|
Author
|
Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 6.5
|
|
Message 16 of 452 (875798)
05-06-2020 3:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
05-06-2020 3:22 PM
|
|
Definitely.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Admin, posted 05-06-2020 3:22 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1603 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: 04-27-2020
|
|
|
Message 17 of 452 (875801)
05-06-2020 4:07 PM
|
|
|
The DN’s premise — Life consists of matter only
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?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 4:19 PM | | Richard L. Wang has replied | | | Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 05-06-2020 6:29 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied | | | Message 24 by JonF, posted 05-06-2020 7:04 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied | | | Message 28 by Stile, posted 05-07-2020 3:14 PM | | Richard L. Wang has replied |
|
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1603 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: 04-27-2020
|
|
|
Message 18 of 452 (875802)
05-06-2020 4:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
05-06-2020 11:35 AM
|
|
You are right
You are right. I transfer the description of Naturalism on the Oxford English Dictionary Online that naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." to DN as Naturalism in biology believes that only natural laws operate in biological processes. A better description is Naturalism in biology is the idea that only natural laws operate in biological processes. Thank you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by ringo, posted 05-06-2020 11:35 AM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by ringo, posted 05-06-2020 6:01 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17919 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.6
(1)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1603 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: 04-27-2020
|
|
|
Message 20 of 452 (875804)
05-06-2020 4:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
05-06-2020 12:33 AM
|
|
Dualism
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 12:33 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 5:09 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied | | | Message 27 by jar, posted 05-07-2020 8:31 AM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17919 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.6
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Dualism
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.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2020 2:12 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 670 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: You are right
Richard L. Wang writes: 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.
"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 6.6
|
Re: The DN’s premise — Life consists of matter only
Why this assertion - life consists of matter only - is the DN’s premise? Where is this assertion being made? Quote us chapter and verse. You say you are a (theoretical) physicist. Have you never heard of bosons or the Standard Model of Particles? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Factio Republicana delenda est.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Larni, posted 05-07-2020 7:41 AM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: The DN’s premise — Life consists of matter only
Not a premise. A strong conclusion from centuries of scientific observation. Tentatively held, as are all scientific conclusions, but no evidence yet that we should change that. You're sounding more like a preacher than a scientist, and you are obviously unfamiliar with scientific practice or findings. FWIW.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17919 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.6
|
|
|
Message 25 of 452 (875817)
05-07-2020 2:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
05-06-2020 5:09 PM
|
|
Re: Dualism
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. Edited by PaulK, : Correct tag
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 5:09 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 26 of 452 (875819)
05-07-2020 7:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by AZPaul3
05-06-2020 6:29 PM
|
|
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 05-06-2020 6:29 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
And yet again.
There is evidence of natural things, natural effects and natural causes. There is no evidence of any supernatural effects, causes, things or beings. You and I may believe that there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen but the reality is that it can never be more than an irrational, unreasonable, illogical belief. It really is that simple.
|
Stile
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: 12-02-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Still the Wrong Angle
Richard L. Wang writes: 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.
|
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1603 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: 04-27-2020
|
|
|
Message 29 of 452 (875833)
05-07-2020 4:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
05-06-2020 10:55 AM
|
|
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by RAZD, posted 05-06-2020 10:55 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2020 9:53 AM | | Richard L. Wang has replied |
|
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1603 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: 04-27-2020
|
|
|
Message 30 of 452 (875834)
05-07-2020 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
05-06-2020 4:19 PM
|
|
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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 4:19 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2020 4:29 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied | | | Message 35 by ringo, posted 05-07-2020 4:38 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied | | | Message 37 by JonF, posted 05-07-2020 5:38 PM | | Richard L. Wang has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2