|
Author
|
Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 9 of 452 (875785)
05-06-2020 9:05 AM
|
|
|
"I had no need of that hypothesis" - Pierre-Simon Laplace If and when when we observe some phenomenon that is not or we have reason to believe cannot be explained in naturalistic terms we will look for something else. Until then look for something else. Until then Occa Razor excludes non-naturslistc explanations. But, of course, positing an all-powerful entity that can and does interfere with our Universe in any manner at any time for unknown reasons makes it impossible to carry out any scientific investigation. The Universe might completely change, making any previous observations invalid in the present. What7would you say to Pons and Fleischmann if they said cold fusion used to work but God intervened and it no longer works? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: The DN’s premise — Life consists of matter only
Not a premise. A strong conclusion from centuries of scientific observation. Tentatively held, as are all scientific conclusions, but no evidence yet that we should change that. You're sounding more like a preacher than a scientist, and you are obviously unfamiliar with scientific practice or findings. FWIW.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Re — 19(PaulK): DN strictly controls science and education
Can one teach creationism in classrooms of public schools?
In each of several legal cases creationism has been found to be religion, and may not be taught in public schools.
Can one publish creationism papers on scientific journals?
Yes, if it meets the published standards of the journal and passes peer review.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
The first point that life consists only of matter is the fundamental premise of Darwinian-Naturalism.
Nope. You're a pretty slow learner.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Re — 28/40(Stile) & 24(JonF)&36(Tangle)&39(AZPaul3)
So you have no argument for your claim that it's a central axiom? Didn't think so.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: 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.
Nope. You are a very slow learner. And you are making it very obvious you have no evidence for your claims. I.e. you're a bog-standard creationist.
If the second point is correct...
It's meaningless without an operational definition of whatever you mean by "information". Pony one up.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 60 of 452 (875946)
05-10-2020 10:51 AM
|
|
|
In his ignorance he doesn't know that evolution theory has moved significantly beyond neo-Darwinism. Neutral theory for example. Of course creationists usually don't even know about neo-Darwinism.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Dupe. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Start with an operational definition of your "information".
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Re-GDR(64): The opposite of materialism is idealism, I don’t
I prefer to use Naturalism, which states that all natural phenomena occur naturally and are driven by the natural forces and natural laws
What you prefer doesn't matter. What is reality does. Reality is that science doesn't use naturalism as you define it, so any argument you make based on your definition of naturalism is fatally flawed. The appropriate term is "methodological naturalism". But you have been told many times why your definition isn't appropriate for this discussion. With no reaction from you. Are you really incapable of learning?
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 93 of 452 (876031)
05-11-2020 9:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-11-2020 8:34 PM
|
|
Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
And, since Percy closed his second thread proposal and gently chastised him here, he posted his third thread proposal.
Really slow learner.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 8:34 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 458 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
This is life consists of matter and information.
Meaningless until you provide an operational definition of your "information".
|
™ Version 4.2