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

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.

I don’t agree with materialism or idealism, so I don’t use materialism. I prefer to use Naturalism, which states that all natural phenomena occur naturally and are driven by the natural forces and natural laws, while Creationists say — No, somethings were created.I have my own creationism, which I mentioned is different from all other creationism. I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce my creationism all around at once. For example, if it contains ten subtopics, it would be impossible to debate/discussion if I propose all ten subtopics at once. Let’s discuss one subtopic at a time.Thanks for your post.

Yesterday, I spent time replying GDR(64) & PaulK(55). Maybe I have a misunderstanding about why people don’t want to move to NvC-2: maybe GDR & PaulK are right, I should introduce my creationism, otherwise people may not know why I raised this or that topic. Therefore, I wrote "A brief of my creationism", it takes me a lot of time.Thank you for your comment on what I wrote. I need to think about it, and I’ll reply you late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I also want to ask for your understanding.

It’s just a joke. Yes, I will. What I mean is Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution and evolution itself, not "evolution" and "evolution itself.". I stop using DN, which causes confusion. You are right. In my post(97), I mentioned that I changed my mind and briefly introduced the main ideas of my creationism in my post(NvC-2-5). It includes many issues, and I will provide evidence of that issue when we discuss / debate it.

It’s a good choice for me to stay in this thread before a new thread is opened, so I put Re-Percy(NvC-3-2) here, Percy comments on my proposal (NvC-3-1) in his post(NvC-3-2). Because I comment on Percy’s comment on what I wrote, I copied all of Percy’s post here to make my response clearer.The following is Percy(NvC-3-2). A number of people have already disagreed with this. Opening a new thread with this point of disagreement as an axiom could drag your thread off-topic right from the outset. Better to use a definition of naturalism that people agree with.If I could mention my own way of defining naturalism (lowercase n, by the way), it's that the universe consists of what we can observe, either directly or indirectly. In the case of life we observe matter and energy (not just matter) following known physical laws. Is a definition somewhat along those lines amenable to you? Or you could draw upon the Wikipedia definition of naturalism, which covers both methodological and metaphysical naturalism. You seem to be leaning toward an information theoretic view of information, which I'm glad to see since I was going to suggest that anyway.Most all words already have definitions. We can't assign our own personal definitions to them. We wouldn't let an atheist start a thread that defined evangelicalism as the irrational belief in a being that doesn't exist and based upon a book of fiction, because that's a biased distortion of the word's meaning. In the same way, we can't allow people to make up or distort the definitions for words that already have clear definitions, like naturalism and information.
--------Here is my response.If someone read my post(NvC-1-32) — The premise of Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism -, she/he would agree with me that I did not define anything in my post(NvC-3-1). The definition of naturalism that I often cite is that of the Oxford English Dictionary Online: in philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." This is almost identical to the Wikipedia definition of naturalism that you suggested in (NvC-3-2): In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.life consists only of matter is not my definition of Naturalism. It is the first point of my simplified biological version of Schafersman’s definition of Naturalism, which also appears in Wikipedia definition of naturalism. On post(NvC-1-32), I presented my simplified biological version of Schafersman’s definition of Naturalism
1. Life consists only of matter;
2. Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Life operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God. And your comment on that In order to get a simplified biological version,
I used matter to REPRESENT matter and energy and
I used information to REPRESENT all Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena.
I did NOT define anything.If I propose a new topic with these simplification -Life consists of only matter OR Life consists of matter and information.I don’t think anyone will be confused, and think that I have defined something. Please compare it with a new topic without simplification -Life consists of matter, energy OR Life consists of matter, energy and non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena.Which one do you think clearer and better?

On this topic, some people have talked a lot about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and their definitions.Take the origin of life on Earth for example. If I say that science cannot explain the origin of life on Earth, then ALL Naturalists will say No, science can.When they all say No, science can, I would not ask them - Methodological naturalists, metaphysical naturalists or philosophical naturalists — the question what is in your mind. No. I don't need to know what they think and I can discuss it with them.I won't talk about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism

The reason why I proposed topic NvC-1 is Because I want to judge the whole theoretical system of Naturalistic explanation of Biology, rather than individual biological process. A premise can be either right or wrong. This topic actually was over, I only found Tangle did not agree with: that But, he did not provide his reason, otherwise I would continue discussion NvC-1 topic.Therefore, we need to get a new topic to continue our discussion.My new topic proposal of NvC-2: Information is independent of matter is not a good one. This is not a good topic for discussion and many people don’t know why to discuss it. You are right to close it.My new topic proposal of NvC-3: What is life made of? is a good topic. Maybe a clearer proposal is NvC-3: Life consists only of matter OR Life consists of matter and information. This topic is important and people participating in NvC-1 showed their interest. Several people here presented their opinions on that life consists only of matter: I expect that they will be interested in discussion with me. I replied in Re-Percy(NvC-3-2) that I did not define anything. From my opinion, as long as this topic is important and people participating in NvC-1 showed their interest, this topic is worthy to open, even I did define something in my own way, because the participants would reject my definition once they join in.I may propose two more topics -
NvC-4: Can science explain the origin of life on Earth?
NvC-5: Are all genetic mutations random?Just for your consideration, and I respect your decision.

for your reminder.

once a new thread is opened. Thanks.

I'm interested in discussing with you once a new thread is opened. Thanks.

ALL Naturalists will say "Yes, science can", not "No, science can." Would you please improve your English first, then join in this forum to ...

