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

Curiously I have some issues with the phraseology ... 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. It’s not a belief, it’s a result of studying the natural world with the scientific tools we have. 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. 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. And your argument is based on false premises and a strawman representation, and hence invalid.Enjoy

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: Can be writtenLater, [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

Reply to Message 18: 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

Solving for gives us

          GMm
 = FG - ----- = 0
d2

And solving for gives us:

      FG d2
 = -------- = 1
GMm

In neither case does the result change with or without , 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 LATEXPeek to see codingEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

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

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.ThanksEnjoy

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. 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. Is this really any different from: Each defines gravity, slightly differently, but gravity exists without them.The information is only needed by esoteric science.\rambleEnjoy