Do Scientists, especially who I refer to as "evangelical atheistic naturalists" such as Dawkins, Dennett et.al. apply a different "standard of proof" for naturalist scientific theories than for Design theories?
For example when secular naturalist scientists refer to natural selection in evolution it is accepted as fact that there is such an entity. However can anyone prove the existence of natural selection?
Does it have a physical existence that can be proven, or is it the name that scientists hope is the modus operandi of evolution?
It is argued that a supernatural being can never be proven, therefore intelligent design can never be proven. I can say the same for "natural selection", it can never be proven, only accepted on a belief, ie faith, therefore it is not a valid theory.
What if, as I believe, evolution is the continuous creation by a supernatural being, who created and continues to creathe and evolve the natural world?
How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution. Where is the proof?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the blank lines between paragraphs.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Increased final paragraph text size. It seems to be the essential question of the message.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Natural selection" to "Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance".
My theory is that evolution has and will occur in life. That this process is designed by God, for me the Roman Catholic God. That what scientists call natural selection can never be proven, just as scientists declare design can never be proven. That scientists adopted the term natural selection because science dictates that all causes must be natural. There is a process but it need and cannot be labeled natural selection because there is no way to prove that these changes occcur naturally. Can a scientist prove that this change in a species was natural or supernatural? therefore scientists by adopting natural selection as the cause over supernatural design is arbitrary and not provable. Hope this helps. Shadow 71
Thank you all for your comments and the tenor of those comments. I would like to reply, but being new to the board it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons. I do not know how to do this. Can someone help me?
nwr wrote, "If you wish to privately believe that "natural selection" is actually the name used for a supernatural intervention, then nobody is stopping you from holding that private belief. But I suggest you keep it private if you don't want people to laugh at you" I publicly believe that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and all in it. I believe in "providence" and that all things are willed or allowed by a supernatural being. My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create. I think it was the physicist Paul Davies who is of the opinion that the universe is not a purposeless accident. That the physical universe was put together in a manner so astonishing that he is unable to accept it merely as "brute fact". So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist. When in my post I referred to "proof" I am using the term as a trial lawyer uses the term. There must be cause for example in a Medical malpractice case for the injury to the patient. In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual.
Yes I am familar with the term God of the Gaps. I not filling in any gaps, I am statiing that it all happens as a result of God's creation. Did God make evil? He gave man the choice by means of conscious reasoning to perform evil. Why is belief in a supernatural so threatening to Science?
Any lawyer who has ever tried a lawsuit knows he or she must sustain the burden of proof. Civil in Illinois is "more probably true than not true". The evidence determines whether you have sustained your burden of proof.
I don't want to nitpick with you but I have tried med mal and products lawsuits in cook, will, sagamon and other counties in ill. and the burden of proof for a jury to determine is "more probably true than not true" . Look at the jury instructions in Il and they state "more probalbly true than not true".
Even if "The Shadow knows" you are not helping any of us understand. What does even one of your posts so far have to do with evolution, Natural Selection or even a single example of Godly guidance?
The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms. I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life science rejects this because it cannot be proven by natural means. So if for example information is contained in the DNA, science assumes it is by natural causes, while I state it is by supernatural causes. Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how. So Scientists assume that the changes in species are natural and try to prove them by saying here we see the changes, they are natural, so design is wrong. But even if the changes occur, which I agree they do, science cannot prove they are by natural means or supenatural means. Science assumes all things are by natural means, w/o proof, a very dangerous assumption.
Dennett is primarily a philosopher rather than a scientist. His specialities include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Obviously, he writes a great deal about cognitive and evolutionary science, but I do not feel that he is a fair exemplar of "a scientist".
Neither is Dawkins a typical example of "a scientist". Dawkins is actually not the most remarkable research scientist. His great strength has always been the communication of scientific ideas, rather than discovering them himself. Also, he is far better known these days for his atheism than his science. This is far from typical of scientists as a whole, most of whom prefer to... well, do science, rather than write polemics against Christianity.
The vast majority of scientists do not concern themselves with people's religious beliefs. Dennett and Dawkins do (and it would be fair to describe their zeal for de-conversion as "evangelical") but they are very far from being typical of scientists as a whole. You shouldn't let them colour your image of the average scientist.
thank you for your kind words. I agree with you about Dawkins and Dennett and was citing them for their advocacy, not there sciencetific writings. I have nothing but respect for most of the scientists I have been reading since my retirement. I posted my original message after a fairly through review of writings from neo-darwinists, creationists, philosphers, physicists, and scientists who advocate intelligent design such as Behe and Stephen Meyer. My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline. I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Created quote box. Use "peek" to see how it is done.
quote:I would say that the first, and most important, ground rule is that scientists question everything and assume the accuracy of nothing. This, of course, rules ID out right from the start since it begins with the assumption that the bible is inerrant.
You are wrong in your assumption that ID assumes the bible is inerrant. You are confusing ID and fundamentalist. Some fundamentalist believe the bible is inerrant (your phrasing not mine). ID presents theories based on scientific investigation, ex. the information contained in DNA & the possible origins of that information and then states conclusions based on that investigation. So I believe you should not group creationists and ID together. Michael Behe is not a creationists. So I believe ID does meet your stated groundrule.