Scientific Knowledge

jibes
One nit picked.

subscribe
Two nits picked.Edited by Omnivorous, : corrected the chaos created by a touchpad cursor

Nazis?You lose.

Hi, xongsmith. I've hesitated to engage this debate, since bluegenes and the Gang of Four, as you call them, have done so well.But what the hell. Every scientific investigation works with the implicit hypothesis that natural causes are both necessary and sufficient to explain observed phenomena.Since promoters of the supernatural hypothesis originally claimed that ALL phenomena are due to supernatural causes, every investigation that discovered necessary and sufficient natural causes has confounded the supernatural hypothesis--every investigation removed a brick from the supernatural edifice and added it to the inductive foundation of scientific naturalism.When a creationist dismisses the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution, we can and do cite specific findings. Similarly, supporters of bluegene's theory have cited specific findings that contradict the supernatural hypothesis' causal claims and confirm bluegene's theory.More important, though, since these findings are invariably dismissed, is a reference to the innumerable inductive findings in many fields that confirm the theory of evolution. In this context, we simply refer the creationist to the vast body of scientific knowledge. In effect, proponents of the theory of evolution and the proponents of bluegene's theory hand their critics an index to all of science. The notion that each datum must be recited in order to refute an unevidenced objection is absurd.So, as to the formulation of bluegene's theory: many thousands of times, if not millions of times, scientists' working hypotheses that we will find necessary and sufficient natural causes for each observed phenomena have been confirmed. Further, every supernatural hypothesis to the contrary, and every prediction made by the supernatural hypothesis, has been confounded. Bluegene's step from a large body of confirmed hypotheses to a strong theory is rigorously justified.If you want to see the mass of evidence that supports the formulation of bluegene's theory, I'll open the library door for you. As noted above, every scientific finding that supports the necessity and sufficiency of natural causation and confounds the supernatural hypothesis provides evidence for bluegene's theory. I believe he has referenced this evidence. Jeering at fragments of it while ignoring the totality of it will not invalidate the theory. Well, this is the last refuge, isn't it? The supernaturalist must abandon all claims to supernatural effects in the natural world and instead rely on the bare assertion that their woo-woo can be neither detected nor disproven.If you want a God-O-Meter, again, I refer you to the full repository of science. Every bit of instrumentation used to confirm the specifics of natural causation has also functioned as a God-O-Meter, and the needle has not moved.

That's only fair--reading your posts (and the rest of the Gang's ) on the subject crystallized my thoughts.

Err...umm...Thanks for the reply, have a nice day.

I...couldn't.The formatting lines and colors start to flicker and strobe after a moment or two. That way lies migraine."Qu'est-ce que c'est?" I don't object. I've just stopped reading those exchanges."Say something once, why say it again?"