Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
23 online now:
ekman, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,329 Year: 4,441/6,534 Month: 655/900 Week: 179/182 Day: 12/47 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8500
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 61 of 452 (875948)
05-10-2020 12:52 PM


… now he's spamming the proposal thread rather than answer us. He's just another creationist pillock.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2020 12:56 PM Tangle has taken no action
 Message 66 by WookieeB, posted 05-10-2020 2:58 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Tangle has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 62 of 452 (875949)
05-10-2020 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
05-10-2020 12:52 PM


No, he’s funnier than most. I bet he doesn’t realise that he’s just agreed with the statement he was “disproving”.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 12:52 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 63 of 452 (875951)
05-10-2020 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Richard L. Wang
05-09-2020 4:23 PM


Re: Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo): Evolution is a great theory
Richard L. Wang writes:

In his time, Darwin’s Naturalistic view of biology is understandable.


How is it less understandable now? Mendel's work on genetics added a mechanism.

Richard L. Wang writes:

D in my abbreviation DN does not represent Darwin’s, but Neo-Darwinism’s or Neo-Darwinists’.


But why mention Darwin at all? You might as well call modern physics "Neo-Newtonism".

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 64 of 452 (875953)
05-10-2020 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


Clarification
Welcome to the forum Richard.

I have gone through all of your posts and I just have a couple of thoughts on the whole subject.

Firstly let me be clear. On the technical side of the issues my ignorance knows no bounds so I'm more looking for clarification.

I think that possibly your basic argument is simply that information is non-material thus disproving what you are labeling as DN. I think that by using that term it confuses the issue. Possibly your position could be better termed if you used the term materialism, which then doesn't impinge on belief in the evolutionary process thereby confusing the issue.

Secondly, you have talked about "my creationism". Could you clearly define that.

Thanks for taking the time to post here.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 4:48 PM GDR has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 65 of 452 (875960)
05-10-2020 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


Well, we have noticed that whenever we know the explanation for a biological phenomenon, that explanation is always natural and never supernatural. So unless and until we find an exception to that, we're going to work on the theory that that's the case --- just as we're going to work on the theory that there are no flying pigs until we find a flying pig.

So it's not a premise in biology. It's a conclusion. If research had pointed to a metaphysical elan vital (for example), biologists would believe in that instead, it would be in all the textbooks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by WookieeB, posted 05-10-2020 4:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 66 of 452 (875961)
05-10-2020 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
05-10-2020 12:52 PM


now he's spamming the proposal thread rather than answer us. He's just another creationist pillock.

But what is your question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 12:52 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 5:41 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 67 of 452 (875964)
05-10-2020 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
05-10-2020 12:52 PM


Re – Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Now, we are all agree that “Life consists only of matter” directly leads to “only natural laws operate in biological processes.”

Now, the question has changed. You and others think that “Life consists only of matter” is a conclusion, so you and others have nothing to talk about it. On the other side, I call it as a premise and think it is completely wrong. So, I should present my reasons on the table now, and I proposed a new topic “Information is independent of matter” to provide my reasons.

Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap called “Life consists of matter and information” for your guys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 12:52 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 05-10-2020 4:10 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action
 Message 72 by JonF, posted 05-10-2020 4:10 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 4:48 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:56 PM Richard L. Wang has replied
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2020 12:11 AM Richard L. Wang has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2020 6:01 AM Richard L. Wang has replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 68 of 452 (875965)
05-10-2020 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
05-09-2020 4:29 PM


Re –PaulK(55): Maybe you can say so, …
Because the evolution in my mind is different from Neo-Darwinism’s evolution. We’ll discuss it later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2020 4:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 05-10-2020 3:44 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2020 4:15 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 69 of 452 (875966)
05-10-2020 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
05-10-2020 10:10 AM


Re –RAZD(59): DN represents Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation …
of evolution, not evolution itself. The reason of why I use it is as I told you guys that because I type very slow, I can just type less by using DN to represent Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2020 10:10 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 05-11-2020 12:12 AM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 70 of 452 (875967)
05-10-2020 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:36 PM


Re: Re –PaulK(55): Maybe you can say so, …
Because the evolution in my mind is different from Neo-Darwinism’s evolution.

So then you admit to creating a contrived redefinition. Typical creationist deception.

One lesson we were taught in Formal Logic was about sophistry, the use of logical arguments to deliberately deceive. The lesson was that if you can get your audience to accept the right false premises, you can "prove" anything including that black is white.

