Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
" Why don't we move past the philosophical arm waving and talk about specific examples.
Can you provide an example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation? And how, in the absence of investigation and exclusion of all possible natural explanations, does one specifically go about deriving this explanation (in other words, how does one test for the supernatural)?"
Just a simple question. Why not use the spell check? If you want someone to read your posts (and take you seriously), you should have the courtesy of at least attempting legibility.
Any label you choose is fine by me. I'm just asking for some example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation. And, as I also asked, the means by which this non-natural explanation was derived?
"Any label you choose is fine by me. I'm just asking for some example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation. And, as I also asked, the means by which this non-natural explanation was derived?"
The only point that can be derived from Shapiro's words is that he thinks the idea of an external intervening designer is a crock. His conjectured "intelligence" is a naturalistic phenomenon, whose origin is as unknown simply because the history has been obliterated by time.
Why are you surprised that I would quote from (with links to) hostile sources? It’s pretty obvious that the Discovery Institute was pretty unhappy with Shapiro’s review of Behe, and it’s pretty obvious that cdesign proponentsists are surprised and disappointed that someone who calls himself a critic of neo-Darwinism would not support them.
Shapiro works within naturalism and denies any role for the supernatural. Live with it.
You seem to be confirming my question. However you interpret his words, they are his and not mine which is counter to your contention, You have gone from misreading to simply making stuff up. Try making your point without injecting verbiage that isn’t in the original.
whose origin is as unknown simply because the history has been obliterated by time
After denying that DNA is similar to code, now you assert that no one can determine the origin because of time. Yeah, right. It was suicide, when the victim shot himself in the back with a shotgun. There was no other evidence besides the gun and the body.
I see you have no qualms about speaking for Dr. Shapiro, and for the Discovery Institute. They were so unhappy that they(Meyer), stated this, quoting a friend,"Look, you’re really into this idea of pre-programmed adaptive capacity as a kind of alternative to strict Darwinism. We think that’s a neat phenomenon.". That was from the link you provided and the date on that was in 2006, ten years after Shapiro's review of Behe. From which you ignore the first question which Shapiro answers yes. That question is? "Is this book a serious critique of orthodox evolutionary theory?" Yes it is.
You've got so many holes in your argument, that if you called it a door, everyone else would call it a window.
His statement was that the philosophy by which science is run categorically rejects as untrue anything that requires any non-natural process to have happened.
If this statement is not true, then the correct response would be to counter it -- not change the subject and try to demonstrate that the statement is irrelevant. (There is a vast difference between arguing that something is irrelevant and arguing that something is untrue.)
On the other hand, if the statement is true, then it is true that scientists will dogmatically rule as untrue or impossible something that could be true and possible -- and they wouldn't be ruling it out because of lack of merit, but because "it's not science, because it doesn't fit the dogmatic assertion that all science must require only natural processes."
So as long as it is possible that everything was created by an intelligent creator, it is dogmatic to rule out an evidence which requires an intelligent creator.
Now I observe many things in the world around me which sure look like it was all created, but that's not the point here. The point is that the scientific philosophy does have a dogmatic ban on a possibility.
-Jesse
[[Just a simple question. Why not use the spell check? If you want someone to read your posts (and take you seriously), you should have the courtesy of at least attempting legibility.]]
Too tired and lazy to- noone wants to read? Fine- whatever
[[Why are you so averse to spell check? Your posts are unreadable]]
Seriously- I post many posts here- on my blog (whbere I do spell check) emails and other forums as well- Here I jst post quick and don’t bother to spell check because it’s the content and facts that matter- I spend a lot of time posting and just get tired of trying to keep everythign coorect. besiders, the brain is conditioned to recognize words regardless of how goobled up the letters- just makes the brain work a little more- but not much as you’ll see in the following:
“Don’t even think about using spell check!!!!!!!!
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny
55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt!”
The human mind is indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.
And so many people use their gift of intelligence to deny the giver of intelligence.
Simply sad.
