NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

Since you’ve already admitted that you are actually opposed to evolution and naturalism is just a red-herring can I ask why you are continuing on this line of argument ?Surely you should be getting down to the real issue - that you object to methodological naturalism, since it leads to conclusions that you reject.

You really should drop the D altogether. Nothing in science really depends on Darwin any more; everything has been cross-checked so many times. Mentioning Darwin just shows you are behind the times.

The fact remains.There is evidence of natural things and natural processes.There is no evidence of any supernatural things or supernatural processes.Adding in a God provides no information or explanations; it serves no purpose.

So you have no argument for your claim that it's a central axiom?Didn't think so.

Nope. You are a very slow learner. And you are making it very obvious you have no evidence for your claims. I.e. you're a bog-standard creationist. It's meaningless without an operational definition of whatever you mean by "information". Pony one up.

Let's go ahead and add in a god and see how that turns out.Universal Gravitation:

        GMm
FG =   -------
d2

Now let's introduce "God" into that equation as γ (the Greek letter gamma, since "G" is already taken as the constant of gravitation and "g" is commonly used for gravitational acceleration). We could add "God" either as a term or as a factor.Adding "God"as a term, we'd get:

        GMm
FG =   -------  + γ
d2

And adding "God" as a factor we'd get:

        γGMm
FG =   -------
d2

Now, the "Atheistic" form of the equation (ie, what we would very properly call the non-theist form, but Richard L. Wang insists that it is Atheistic) gives us the correct value, so any additional terms or factors that we add to it must not change that correct value.Therefore, adding "God" as a term must mean that that term is equal to ZERO. Therefore, God equals zero. God is quite literally nothing. QED.Adding "God" as a factor must mean that that term is equal to unity. Which means that GOD HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING AND THEREFORE IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS. Again, QED.And, of course, adding in the "God" factor/term or just plain leaving it out has no effect on the outcome. So adding "God" into science is completely meaningless and has no effect whatsoever outside of adding some confusion as to why we are being required to do something so obviously stupid.So that's what Richard L. Wang wants to prove about his god? Really?Edited by dwise1, : added reason for not using "g" instead of γ

Solving for gives us

          GMm
 = FG - ----- = 0
d2

And solving for gives us:

      FG d2
 = -------- = 1
GMm

In neither case does the result change with or without , but what you cannot say is whether or not {god/s} created the universe such that this was so.This is a good time to explore LATEXPeek to see codingEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

What we can say is that it is apparent that there is no need to factor in any God to understand reality.It's fine to believe in a God but just silly as well as unnecessary to try to assert or insert such an entity.

No, I’m not against evolution. In my opinion, because of his extraordinary contribution to biology - that all living and extinct organisms are descendants from common ancestor and natural selection has played an important role in biological evolution -, Charles Darwin, along with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, are the greatest scientists in human history. In his time, Darwin’s Naturalistic view of biology is understandable. D in my abbreviation DN does not represent Darwin’s, but Neo-Darwinism’s or Neo-Darwinists’.

quote:

---

No, I’m not against evolution

---

Yes you are. You made that very obvious in Message 20You do not accept that evolution can account for the features seen in biology.You also insist that creationism must be accepted as mainstream science Message 30.

Can you just get on with it please?Maybe address the point that we're all raising, that naturalism is a conclusion of science not its premise and that it will change its mind the second anything supernatural crops up.

As expected the Gallop and Tap Dance continues. So far in none of his threads has he ever provided any support of any of his assertions.It's sameo sameo. Creationists never learn.

I see this guy is now asking to open yet another thread. He's not interested in debate or even discussion, he's here to lecture/preach.Please don't promote it until he's answered his questioners here.

Then you should use NDN, but even there you would be in error.Trying to relabel evolution is something creationists do, it is not done by scientists, and it's like you can't bring yourself to simply say "evolution" ... why is that?Enjoy

In his ignorance he doesn't know that evolution theory has moved significantly beyond neo-Darwinism. Neutral theory for example.Of course creationists usually don't even know about neo-Darwinism.