That is what you are doing with your false redefinitions.

We’ll discuss it later.

No, discuss it now. Because until you have revealed your own personal special pleading deceptive redefinition of evolution, then nothing you say about the subject could possibly make any sense.

Stop being a typical dishonest creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:36 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 452 (875969)
05-10-2020 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Re: Re – Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Dupe.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 72 of 452 (875970)
05-10-2020 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Re: Re – Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Start with an operational definition of your "information".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 452 (875971)
05-10-2020 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:36 PM


Re: Re –PaulK(55): Maybe you can say so, …
quote:
Because the evolution in my mind is different from Neo-Darwinism’s evolution

You’re being awfully slippery about this. First you quote Pope John Paul II’s statement. Then you tell us that such a view is impossible. Then you tell us that if creationism is not accepted as mainstream science it’s because the naturalists have a stranglehold on evolutionary theory (and to be honest it’s hard not to read that claim as including Young Earth Creationism).

Then there’s the whole issue of methodological naturalism. I know you don’t want to discuss it, but ignoring vital issues because you don’t want to talk about them is no way to get to the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:36 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 74 of 452 (875972)
05-10-2020 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2020 2:56 PM


RAZD writes:

The supernatural cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefor supernatural is not considered in sciences. Whether or not “God does not exist” is not considered because the supernatural is not testable, being supernatural.

We study the natural world to see how we can explain it through natural processes, because that is what we can do, not because of belief.

Fine. This is basically the same thing that RichardWang is saying naturalism is but in a negative/opposite manner.

As indicated, supernatural is not-natural. If science is limited to the testing and observation of natural things (matter and energy), then by that definition, the testing and observational techniques cannot be used to validate or negate anything supernatural, or anything else beyond nature including those things mentioned like "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena."

You still have it backwards.
It's not an a priori belief.

I'm surprised at this assessment, cause it is contradicted by just about everything else that follows these statements.

Science doesn't start with a belief, it starts with observations, then it develops theories to explain those observations, using known processes. To be science these theories must be testable, and that means we need to be able to discern cause and effect, and be able to repeat them. That limits us to natural processes.

Of course science starts with a belief. It has to, unless you are saying that scientific processes validate scientific processes, which would be a tautology (circular reasoning). What you are referring to in these statements is all a position held (a belief) before you have made any observations or tests. You have a priori ruled out anything supernatural because you cannot observe, test, such things.

Not having any means known to test metaphysical or supernatural processes, we are left with testing what we can with natural processes. In other words we are limited to the natural world and natural processes because we don't have any known tools to consistently test metaphysical or supernatural processes,...

So again, you are here showing the limits of what can be considered by science, and this is again a position that is in place before you even start any observations or tests. In other words, an a priori stance.

... and it is only when/if such tools become available that testing can include metaphysical or supernatural processes.

This phrase is left hanging out there like like an escape hatch. But it is a self-contradiction. The problem is that any "testing" that is acceptable by your scientific standards must be related to observations of natural things. So if anything is observed, it must be due to a natural process. It could not ever observe a supernatural thing because supernatural things are a priori not allowed.

Again, it's not an a priori belief, it's a result of our limited ability to test the theories with natural processes.

This statement is shocking just by itself. If you limit the ability to testing only by natural processes, you can only have results that conform to nature. The limited ability is the a priori belief.

Dr Adequate writes:

Well, we have noticed that whenever we know the explanation for a biological phenomenon, that explanation is always natural and never supernatural.


Not surprising when "whatever we know" is only allowed to be a natural explanation. You don't allow any other explanation.

So it's not a premise in biology. It's a conclusion

But it is a premise. You limit your testing to natural things only, do not have any tests outside of natural processes, and thus you cannot, by definition, have any other conclusions beyond something natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 9:46 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 83 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2020 10:54 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:36 PM WookieeB has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8500
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 75 of 452 (875973)
05-10-2020 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Re: Re – Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
RLW writes:

Now, we are all agree that “Life consists only of matter” directly leads to “only natural laws operate in biological processes.”

No! None of us agree with that. We say that all science has ever found is natural processes so science's working hypothesis is that it's natural processes all the way down. Unless and until that observation changes, that's the way we progress.

All else is waffle, wordplay, equivocation and avoidance of facts.

How do you answer the facts?


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 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022