Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
68 online now:
(68 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,425 Year: 1,071/14,102 Month: 63/411 Week: 84/168 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 11 of 452 (875788)
05-06-2020 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


Basic issues
Curiously I have some issues with the phraseology ...

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.

All sciences study what can be studied. 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.

In biology we study how life lives. In Abiogenesis we study how life may have developed. In evolution we study how life evolves from generation to generation, what are the processes involved and how do they work to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, from archaeology, from paleontology and from DNA. In ecology we study how life interacts.

... Naturalism in biology believes that only natural laws operate in biological processes. ...

It’s not a belief, it’s a result of studying the natural world with the scientific tools we have.

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.

In other words you are setting up a straw man argument, and it particularly telling that you restrict evolution to “Darwinism” — because that is a common ploy of creationists and IDologists. As is your implication that evolution is based on belief.

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?

Again, it is not a belief, it’s a result of studying the natural world with the scientific tools we have.

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.

... 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.

And your argument is based on false premises and a strawman representation, and hence invalid.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-07-2020 4:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 41 of 452 (875856)
05-08-2020 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Richard L. Wang
05-07-2020 4:19 PM


Re: Re – 11(RAZD): Sorry, you mentioned that earlier …
Let me help you out. I usually greet new people with some posting tips, but I'm not posting from my usual computer and had to dig them up:

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

... 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.

Can be written

Later, [msg=14] (ringo) raised the similar issue. I replied in [msg=18] to [msg=14] (ringo), but I should reply to both yours [msg=11] (RAZD) & [msg=14] (ringo).

So you may find the tips on other formatting tips see Posting Tips and a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer helpful.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-07-2020 4:19 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2020 10:16 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 44 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-08-2020 4:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 452 (875860)
05-08-2020 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
05-08-2020 9:53 AM


Re: Re – 11(RAZD): ...
Reply to Message 18:

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.

You still have it backwards.

It's not an a priori belief.

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.

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

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

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 452 (875897)
05-09-2020 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
05-08-2020 11:53 PM


Re: Creationism is simply fantasy at best. But it's profitable.
Adding "God"as a term, we'd get:

        GMm
FG = ------ + γ
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.

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.

Solving for γ gives us

          GMm
γ = FG - ----- = 0
d2

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

        γGMm
FG = -------
d2

And solving for γ gives us:

      FG d2
γ = -------- = 1
GMm

In neither case does the result change with or without γ, 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 LATEX

Peek to see coding

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 05-08-2020 11:53 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 05-09-2020 10:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 452 (875945)
05-10-2020 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Richard L. Wang
05-09-2020 4:23 PM


Just say evolution
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’.

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


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 452 (876106)
05-12-2020 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Richard L. Wang
05-12-2020 9:49 AM


Science articles please
Could you provide a list of journal published peer reviewed scientific physics articles you have published?

Just want to see what your science writing looks like.

Thanks

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-12-2020 9:49 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2020 7:07 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-18-2020 5:00 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 452 (876223)
05-14-2020 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
05-14-2020 5:54 AM


DO We need a new topic (eg NvC-3) ... ?
One of the troubles I have with "information" is that all science is information, and people seem to jump over all preliminary definitions and descriptions to focus on evolution.

If Richard genuinely believes that information is independent of matter (which requires denying his assertion that “ Information needs matter as its carrier, and information can only be stored and transmitted by information-carrier.” Message 2) ...

To me information is irrelevant until there is communication, and communication is only important when you want it to be and understand it. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat.

GDR writes:

Message 117 -- Just a question. Did the information that E=mc2 exist as information before Einstein discovered it?

Is this really any different from:

(equation/proof)

Each defines gravity, slightly differently, but gravity exists without them.

The information is only needed by esoteric science.

\ramble

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2020 5:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2020 2:14 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 05-15-2020 3:19 AM RAZD 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