific method; it is dynamic and tends to police itself.

Or didn't you factor this in when accusing the entirety of "mainstream science" of being guilty of "a priori assumptions?"

Nor have you explained what it is you mean by an "immediate" cause of life that I can recall, or justified your generalized indictment of all scientists.

All this appears to be is a rant against something you misconstrue and/or don't understand. You are making wild accusations against an entire sub-section of our society all because "they" don't factor in an unsupported theory about the possible colonizing influence of alleged "alien" beings, that, even if true, would not change any of the science behind the colonization. Unless, again, you are actually positing alien creators of life, and not merely alien colonizers of Earth?

JB01

Someone has to say it:

Nothing at all (least of all methodological naturalism) prevents scientists from considering the intervention of intelligent agents as a possible explanation for a given phenomenon. Evolution by blind forces of natural selection is considered the best explanation for the origins of species not because intelligence is ruled out a priori but because natural selection really does fit the evidence significantly better.

dangin

The thing that stands out to me in this is that luvluv and yguy seem to think that people who don't understand, or seek out knowledge about science give it too much credit.

Silly arguments against evolution aside, there is another group of scientifically minded folks out there. They populate the religion departments of accredited universities. They are archaeologists, sociologists, historians, and anthropologists who use the scientific method to investigate scripture, many of them focusing exclusively on christian scripture.

It's a good thing the laymen of America are not tuned into these scientists because they almost entirely agree that revelations has no prophetic meaning now or in the future, the creation myth is a myth, jesus, if he existed, was a regular man, and that the bible as a whole is yet another failed mythology. They attend seminars where their inerrantist bretheren blather on about perfect scripture and they nod and smile and patiently wait for the kids to leave so the adults can discuss the bible and its implications in reality.

Instead of complaining that science is held up on the mountaintop, you better pray that it stays there. If it becomes mainstream and ingestible by all, christianity will go where it belongs. To the same place inhabited by santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny.

Go tell it on the mountain, jesus christ is myth.

copernicus

Actually, you don't know that. All you can say is that scientists MAY never be able to discover the truth. This is not controversial, and it is not a criticism of science. You have built a straw man to knock down.

Worse for your case, you have no alternative means of discovering that an alien species transplanted life here. You can have faith that it did, but that is not a reliable method of discovering anything, as you well know. Otherwise, a lot of religious fanatics who disagreed violently with each other in the past would not have killed, tortured, and maimed each other to "prove" that their faith was right. They would all have been in violent agreement with each other, having all discovered the same eternal truth via their faith. Q.E.D.

What utter rubbish. That is a total misrepresentation of what scientists say. Scientific theories are all subject to falsification. Otherwise, they wouldn't be scientific theories. What scientists actually do say, if you stop to listen, is "We don't know, and may never know, how life came to exist on planet eart (sic). But here is how we think it came to exist and here is why we think it came to exist that way..." The explanations are all fully naturalistic simply because that is the ONLY reliable method of discovering plausible "truth". If you have a better method (other than blind faith), please tell us.

Nonsense. Scientists are the first to admit that they may never discover the truth, and they do not claim omniscience. To the best of my knowledge, "omniscience" is a term that religious people throw around loosely. Scientists who are religious may well believe that they can discover other kinds of truth through some other means. They just don't call it scientific truth. You appear to be confusing scientists with people who deny religion. I happen to believe that science and religion are incompatible, but the majority of scientists may well disagree with me. So what? Scientists are not bound to believe that MN is the only way to discover truth. I accept MN as a philosophical point of view, and I don't know why I should accept any other method. You certainly haven't given me any reason to.

You may deny that YOU are suggesting that, but that is no defense of religion. Supernaturalism is exactly what religion claims. Are you defending religion, or are you just trying to say that scientists can be wrong and may never discover everything? If you are not trying to defend religion, then stop wasting your time and ours. Nobody here cares whether science can discover everything there is to know about the universe. Of course it can't. If you really understood what knowledge was, you would understand that truth is always relative to theory. True knowledge can't be quantified, because new experiences give rise to new theories. And we will never stop having new experiences. You can never "know" everything. Get over it.

Jamie_L

Every time I come back to this thread, I'm struck by the fact that I just don't buy the link between morality and creation myth. All this science/scientist talk aside, I think this link between morality and creation myth is tenuous at best.

Creation myths have varied widely through human history, from creation by all-encompassing omnimax dieties with specific plans to things springing from the bodies of supernatural proto-monsters, to great god-animals shaping things in the primordial goo. Yet, it doesn't seem to me that actual human morality varies all that much where it counts. The details may be different, but the core values seem to carry from culture to culture pretty well.

But even if morality does vary wildly, I don't see any correlation between certain creation myth details and corresponding morality details.

And lastly, even if there is correlation between creation myth details and morality, that still doesn't settle the issue of causation. Perhaps the morality came first and led to certain types of creation myth. Perhaps both items are caused by some third aspect of the culture.

With all these question marks, I don't think it's good enough to just assert that morality flows from creation myth.

Jamie

Jamie_L

Ethical scientists don't make a priori assumptions about the truth of things. They hypothesize, and there is a difference.

A scientist may, based on past experience with other phenomena, hypothesize that no intelligent guidance was involved with the creation of life. There's nothing immoral or unethical about making such a hypothesis, so long as the scientist performs an ethical examination of the phenomenon to try to validate his hypothesis. If the hypothesis is incorrect, the evidence should either reveal in to be false, or at least reveal it to be inconclusive.

Unless we expect there to be no evidence of intelligence, in which case, one wonders why a scientist should be criticized for persuing a non-intelligence-based hypothesis.

I also don't see how a naturalistic viewpoint automatically excludes the possibility of intelligent intervention. If scientists tend not to hypothesize intelligent involvement in phenomenon, it is because they have not observed this to be the case in the past, not because naturalism precludes the possibility of intelligent natural agents manipulating phenomena.

Jamie