Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
49 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK (5 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,376 Year: 1,022/14,102 Month: 14/411 Week: 35/168 Day: 14/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 1 of 452 (875774)
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


[ I highlighted below what seemed the thread's main topic. --Admin ]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

Now, we focus on biological processes - including the origin and evolution of life -, which are part of the world; and we integrate natural forces into natural laws. So, Naturalism in biology can be expressed as: Naturalism in biology believes that only natural laws operate in biological processes. Therefore, in the Naturalists’ biological world, all biological processes have or will have a plausible explanation based on the natural laws, and God does not exist.

From now on, I’ll use (Neo-)Darwinian-Naturalism or DN to represent Naturalism in biology or the Naturalistic explanation of biology.

Today, the mainstream science is Naturalism, and the mainstream biology is Darwinian-Naturalism.

Here, we discuss about science, we don’t care people’s personal beliefs. I like to simplify things, so I’m not going to talk about methodological naturalism, I don’t like to have many philosophical concepts involved. Let’s just discuss Atheism and Theism in science, not Non-Theism.

The question is the DN’s theoretical foundation or premise: what is the reason for DNists to believe that only natural laws operate in biological processes?

In a post, I wrote that my creationism is different from all other creationism. As a theoretical physicist, I focus on the DN’s theoretical framework. First, I try to know the DN’s premises, and then I analyze them. I find that the DN’s premises are completely wrong. If the premise of a theoretical system is wrong, the theoretical system collapses completely.

Edited by Admin, : Make clear the topic.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 05-05-2020 10:29 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 10:41 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 12:33 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2020 2:13 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 8 by vimesey, posted 05-06-2020 3:40 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 05-06-2020 9:11 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 05-06-2020 10:55 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 05-06-2020 11:35 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 05-08-2020 4:33 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 05-10-2020 1:35 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 2:56 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 446 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-21-2020 3:50 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


(2)
Message 13 of 452 (875790)
05-06-2020 11:11 AM


I’m wrong in … YES/NO …
As AZPaul3 & Paulk pointed out, this is not a YES/NO question. I’m wrong. What I wanted to emphasize at that time was when I found out I made something wrong, I would publicly state I’m wrong.

Besides, I didn’t express the meaning of winning/losing clearly or correctly. The end of this discussion doesn’t mean someone wins or someone else loses. No. If a person is too concerned about personal win/loss, it only means that he/she is not mature yet. We come together in this forum because we are interested in pursuing truth. If I finally find my creationism is wrong, what I lose is the wrong idea, so I should be happy instead of sad. I mentioned my field was APPLIED theoretical …, this means that my theoretical works must be tested by experiments. It is normal to find this or that mistakes before submitting a paper. Therefore, finding mistakes is a good thing for one that he/she can improve himself/herself.

So, in the end, we are all winners. Let’s enjoy discussing and pursuing the truth.


  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded
 Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 05-06-2020 6:29 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 05-06-2020 7:04 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 05-07-2020 3:14 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 05-06-2020 6:01 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2020 5:09 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-07-2020 8:31 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2020 9:53 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2020 4:29 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 05-07-2020 4:38 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 05-07-2020 5:38 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 31 of 452 (875835)
05-07-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
05-07-2020 2:12 AM


Re-25(PaulK) & …: Please waiting for a while, we’ll
Discuss supernatural, creation, the origin of life, …

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2020 2:12 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 32 of 452 (875836)
05-07-2020 4:27 PM


The DN’s premise (continued 1)
There is an item of Naturalism (philosophy) on Wikipedia, see –
Naturalism - Wikipedia(philosophy)
It describes naturalism as following: naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that:
1. Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time;
2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance – mass-energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle can be explained and understood by science and philosophy;
4. The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real.
See - Schafersman, SD., 1996. Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science. Retrieved from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html

To make things simpler, I rewrite what naturalism stands for:
1. Nature consists only of spatiotemporal physical substance – mass-energy;
2. Non-physical or quasi-physical substances, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emerging phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.