Understood. But the fact is that the big bang is impossible, and as far as we know, was always impossible. We have no evidence that it was ever possible. And saying that "The big bang is natural process because at the time it happened, the laws of nature didn't exist" is no more absurd then saying that "God created the universe, but that it's perfectly scientific because at the time the laws of nature didn't yet exist." And to believe not only that something came from nothing, but that everything came from nothing, without evidence that it's even possible or ever was, just requires a lot of hope in things yet unseen.
Nope. And as with "natural laws," I'm not sure "source substance" has any real meaning. But I'd have to ask a physicist.
My apologies, I meant "Singularity" which is described as being about the size of a dime and that from which our universe was born.
I don't think so. Think of all the people that have ever lived--current estimates run around 100 billion. Shouldn't we be up to our necks in old bones by this point? Even just considering historical times, they estimate 300 million people were alive in the year zero.
According to this the earth has about 57.5 square miles of land. According to google calculator 57,500,000 (square miles) = 36,800,000,000 acres.
This means that the world-wide average is 2.72 dead people per acre. Now of course there are grave sites which have hundreds of people's worth of remains, and other areas that don't have any. So for every acre that has 28 buried, that's 9 more acres that don't have a single buried. And by the way, we do run across bones every once in a while. See this article where hundreds of bones were unearthed for a construction project. Nobody knew they were their, but of course when they were unearthed, the nearest Indian tribe claimed them to be their anscestors, and it became quite an ordeal. The fact is that even from the past few thousand years, there are lots and lots of bones in the ground -- it's just that they're nothing new so we don't hear much about them. (and we try to not dig them up)
Do we have 300 million skeletons from that time? No, because most dead things get eaten and decay--that anything survives even a few hundred years takes luck or protective measures.
You're comparing the skeletons from a few thousand years as compared to millions of years. It certainly is true that many remains get eaten leaving only the bones, strewn all over. But buried bones really last quite well. And it's not that we haven't found a lot of bones, it's that we haven't found very many intermediate species, compared to all the ones that must have existed.
-Jesse
Cool! So there's hope for me after all.
Anyone can give opinions on science, but ones level of education must be taken into account.
True enough. One's character and integrity must also be taken into account: The news is full of stories of people doing what they know is wrong and telling what they know is not the truth. And brilliant men rob banks too. (I'm not saying that brilliant men are more likely to rob banks, but that be brilliant does not prevent a man from having poor character.)
So I agree -- one's character and their familiarity, knowledge, and skill with the topic are good things to know.
Another problem arises when experts jump off the train and ignore the scientific method. We see this in some of the leading creationists. By accepting religion as the overriding source of "knowledge" in their lives they cease to follow the scientific method. They are no longer doing science, and their judgment is no longer to be trusted.
There's a bit of a strawman, here. I can't speak for all creationists, but I believe the Bible to be true. It's a faith. I know that gravity works.
Does my belief in the Bible prevent me from using the scientific method or from arriving honestly at a conclusion?
-Jeses
The first issue is that origins must be separated from evolution. The second is that fact must be separated from theory.
Your question regarding "goo to you by way of the zoo" mixes all four of these together. I suspect it was designed to do so, a strawman with a catchy rhyme and meter as well.
Do you mean 'abiogenesis' by 'origins' or the whole process? I am starting to sometimes use "Amoeba to man" now instead of "Goo to you by way of the zoo" because the latter does encompass the two different stages. I'll reply more fully when I know what you meant by 'origins' in this case.
Thanks,
-Jesse
If you scroll back on this thread you will find a link to Shapiro's review of Behe's "Black Box." I also produced Phillip Johnson's response to the review. There's no need for me to continue repeating myself.
If you think you can establish that shapiro supports supernatural causes, after he criticises others for doing so, whip out your evidence.
If all aspects of the phenomena that can be observed, have been observed, and there is still no natural explanation, any further attempt to explain it by natural means is pure conjecture.
If the means for determining whether something is supernatural is to eliminate all possible natural explanations, then it certainly seems that scientists are performing precisely that task. And it seems that those who complain about a "naturalistic" bias should instead be pleased by the persistent existence of that bias. After all, how else is the supernatural going to be located?
The question is, of course, at what point do you call off the investigation and announce "it's supernatural"? That "throw in the towel" declaration doesn't have a very good track record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.