Why this assertion - life consists of matter only - is the DN’s premise? If life really consists of matter only, DN is absolutely correct, due to the simple fact that matter obeys the natural laws.
The questions are – - Where this assertion - life consists of matter only - comes from? - Does life consist of matter only?
The premise of a theoretical system is the most important part of the theoretical system, because it determines the correctness of the theoretical system. The premise of the relativity theory is the principle of invariance of the speed of light. In all physics textbooks, it always explains the principle of invariance of the speed of light in great detail before discussing the relativity theory. Please search online, can you find even a very simple explanation that life consists of matter only? Why?
Re: The DN’s premise – Life consists of matter only
Since the “DN” is a fiction you invented I suppose you can give it any premises you like.
But that is no way to get to the truth.
When you admitted to being wrong because you hadn’t asked a yes/no question as you had said you would, i was concerned that you hadn’t addressed the far more serious error that your question was based on a false assumption. Now I see that concern was more than justified.
Yes, some scientists believe in God in their spiritual world, but in their natural world, they think that science can explain all natural phenomena and God is not needed
For example, Theodore Dobzhansky wrote his very famous assertion in 1973: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In his scientific worldview, nothing in biology was created and God does not exist in his BIOLOGICAL WORLD. This is not methodological philosophy, this is his scientific worldview, which we discuss here.
Logically, such dualism should not exist: either God in their spiritual world does not exist, or their scientific worldview is incorrect.
quote:Yes, some scientists believe in God in their spiritual world, but in their natural world, they think that science can explain all natural phenomena and God is not needed
Not necessarily, they could have a range of beliefs. Generally they will believe that science will dominate in their area of expertise - perhaps with rare exceptions. But that would seem essential to actually doing science. However even that allows for undetectable intervention by supernatural forces.
quote:For example, Theodore Dobzhansky wrote his very famous assertion in 1973: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In his scientific worldview, nothing in biology was created and God does not exist in his BIOLOGICAL WORLD. This is not methodological philosophy, this is his scientific worldview, which we discuss here.
That seems more an assessment of the evidence than a pre-determined conclusion. Moreover, it is not that God does not exist, more that God does not detectably intervene. To these scientists God absolutely does exist. Miller, for instance, believes that evolution functions because God set up a universe where it could and would occur.
quote:Logically, such dualism should not exist: either God in their spiritual world does not exist, or their scientific worldview is incorrect.
No. If God exists he doesn’t have to act the way you want. There is no logical problem with that.
Naturalism in biology is the idea that only natural laws operate in biological processes.
It isn't so much that only natural laws operate. It's that natural laws are all we can examine. If there was a God that interacted with the real world in a predictable manner, it could certainly be incorporated into science.
Adding to my previous response, let me note what you said earlier in Message 1
Of course, Neo-Darwinism’s interpretation of evolution is an Atheistic theory. On the other hand, the Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution: in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body: “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith, …, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” does this mean Pope John Paul II recognizes an Atheistic theory? Absolutely not. In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul: “Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” Pope Francis has stated on October 27, 2014: " The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” (See: Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia)
That paragraph is your “proof” that “creationism” - as you define it - is not in conflict with evolution.
Pope John Paul II’s statement fully accepts that evolution is responsible for the biological form of the human body, excepting only the non-biological “spirit”. This is entirely in accord with Dobzhansky’s statement.
If your current position is true, John Paul II’s statement is self-contradictory. By leaving human biology to evolution he was denying God. Yet you cited that very statement as supporting your position that “creationism” was not in conflict with evolution.
Indeed your very assertion that your “creationism” does not conflict with evolution implicitly allows for Dobzhansky’s assertion. Yet you say that Dobzhansky’s assertion can not be true if God exists.
In short, it seems that the real contradiction is in your position.
Re: The DN’s premise – Life consists of matter only
quote:You say you are a (theoretical) physicist.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 'theoretical' means 'armchair'.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Why this assertion - life consists of matter only - is the DN’s premise?
Again - it's not an assertion. It's a tentatively held conclusion based upon the evidence available.
As soon as information comes along that contradicts it - Science will re-evaluate it's tentatively held conclusion into something else that explains all the available evidence.
That's what Science does - investigate reality and make tentatively held conclusions based on the available information.
The premise of a theoretical system is the most important part of the theoretical system...
This statement is correct.
Your problem is in identifying the difference between a premise and a tentatively held conclusion. The only premise in Science is that "we are able to learn things about reality by investigation, testing and evidence."
If you have a problem with that premise, then you should be rephrasing your questions. If you actually have a problem with one of Science's tentatively held conclusions, then again, you should be rephrasing your questions.
Aim for clarity and honesty - you'll learn more, faster.
Re – 11(RAZD): Sorry, you mentioned that earlier …
When you commented on what I wrote that “Naturalism in biology believes that only natural laws operate …”, you pointed out that “It is not a belief, …” Later, 14(ringo) raised the similar issue. I replied in 18 to 14(ringo), but I should reply to both yours 11(RAZD) & 14(ringo). Sorry for my careless.
Re – 19(PaulK): DN strictly controls science and education
DN is not a fiction I invented. DN is a very authoritative reality. DN strictly controls science and education. Can one teach creationism in classrooms of public schools? Can one publish creationism papers on scientific journals?