Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Because there's never been any evidence that made a non-material explanation more likely. And every time non-material explanations have been suggested, they've been proven to be false.So naturally scientists lean against non-material explanations. They're more likely to be correct if they stick to material explanations.

Evolution certainly implies a lack of meaning in the natural world, but it hardly necessitates meaninglessness in the [i]human/i world. It just entails the realization that humans are the source of their own meaning.I hardly think you'll find many atheists who will assert that their lives have no meaning - no more than the religious who say the same thing, anyway. (For instance, Mother Theresa.) I asked you about that before - which commandment was Darwin so especially fond of violating that he took ten years of his life to develop evolution? What commandment was Huxley so fond of turning his back on that he became Darwin's most ardent champion? How can this be true? Hardly any college students take courses in the biological sciences. The ones that usually do are in pre-medical majors - is it your impression that the nation's doctors are an elite cadre of liberal atheists? No, because that's not the job they're meant to do. We have an adversarial legal system, where each position is meant to be advocated to the fullest extent, and then a jury weighs the evidence and interpretations put before them.Of course, the legal system has restrictions on what can be evidence because juries are laypeople, and to protect civil liberties, which we consider more important than guilt or innocence in any particular trial. Science doesn't have the same restrictions on evidence; in science, the restrictions on what can be considered "evidence" are meant to ensure that conclusions are being drawn only from the data that is most reproducible and authentic. This increases the quality of scientific conclusions. Not especially. I was a worse than average student. You probably got better grades than I did. I don't think less of you because you don't know science. You're forcing me to think less of you when you refuse to admit that there's any science you need to learn. That's a pretty exciting living history. Thanks for sharing it. Why?

What experiments? All cases of "out of body" surgery experiences, where participants supposedly were able to see specific details they couldn't have known any other way, turned out to be apocryphal. Studies that supposedly revealed "psychic powers" were revealed to be fundamentally flawed when investigators couldn't tell the difference between supposedly "real" psychics and pranks by professional illusionists. It turns out that being jabbed in the back randomly by toothpicks is even more effective at treating pain than acupuncture.Prayer, of course, fails every rigorous study, every time. In many studies you're even worse off in terms of recovery times if you are informed that people are praying for your recovery. And in no study, of course, has the power of prayer regenerated limbs, teeth, or corrected serious deformities as described in the Bible (and as God must surely be capable of, if he exists.)So, no. You're actually flat-out wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for "non-material" anything or for any aspect of the supposedly "paranormal." Why? After all, I can transmit an image from Croatia to Tulsa using entirely material means - the internet, for one. Even if "remote viewing" were to be substantiated - and it never, ever has - why would that mean it was "supernatural"? Why couldn't it be natural, by a means we've not yet discovered?How, exactly, do you determine the difference between that which the materialist perspective has not yet explained, and that which it could not ever explain? Please be specific.

My own knowledge of experiment design, and the knowledge of others. No, I'm asking you what "supernatural" means, and how you purport to know the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural cause we just don't understand yet. Every one that's been published, yes. There honestly aren't all that many. For very understandable reasons its hard to attract research funding for crank pseudoscience. It's called "the internet." Be honest, now - have you ever in your life sought out and read a scientific, peer-reviewed journal article? Do you even know where they can be found?What was the last peer-reviewed paper you read? Please be specific.

But there is no such research.

If non-material explanations are never better it doesn't matter if they're allowed or not. If there's absolutely no real evidence for paranormal anything, then there's nothing you can accuse scientists of ignoring.And you've not yet explained how you propose to discern the difference between something that can't be explained by materialism yet and something that never will be. Until you answer that you have absolutely no basis to suggest that anything is "evidence for non-material explanations."

How would evidence "point to a non-material explanation"? How would you tell the difference between evidence not yet explained materially, and evidence that can never be explained materially?

And you can't answer an apparently simple question. How do you purport to tell the difference between evidence that hasn't been materially explained yet, and evidence that can't be materially explained at all? We don't require certainty, only provisional, improving knowledge. But material explanations are indisputably more parsimonious than non-material ones, because non-material explanations have always been wrong in the past and needlessly multiply entities. Science has only progressed by debunking the metaphysical world. No "non-material" claim has ever withstood scrutiny. That's a good reason to avoid such claims, right there.

