At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?

I guess that if you have virtually no hypothesis to test you could reasonably look for a non materialistic explanation for the purposes of reducing confusion.What I mean by this is when one dose not understand something (say thunder)one can feel anxious and by giving an explanation (any explanation will do) that we can cleave to (even if it is not a hypothesis that would stand up to the rigours of the scientific method- such as lightning is ) we can reduce our anxiety.When I was a kid thunder was explained as god moving his furniture. To my unsophisticated mind this worked for me, at the time.When something is unknown it is scary but when you can give a name to it it becomes less so; even if in the real world of adults it makes no sense.An illusion? Certainly; but one that works for many people who feel anxious about uncertainty.So when should we look for non material explanations?When we don't know the answer and we are scared.

I've no idea of the point you are trying to make, here.Please clarify.

No idea what you mean but I'll strive to work it out (if god wills it).

Thing is Buzz, this statement only goes to show that you hold the view that because science cannot answer the question now it cannot answer the question ever.This is of course, an foolish position to hold.Edited by Larni, : Last line clarity.

Hi Buzz, please could you clarify your point on message 6?Edited by Larni, : point

That's cool. Could you specify at what level of magnitude that non-materialistic factors come into play?

This does not follow. The important point is the shared variance. How is common ancestry 'knocked down' by these findings?And to the point of when should we look towards non-materialistic explanations I' at a loss to see how information that challenges the current status quo (discovered by the scientific method) should mean we should stop using the scientific method.Please could you explain why this DNA information should mean we should stop using the scientific method and embrace non-materialistic methods of exploring the world?

The thing is that non-material explanations have never been shown to explain anything with any rigour: why then should they be used at all?

This is where I lose you, Buzz.What you appear to be saying is that when things become complicated the chance of the supernatural operating increases.I would like to ask you how this is different from people not understanding lighting at one point in time was (because at the time it was a too complicated explanation) and concluding a supernatural explanation?The lightning is material but at one time the explanation was supernatural (the anger of Zeus for example).But as we can understand more and more complicated things (in this case that lightning has perfectly material explanations) we can (and do) replace supernatural explanations with material explanations.You seem to say because we don't know now everything now that we can consequently look to non-material explanations when we have a gap in our knowledge.How many non-material explanations have been found to be correct against the ones shown (like lightning in the example above) to be correct?

So could you give me one or two examples of a material event that has a non-material explanation?This does sound like irreducible complexity to me, though, as you seem to say that there will be a point when our science cannot answer some of the questions we have about the universe; is this the case?

I'm going to ask you to focus on this one, if I may.Could you specify exactly how the material DNA has a non-material explantion and in which way the DNA is explained?I know I've asked before but you reply to this point has not been clear to me. Could you explain your reasoning in the most simplistic terms availible (to help my poor noggin from getting confused )Sorry to be like a dog with a bone but it would help me greatly see where you are comming from.

Damn fine point, that man!

Hi Buz, I have read the link but I have to say it's not good science at all. The first thing that caught my eye is when it says that there is a boundary that prevents micro evolution from becoming macro but it does not state what or even what it is.There is no need for non-material explanations when the material explanations work.Your link displays a lack of understanding of biology and then makes a claim that because the author does not understand something it must have a non-material cause.It's full of bad science, Buz.

Sure, Buz, happy too. The problem with this assertion is that it conflates selective breeding with natural selection. The difference is that natural selection always selects for traits that enable animals to survive long enough to breed.Selective breeding selects for traits which don't aid survivability and so (when taken to the extreme by humans) lead to a decrease in survivability.So the problem with making the assumption that a non-material explanation is required for a material effect is that a material explanation actually better resolves the conundrum.In this case the misunderstanding of the science involved is the problem as there is no conundrum.That's the thing, here Buz. Every time you say "we need a non-material explanation for this phenomena" eventually science will come along and say "actually, this is how the phenomena came about".Edited by Larni, : clarity