Sorry for replying late.
Matter obeys the natural laws links if Life consists only of matter then only natural laws operate in biological processes.

Sorry for replying late. Forget my physics papers. It is irrelevant to biology we are discussing here.I just published my eBook and paperback Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience on Amazon KDP in late March and late April 2020, respectively. The reason I did not mention this in my Message(11) of Topic: The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution is because I worried that the participants may raise fewer questions if they read my book. I hope more questions will come up so that all participants will be more interested in the discussion/debate.I submitted only one biological paper, The Genetic Code was Designed. As the paper’s conclusion leads to creationism, this paper was rejected by the editors of ten journals, as I expected. I mentioned this in Section 4 of Chapter 8 of my book as an example of how Neo-Darwinists suppress different voices. This paper becomes the Appendix of my book. Anyone can judge whether this paper is a scientific paper or a religious paper. So, I stop writing papers.Before I started to self-learn biology at the late 2015, I had reached all the conclusions. Starting from the immateriality of information, it is directly deduced that information does not obey the natural laws and matter cannot produce information. For biology, this means:
- Life consists of matter and information;
- Genetic information cannot be naturally produced in the pure-material world of the primitive Earth, so life cannot naturally originate on Earth;
- All bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws.
In addition, I know that random processes cannot lead to biological evolution.
My purpose of learning biology is to explain my ideas from a biological point of view. In my book, I criticized Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism and developed my Creationism theory.

Hi Percy,I’m terribly sorry for replying too late.We need a new topic
On NvC-1, at least half of the messages are irrelevant to the NvC-1 topic. Members continue to submit messages to NvC-1 because they are interested in discussing the relevant topics while no new thread is opened. Although there are many interesting and thoughtful points of view presented here, I have not submitted my messages yet, because I’m waiting for a narrowly focused new topic to open up. As stressed in the third point of the Forum Guidelines, a narrowly focused topic can lead to a meaningful discussion/debate.NvC-3 is a good topic
So far, our discussion on the two topics — The Opponent of Creationism and this NvC-1 topic — concluded that Life consists only of matter is the premise of Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism that all biological processes follow the natural laws.
Because Life consists only of matter, life can naturally originate on Earth through chemical processes. Although the theory of evolution technically starts from the origin of life, the life’s origin through chemical evolution is the natural extension of life’s evolution through biological evolution.
Because all biological processes follow the natural laws, genetic mutations are driven by natural forces, which are purposeless and directionless, so all genetic mutations are random.What is the premise of my creationism? This is life consists of matter and information.
Because information cannot be produced by matter, the genetic information of the first life cannot be produced in the pure-material world of the primitive Earth, so life did not originate through chemical evolution but was created.
Because information does not obey the natural laws, all bioinformatic processes, including genetic mutations, do not obey the natural laws. Therefore, all genetic mutations except the point-mutations are not driven by natural forces, and all genetic mutations except point-mutations are non-random (sorry, I’m not going to elaborate here).So, the NvC-3 topic — What is life made up of? OR Does life consist only of matter or Does life consist of matter and information? — is a very important topic, on which members have already shown their interest. I think that all members, who will participate in NvC-3 discussion, have no misunderstanding on the topic, so this does not prevent the opening of the NvC-3 topic.For your reference, and sorry again for replying late.

When Admin wrote Admin(151), there were 62 (not 60) replies to my messages.I want not to count JonF(150) replied to RLW(149), because from I submitting RLW(149) to Admin(151) replying RLW(149), only half hour past. I skip 4 replies dwise1(5&70&85&112), because in Topic: The opponent of Creationism , RLW(26) asked dwise1 to keep discussion civil, please stop doing so again. If you insist on doing so, I can only ignore all your posts, even if there are good ideas. Please see dwise1(29) in Topic: The opponent of Creationism , and dwise1(NvC-1-5). Therefore,The total messages I need to reply is 57;
The total messages I replied is 33;
There are 17 messages, which were replied by Gen-Reply or may not need to be replied for different reasons;
There are 7 messages, that need replying but were not replied: AZPaul3(39), JonF(49&50&72), ringo(63), Dr Adequate(65) and PaulK(86). Sorry for that, especially for JonF. In RLW(7) of Topic: The opponent of Creationism , I asked people’s understanding that I’m unable to reply all the replies as I type very slow.Percy: look at my next message, please.Replying messages:
--------------------------
(13)2 Re — (PaulK(6) & AZPaul3(4))
(18)1 Re — ringo(14)
(20)1 Re — PaulK(6)
(29)1 Re — 11(RAZD)
(30)1 Re — 19(PaulK)
(31)4 Re-25(PaulK) & (Tangle(7), RAZD(11), jar(27))
(43)6 Re — 28/40(Stile) & 24(JonF)&36(Tangle)&39(AZPaul3) & (Stile(10))
(44)1 Re - 41(RAZD)
(54)2 Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo)
(67)3 Re — Tangle(56&58&61)
(68)1 Re —PaulK(55)
(69)1 Re —RAZD(59)
(76)1 Re-GDR(64)
(NC-2-4)1 (Re-GDR(64)&AZPaul3(78)) — GDR(64) is double replied
(97&103)1 Re-Percy(91)
(107)1 Re-GDR(92)
(108)1 Re-PaulK(94)
(109)1 Re-Dr Adequate(95)
(127)1 Re-Stile(90)
(128)1 Re-RAZD(98)
(149)1 Re-Admin(114)
-----------------
Total number of messages replied = 33
(Stile(10)) means that Stile(10) did not appear in the title of the reply message.