Vanderzyden

In these forums, there is much deragatory talk of a "god-of-gaps" or "goddidit". Most often, such Darwinist invocations indicate that no supernatural causes will be considered in the examination of biological development. It would seem that nothing invisible is considered to be part of the real world.

I'd like to highlight a case of "seeing and not believing." Here is the most outrageous example of a Darwinian leap of faith that I've read:


Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker


I'm am genuinely saddened when I read such things. Not only is this an utterly non-sensical definition of biology, it blantantly reveals his pre-scientific (i.e. philosophical), methodologically naturalistic bias.

Anticipating where this may lead, permit me to clarify the terms:

1. A presupposition is a belief that precedes a hypothesis or worldview. Theories are developed from the establishment of facts which corroborate the hypothesis. However, unjustifiable presuppositions that one maintains may weaken the hypothesis, thus tainting the theory and calling the "facts" into question. An example of an unjustifiable presupposition is "we are the product of uncaused, random, wholly materially processes".

2. The methodoligical naturalism that is blantant in Dawkins proposal is a pre-scientific philosophical position, distinct from the scientific method itself. MN is the worldview which excludes anything supernatural (i.e. invisible) from rational consideration. MN serves as the primary presupposition of much of modern secular science.

3. Biology is the study of living organisms and vital processes. It makes no claims on origins. Macroevolution is not biology, but only an undemonstrated hypothesis which borrows from several proper sciences.

Proper professional science does NOT require that the practitioner hold a purely naturalistic worldview. The scientific method is widely applicable, and is consistently applied well by those who maintain theistic beliefs. Macroevolution is not based upon scientific laws, but loose hypothesis. Therefore a scientist may go beyond a proper science such as biology and reasonably consider other methods for the development and propogation of life.

Challenges? Comments?

Mageth

It would seem that nothing invisible is considered to be part of the real world.

If, by "invisible," you mean supernatural, then by definition it's not part of the "real world." If it was part of the real world then it would be "natural," correct?

Science, as I think you're using it here, is limited to the natural. The supernatural is left to Philosophy. Anything to which the scientific method can be applied is, by definition, natural.

KnightWhoSaysNi

When you attack methodological naturalism, the scientific method itself is under attack. It seems you only have a problem with MN when applied to evolutionary biology. Why not go further with other sciences? Why stop at evolution? Should we be open to the idea that invisible spirits are the mechanism for gravity? Should we look at demon possession and witch doctor curses as the causes for physical and mental illness? When forensic investigators examine a murder scene, should they consider ghosts or demons as the perpetrators?

Macroevolution is far from a "loose hypothesis." It has remarkable explanatory and predictive power (see <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">29 Evidences for Macroevolution</a>). It is falsifiable (e.g. show us some dinosaur fossils from the Precambrian strata). Creationism severely lacks these things. There's just too many interesting little coincidences (like that chimp/human chromosome example mentioned my other post to you) for the creationist/intelligent design view to make any sense. The "leap of faith" that you accuse of us, is more akin to creationism.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Skeptical

As I stated in another thread, MN is the _only_, repeat _only_ toolset we have that produces reliable results. There are no non-MN tools at our disposal that produce results that work. If you disagree, provide evidence that we have non-MN tools that produce reliable results. Go ahead.

If you think macroevolution is "undemonstrated", you don't know anything about the DNA evidence. Try refuting the question posed to you in another thread regarding the 23 chromosomes that humans have versus the 24 that the great apes have, especially WRT the fusion hypothesis that made 2 specific predictions that were later shown to be true.

No doubt it is. This just goes to show that no matter what ones preconceived notions are, in properly conducted experiments the data does not lie. It also shows that while preconceived notions don't matter, it very much does matter that one uses _only_ MN to find answers. I doubt that theistic scientists use prayer to conduct their experiments. If they do, it doesn't seem to help since non-theistic scientists get the same answers.

Ok, here's a challenge. Let's say that one wants to consider "other methods". How, exactly, do you propose that we test to see if these "other methods" are causal factors? Please explain a non-MN toolset that we can use to produce reliable results. Please, I'm dying to here this.

KeithHarwood

That's right. If we have two competing hypotheses and there is a way to decided between them that can be demonstrated to everyone then we are using methodological naturalism and doing science. If there is no such way to decide between them then the hypotheses become a matter of opinion; anyone's guess is a good as anyone else's. Scientists are not interested in matters of opinion, they leave that to politicians, philosophers and priests.

Albion

For goodness sake! You posted this exact same stuff on another thread, a bunch of people responded, and now you're starting it again here barely half an hour later without responding there. Just exactly why is it so necessary to have everybody duplicate their efforts? Nobody's going to be impressed how saddened you are just because you've been saddened twice by the same thing. You are more and more giving the impression that you don't give a damn about the responses you're getting, you just want to throw out problems. This is such a typical creationist tactic that nobody's going to be fooled by it. Either get into a conversation and stay in it, or spam the boards and talk to yourself.