Brains. Thoughts are material patterns of neuron activation. That's how they're able to design and build machines that can determine what you're thinking about. Mind-reading machine knows what you see | New ScientistThere's no non-material basis for human cognition; human thought is an entirely material process. How would you know if we have an explanation for it or not? Wouldn't that explanation be in the books you consistently refuse to read?You've made it beyond obvious that you lack the science education of a ninth-grader. Isn't it just possible that science explains a lot more than you're aware of, because you're not aware of the findings of science at all?What was the last scientific study you read? Be specific, I'm looking for title, author, and date and journal of publication. I don't go to bars. I certainly don't rely on them for my science education, as you've apparently done. What's the last scientific study you read? Be specific. Nobody told me that. After all, supernatural bullshit - ghosts, souls, aliens, Bigfoot - are all way more popular than the skepticism of these same notions.The reason that I know that no supernatural claim has ever withstood scrutiny is that I've asked proponents of the supernatural to show me a supernatural claim that can, and they've always failed. Just as you've failed to do so.Shouldn't there be at least one proponent of the supernatural who can provide good, unambiguous evidence? Why can't you?

I get you. But it seems to me that there's little reason to suspect that even if someone could do psychic surgery, or remote viewing, or mental telepathy or whatever, they're able to do so by fundamentally metaphysical or supernatural means.I mean, just about every sci-fi setting where "paranormal powers" exist has some material explanation for them; X-Men have the x-gene. Why couldn't telepaths have an extra organ that can perform biologically-based functional NMR? Why couldn't remote viewers have an extra organ that interprets Wi-Fi signals?Clarke famously said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Isn't the reverse true, as well? Couldn't advanced technology or biology give legitimately "paranormal" results?I'm not saying they do because clearly paranormal feats are hoaxes. But even if a genuine manifestation was presented, and we could know it was genuine, why would that mean it was supernatural? Isn't this conversation we're having, at a far remove of geography, something that would be considered supernatural wizardy a few centuries ago?

From what basis?You don't think we just dismiss the so-called "evidence" of the paranormal without providing any justification, do you?Isn't it funny how, in every study that supposedly gives credence to paranormal phenomena, we find out that the researchers, far from being neutral or dispassionate, helped their subjects violate important aspects of the protocol designed to weed out cheating?There are well-designed experiments and poorly-designed ones. The difference is not in the results, but in the way the experiment is designed and administered. You'd know about good experiment design if you had ever read a scientific study, but your refusal to name even a single one you've ever read makes it clear that you have absolutely no idea how science is actually performed. I don't know. Why don't you present some evidence and find out? You're right. But paranormal "researchers" invariably have, and they have plenty of ad-hoc justifications for why each study fails to show any paranormal result. "The volunteers didn't believe." "They can only perform in an accepting environment." "The tides were up/down." "The light was too bright/dim." "It only works on alternate Thursdays."Those are not the marks of legitimate science. Those are the marks of crank hucksterism, which is what the supposed "paranormal" has always been revealed to be.

In what study? Be specific. Author, title, date and journal of publication.I mean, we wouldn't want to just be talking about something you heard someone say once, and you believed, right? We want to talk about actual, legitimate evidence. Right?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I don't get any sense, from a quick search of the term on a couple of different literature search engines, that science uses the term "infinity" in any sense beyond its mathematical notion. Could you be more specific?

Well, infinity doesn't necessarily mean "ridiculous large." For instance, there are an infinite number of ways to position a wheel around an axis: 360 degrees, then positions at every half-degree, then positions in between every half-degree, and so on.But the fact that wheels are round and they spin on an axis shouldn't convince anybody of the existence of "the metaphysical."I guess whether or not what you say is true really depends on the specific situation where "infinity" was the "solution." I think it's a lot more likely that an army of vaporous, free-form apparitions will march into New York City Hall and demand legal recognition of ghost marriage.I dunno, if there's a scientific case for the realm of the metaphysical (woooOOOOoooOOOO!) shouldn't it probably be made with evidence that actually exists?

Agreed, and I think it works best, in fiction at least, to separate the two directions from which people approach this - the direction of supernatural doings from the direction of supernatural natures.But I have no idea what "supernatural" is supposed to mean in real life, either. Aren't we all a little too old to believe in ghosts and goblins? You'd think so.