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

As you want to keep things simple, and allowing your premise - which I don't - it would be because science in general (not just biology, or your ridiculously reductive 'DNists' - has only ever found natural processes to study.If you like, there is a working hypothesis that our world can be explained by natural processes but the minute they can't be, science will reconsider.What supernatural event do you propose they study?

Definitely.

This is a non sequitur. There is no connection between your claims about naturalism an there being no god. Obviously there could be a god that created the entire shebang. Of course not, it's not even a consideration; it's an irrelevance. A straw man. Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Can you just get on with it please?Maybe address the point that we're all raising, that naturalism is a conclusion of science not its premise and that it will change its mind the second anything supernatural crops up.

I see this guy is now asking to open yet another thread. He's not interested in debate or even discussion, he's here to lecture/preach.Please don't promote it until he's answered his questioners here.

now he's spamming the proposal thread rather than answer us. He's just another creationist pillock.

No! None of us agree with that. We say that all science has ever found is natural processes so science's working hypothesis is that it's natural processes all the way down. Unless and until that observation changes, that's the way we progress.All else is waffle, wordplay, equivocation and avoidance of facts.How do you answer the facts?

I/we don't have a question, we have a statement; the statement is that science has only observed natural processes so it has a fairly hard but necessarily provisional conclusion that natural processes are all there are. This position is not confined to biology nor the portion of it called evolution, nor his imaginary subdivision that he has a personal name for, but all of science.That is not a premise, that is a conclusion based on innumerable observations.Given those facts our OP's 'premise' is defunct. Unless he addresses this impasse he can't progress on his rehearsed, blinkered schedule.

You keep getting really basic stuff just plain wrong.Science can not explain the origin of life. We don't yet know how life here began. Science has a name for it - 'abiogenesis' - and it has some hypothesises but it hasn't found the answer, yet.It does, however, assume that the answer when it is found will be a naturalistic one - because everything we've studied so far is. But that's as far as it goes.

Yawn.So far science has only observed natural processes operating in biology or any other study of our universe. So the working hypothesis is that natural processes are all there are. It's there to be disproven. Your move, surprise us.Do try to stop introducing your straw man time and time again.

But that only became information when someone counted them. Before the count, there was no information.It's the physical process of the count that produces the information about how many. The information is then stored in the memory functions in the brain and can stay there or be transmitted onwards - speech, writing, images, codes etc. All physical.In biology, what these people always try to do is show that new information can't be created naturally - ie that creatures can't evolve because that requires the creation of new 'information'. But of course nature creates new stuff all the time - one year it produces 1,000 onions, the next 600. Once you count them it becomes new information.They claim that the code that produces new organisms - DNA - is information that can't be increased by what they call 'random' processes. But we know that it be because we observe it happening and count it and it has become useful information - knowledge. For example, peppered moth studies.Essentially what these people claim is that the universe is wrong and they are right.And isn't it odd that it's only fundamental religious believers that make these claims? They are always based on belief, not fact.

There was, but it was not known. There was no freestanding information telling anybody or anything how many. Sure, people estimating and counting creates information of various accuracies. Nope, the onions are waiting to be discovered, counting them creates the information about them. Of course. And the onions existed before people counted them. But the inverse square law that describes gravity and the counting system that tells us how many is information about them and is our creation.But once again, no one knows how the stuff came to be the way it is and we can describe. Yet.

Undiscovered information, is not information; it doesn't exist. It can't exist. Only the thing itself exists. It's only the act of discovery that creates the information about the thing.

Stile. So suppose the physicist was the one who counted the onions in the field and now he's dead how can the information about how many onions are in the field exist? The onions are still there but the information isn't. To find the information about how many onions, the onions needs to be recounted. Quantum information is a different kettle of ferrets. If you want to talk about that, you need someone else (and about 20 years of impossible study first.)

Nope. The onions are there, but the information that there is 1,000 onions is not. Something or somebody has to create that information, else it is not information; it simply doesn't exist.If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.