Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

Hi Cobra: I know you originally addressed this to Percy, but I'm bored, have no meetings until this afternoon, and I've already signed off on all the bi-monthly P&L and expense documentation - so you're stuck with my undivided attention. Sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
P: "I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution."

​

CS: Yes, it is my opinion that evolutionary scientists would have no difficulty with including abiogenesis in their theory if in fact abiogenesis was supported by empirical facts and/or observations.

---

I don't agree, here, if by "evolutionary scientists" you mean biologists. Abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry, nothing more. Biologists might crow about another example of natural processes being proven, but it still wouldn't be a part of evolution. Chemicals don't evolve. Don't confuse evolutionary science with a non-existent "theory of everything". It isn't, and isn't intended to be. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.

quote:

---

P: "But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions."

​

I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science.

---

This is kind of a non-sequitur. In addition, "materialistic naturalism" seems to be redundant. Is there "non-material or supernatural naturalism"? I think you're confusing the empiricism of the scientific method with "philosophical naturalism", which is a philisophical position stating that "nothing exists outside of nature". Science merely states that science isn't capable of measuring or detecting anything outside of nature - not that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is a very crucial distinction. "Scientism" and "philosphical naturalism" are both subsets of an essentially atheistic worldview. Science itself does not adhere to either position - theist or atheist. Science is by definition agnostic, I guess.

quote:

---

P: "This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore."

​

CS: You mean kinda like the Second Law?

---

I'll let Percy answer this one.

quote:

---

P: "Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science."

​

CS: True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science.

---

First off, what is "operational science"? I've never heard that term before. Secondly, if you DON'T place the restriction that "science deals with nature only" on origins science, you have removed the entire idea from the realms of science, and placed it firmly into theology. If it isn't natural (and therefore the rightful purview of science) then it is by definition supernatural - and hence the realm of faith and theology. With a bit of metaphysics ("What is life?") thrown in for good measure.

quote:

---

P: "The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."

​

CS: But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?

---

Simply put: you cannot use your conclusion ("creation happened") as proof of your postulate ("a creator exists"). This is commonly called circular or tautological reasoning. I would very much like to hear your explanation how SETI (a technological search for signs of extra-terrestrial technology) has anything to do with a supernatural creator.