Now, let us focus on biology by making changes in the above statement:
- Replace nature with life, which is part of nature;
- According to Einstein's formula, mass and energy can transfer to each other, substitute “spatiotemporal physical substance – mass-energy” by matter;
- Summarize “Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena” as information.
Therefore, Darwinian-Naturalism can be described as –
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.

The first point that life consists only of matter is the fundamental premise of Darwinian-Naturalism. The second point explains that the information contained in life does not need to be considered, because information is either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account, so life consists only of matter. The third point that life operates by the laws of physics is a direct inference of the first point that life consists only of matter. This leads directly to the fourth point, that is, there is no supernatural power, no God.

Obviously, the first point - life consists only of matter – is the premise or theoretical foundation of Darwinian-Naturalism. Its correctness determines the correctness of Darwinian-Naturalism.

The question is that is it correct?


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2020 5:00 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 05-07-2020 5:39 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 05-07-2020 8:31 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 05-08-2020 9:46 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 43 of 452 (875873)
05-08-2020 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stile
05-07-2020 3:14 PM


Re – 28/40(Stile) & 24(JonF)&36(Tangle)&39(AZPaul3)
Sorry, Stile, I should reply you earlier.

You call “life consists only of matter” “a tentatively held conclusion.”
JonF calls it “a strong conclusion.”
Tangle calls it “The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise.”
AZPaul3 calls it “*a* premise based on observation.”
This is the most important conclusion of DN. In addition, you can emphasize that this is a conclusion based on evidence.

For me, I call it premise and I question its correctness. We will discuss the issue soon, which is the core in our discussion.

At present, the most important thing is that we all recognize that “life consists only of matter” directly leads to “only natural laws operate in biological processes.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 05-07-2020 3:14 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 05-08-2020 7:42 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Stile, posted 05-11-2020 4:45 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 44 of 452 (875874)
05-08-2020 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
05-08-2020 9:53 AM


Re - 41(RAZD): Thank you for your help
I'll try it later on. Have a nice weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2020 9:53 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 45 of 452 (875875)
05-08-2020 4:16 PM


The DN’s premise (continued 2)
Start from the end of my post 32: DN can be described as
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.

In fact, the second point is the key. If the second point is correct, that is, it does not need to account information in investigating biological processes, the first point “Life consists only of matter” holds, which directly leads to the third point “Life operates by the laws of physics” and the last point “No supernatural power, no God.” – 36(Tangle): the last point is for explaining the natural phenomena.

But what is the reason for “Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account”? Please search online, can you find any explanation for this assertion? No. You can’t find it because there is no such reason, it’s wrong.

No matter what we call “Life consists only of matter” as conclusion or premise, we all admit that “Life consists only of matter” directly leads to “only natural laws operate in biological processes.” So, I’m going to open a new topic tomorrow. You can still submit posts here, but I may not reply if they don’t contain new ideas or facts, or if they present topics that we’ll discuss later. If there are still some important issues I haven’t replied yet, I’m sorry. At the same time, I like to get your understanding.

Thanks again to the Forum Administrators and all participants on this topic. And let’s go ahead together to continue our journey of pursuing truth.


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-08-2020 4:42 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 50 by JonF, posted 05-08-2020 7:51 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 54 of 452 (875921)
05-09-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
05-08-2020 4:33 PM


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

Since you’ve already admitted that you are actually opposed to evolution …


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.

ringo writes:

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.


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’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 05-08-2020 4:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2020 4:29 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2020 5:34 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2020 10:10 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 05-10-2020 1:25 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 05-10-2020 4:10 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 72 by JonF, posted 05-10-2020 4:10 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 4:48 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:56 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2020 12:11 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2020 6:01 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 132 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 05-10-2020 3:44 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2020 4:15 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021