Richiyaado

It appears that Vanderzyden's tank has been pumped full of Johnson & Plantinga's high-octane 'methodological naturalism = philosophical naturalism' gas.

Vroom!

Vorkosigan

In these forums, there is much deragatory talk of a "god-of-gaps" or "goddidit". Most often, such Darwinist invocations indicate that no supernatural causes will be considered in the examination of biological development.

They cannot be. The reason scientists gave up theism as an explanatory strategy is that it did not result in reliable and useful knowledge about the world.
The methodoligical naturalism that is blantant in Dawkins proposal is a pre-scientific philosophical position, distinct from the scientific method itself. MN is the worldview which excludes anything supernatural (i.e. invisible) from rational consideration. MN serves as the primary presupposition of much of modern secular science.

A few corrections here. First of all, methodological naturalism IS NOT distinct from "the scientific method." MN is a philosophical stance toward explanation in science, and is part and parcel of any scientific outlook. The thing that distinguishes western science from prior forms of science is in fact its commitment to naturalistic explanation.

Second, there is no one "scientific method," just a huge catalogue of scientific methods used by the various sciences in exploring and understanding reality.

Third, MN is not a "presupposition" but a philosophical stance whose truth is continuously confirmed by the success of science in producing reliable and useful knowledge about the world. Methodological naturalism was developed by theists in the early years of science as an explanatory strategy, and has since been confirmed in millions of scientific experiments in every country in the last 300 years. No violation of it has ever been reported and found to be reliable. Scientists did not begin by pre-supposing naturalism; this is erroneous. Until the 19th century, virtually all scientists were theists of one sort or another. MN evolved over time, it did not appear full-blown (are you even aware of some of the basic history of science?). All the early scientists used MN in their work. Even today some 40% of American scientists are theists of one kind or another, but all use MN in their work. Why? Because it works.

Scientists are ruthlessly practical. If a better explanatory strategy exists, then scientists would be glad to use it. Unfortunately, none exists.

Biology is the study of living organisms and vital processes. It makes no claims on origins. Macroevolution is not biology, but only an undemonstrated hypothesis which borrows from several proper sciences.

Please show that macroevolution does not occur.

Proper professional science does NOT require that the practitioner hold a purely naturalistic worldview.

Yes, it does.....or explanation is impossible.

The scientific method is widely applicable, and is consistently applied well by those who maintain theistic beliefs.

Yes, because under MN, they ignore their supernatural beliefs.

Macroevolution is not based upon scientific laws, but loose hypothesis. Therefore a scientist may go beyond a proper science such as biology and reasonably consider other methods for the development and propogation of life.

Again, please show specifically how macroevolution violates "scientific laws" (whatever those are) and is untrue. I want a clear, detailed and well-argued demonstration of its impossibility. Evolution is probably the best demonstrated theory in science, with the possible exception of the Standard Model in Physics. It has been observed in both the lab and field, in fossils, and in the genes. Actual observations of evolution in action render your arguments ridiculous.

Vorkosigan

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Because, if it cannot be observed, then it ain't real.
Nope, not at all. Wrong on all counts there, buddy.
Wrong.

Yeah, removing what isn't real from consideration (supernatural is, by definition, NOT NATURAL, and as such, NOT SCIENCE) sure is an awful presupposistion. Just like presupposing that the guy whose arm is severd might not be feeling to good right now is a pre-suppossition that leads to the conclusion that he needs help.
Actually, it can make a claim on origin, and it does. Macroevolution IS biology--understanding the origins of life better enable us to understand life itself.
Actually, it pretty much does. Otherwise, if you get stumped, rather than re-evaluating evidence, looking to other developments, etc. one can simply assert that "Goddidit". Science has no room for "Goddidit".
Wait a minute here--you claim that evolution is not biology, but rather a hodge-podge of other fields, which you use to degrade it. Then you state that when looking at evolution, you can look beyond biology. Which is it? Can't cut it both ways, so don't even try. Take on consistency.

Autonemesis

Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. This is not your Bar Mitzvah. There's no call for subtlety here. If I was attending your wedding or high school graduation, I'd be polite and deferential. This is not one of those occasions.

Just a little religious lingo there, a little swipe taken at imputing Darwin-worship; just a little hint at where this is headed.

That's right. The supernatural is not approachable by the scientific method. By definition, the supernatural, the divine, all that stuff is unapproachable by the scientific method. Being unapproachable by science is what makes those things special when compared to ordinary reality. It defines their specialness. Without this defining characteristic, they'd all just be ordinary stuff, like forests and oceans, foxes and bacteria, asteroids and hydrogen atoms.

Well I'm glad you've come around at last. It takes guts to admit you were wrong. I hope my meaning is not lost (I wish so much for my atheist peers to think of me as clever).

At last, the meat of the matter. Yes it does.

Of course it is. But God is not approachable by the scientific method. Therefore if God is implied or indicated in the results, the scientific methodology must be flawed somehow, and the research is not trustworthy.

Yes, many. But I believe you can overcome them. I believe in you, man. I really do.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>