Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

Now, in a Naturalistic, or atheist etc. point of view

---

Hold it right there. If this is your premise, then it immediately fails. Unless you're trying to say that the Catholic church is actually an atheistic group, then your claim that naturalism = atheism is trivially shown to be false. The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet.Are you saying that the Pope is an atheist?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I do remember saying, at the end of my OP, that A Theist can rightfully believe in Evolution.

---

Then please explain your equivocation of "naturalist" and "atheist." It would seem you have contradicted yourself.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me.

quote:

---

A Naturalist is someone who beliefs that matter and energy is all there is.

---

I would disagree with that. Instead, a naturalist is one who thinks that natural things have natural causes.

Dr Adequate responds to me:

quote:

---

You took "naturalist" to mean "one who accepts evolution"

---

Incorrect. I took "naturalist" to mean "one who accepts that natural things have natural causes." Evolution happens to be one of those natural things and thus has a natural cause, but "naturalist" is not a synonym for "evolution."Note, even evolution accepts the possibility of outside interference: There is "artificial selection" in contrast to "natural selection." This doesn't defeat "naturalism." It simply points out that there are some things that are not "natural."

quote:

---

A philosophical naturalist would be someone who rejects the supernatural a priori, which the Catholic Church does not.

---

You misunderstand. The Catholic Church certainly agrees that natural things have natural causes. They don't think that god creates stars: That's collapse of stellar nebulae. While the Church also thinks that there are other things out there that are not natural ("ensoulment," for example), they do not contradict the concept of naturalism.It's just that they think certain things aren't natural.

quote:

---

Slevesque argues (incorrectly) that a naturalist must accept evolution.

---

But his comment was that "naturalism" was "atheistic." But the official position of the Catholic Church is "naturalism" and clearly they are not atheists. Naturalism can co-exist with theism.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Dr Adequate responds to me:

quote:

---

This would still not include the Catholic Church (who would tell you that the Universe is a natural thing with a supernatural cause).

---

Not quite. The creation of the universe is a non-natural occurrence in their view. Even science distinguishes the creation of the universe from the universe itself. That's why the Big Bang isn't about the creation of the universe but rather its expansion. Similarly, the origin of life is distinct from the diversification of life. That's why evolution doesn't discuss origins...that's for investigation into abiogenesis.And again, even evolution understands a distinction between "natural selection" and "artificial selection": Sometimes you do have outside agencies fiddling around with things. Just because humans have been involved with the breeding of their domesticated animals and plants doesn't mean that evolution isn't natural.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

What I was trying to say was this: If it truly is a genuine miracle, in the sense that there really was a supernatural intervention, than it means that atoms have been annihilated.

---

Why? Why is that the only way the miracle could have occurred? Certainly that would be one way a miracle could have happened, but why does that have to be the only way?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

But two brains are better than one, so maybe you could propose another law of nature that could have been hypothetically violated ?

---

Just because I'm not clever enough to figure it out doesn't mean nobody else is.Why couldn't the cancer cells have been teleported out of the body? Perhaps the cancer cells were transmogrified into water which was then absorbed by the body? Maybe they were converted into photons that then radiated out (though that would be a ridiculous number of them which would hardly go unnoticed).Again, just because I'm not clever enough to figure out how it might happen doesn't mean nobody else is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

But still, applying Occam's razor would favor the violation of the law of cservation of energy in my mind.

---

(*blink!*)Are you seriously saying that some violations of the laws of physics are more likely than others? Having the atoms vanish is more parsimonious than having them teleport or transmogrify?How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I do think you misunderstand Occam's razor.

---

(*chuckle*)You do realize that that is my argument to you, yes?

quote:

---

rather which of the explanations presented explains it in simplest form. or with the least assumptions, etc.

---

And exactly how is one violation of the laws of physics "simpler" than any other? You seem to be saying that some miracles are more miraculous than others.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I'll take a different approach, since you didn't understand what I meant. Simplest is used in the sense of which explanation has the least assumptions.

---

That doesn't answer the question. How is the vanishing of atoms more parsimonious than transmogrification? How is the former miracle less miraculous than the latter?

quote:

---

I think my explanation of simple dissapearance as less assumptions then the one you proposed in which it has to dissapear here but then reappear somewhere else for instance.

---

This would be where you would explain why. It is not sufficient to simply assert that it is so. You must provide specifics. How is one violation of the laws of physics less parsimonious than any other violation?After all, teleportation doesn't require a violation of the conservation of matter. There's still just as much matter in the universe after as there was before. It's just distributed differently. So why is teleportation less parsimonious than annihilation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

If something disappears, it is one step to assume it did disappear, it is second step to asssume that it reappeared elsewhere

---

But if something disappears, you have to violate conservation. If something simply translocates, all you have to account for is the change in position. And since we know that quantum translocation can happen, it is much less of an assumption to have a whole bunch of it happening then a brand new process that has never been seen before being the cause.

quote:

---

It is not about which is more or less miraculous, it is about which has the least numbr of assumption.

---

And what makes you think annihilation has fewer assumptions?And you still haven't dealt with transmogrification.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

You had equated Occam's razor to 'what is simpler', and so I did find it important to just correct the misunderstanding that Occam's razor is more specifically on the number of assumptions rather than on simplicity.

---

And that simply (hah!) means you had misunderstood what I was saying. Indeed, Occam's razor is, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."And I should point out, you were the one who used the word "simple," not me. What I said was (Message 57): You will notice that I didn't mention "simplicity" anywhere. I was talking about likelihood (which is part and parcel of Occam's Razor since it refers to "needlessly" multiplying your necessities) and immediately used the word "parsimony," which is a synonym for the concept that Occam's Razor tries to convey.Instead, you were the one who brought up "simplicity" in your response to that message (Message 58): So do be aware of the irony: Here you are complaining about the use of the word "simple" when you were the one who brought it up in a message where you were complaining about my understanding of what Occam's Razor is. You're whining about your own argument.Occam's Razor is not about "simplicity" or even about "assumptions." As I directly responded to you when you used the word "simple" (Message 60): The "simplicity" (even in the sense of "number of assumptions") has nothing to do with it. After all, "goddidit" has an extremely low number of assumptions, but we never conclude that when we see things that we can explain naturally...especially when we can observe them happening right in front of our eyes.

quote:

---

I don't think it is valuable to continue to discuss this side-issue, as I think it will end up 'arguing for the sake of arguing'.

---

Indeed. The words you are looking for are, "Oops. I misspoke."So let's try to get back to the original post: Evolution is an outcome of science which takes a naturalistic approach to examining the world. It isn't so much a question of "options" so much as it is a question of following where the evidence goes. This has nothing to do with "atheism" as you put in your original post, for surely god is capable of creating life that evolves.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.