bertvan writes:
The question I asked in this thread is whether a materialistic formula can describe reality
If . . .IF. . .
that reality is actually something more than just a mechanical process?
Slightly wrong. You don't actually use the word mechanical in the O.P. To save confusion, why not stick to the word material?
Here are the exact questions you asked in the O.P., and my answers.
bertvan writes:
Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process,
No. I'm taking your use of the word materialistic to mean what I'd call naturalistic. I say this because science is described as methodological naturalism, and nature includes forces as well as matter, and some might not see all the forces as material.
and is neoDarwinism a materialistic explanation?
Yes. And one that can (and is) easily agreed with by people with a non-materialistic philosophy, like theism, and by agnostics like yourself.
More specifically is the following a materialistic explanation?
quote:
"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."
Yes. But it's badly phrased, IMO, and doesn't illustrate the tentativity of science. "According to current evidence and observations, all organisms appear to have descended from....etc." is better.
How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process?
Assuming that "materialistic" is interchangeable with naturalistic, a "non-materialistic process" might be distinguished or identified by an apparent breaking of the natural laws of the universe. A genie appearing from a small lamp might be an example.
At present, what you call "non materialistic processes" are also distinguished by a complete lack of evidence for them, except when you cheat to define them, by including things for which there is evidence, as in your answer to the last question, here.
Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice. And since choices would not be free without the option of being wrong, no such conclusion will ever be universally accepted.
Our judgements and the distinctions we make change with physical damage to the brain, a material organ. A micro-organism that detects light and reacts to it does so by material, chemical processes.
bertvan writes:
I don’t participate in these debates just for the fun of arguing. I participate because I care passionately about academic freedom, and I’ve seen enough to convince me of the very real intimidation and harassment directed toward anyone questioning materialism in biology.
So, you believe that the Spaghetti monster being the driving force behind life should be taught in science classrooms if there are people who believe that. That's essentially what you're calling academic freedom. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and requires evidence.
You may desire a non-material mind, or soul, and such a thing could possibly exist, as there is no conclusive proof that it doesn't. But the same goes for fairies and unicorns, and the anatomy of the unicorn is not taught in science classes because it is impossible do do science based on zero evidence.
For your beliefs to be excepted as science, you need to present evidence.
In the O.P., you claim that making distinctions is a non-materialistic process.
So, you need to back this up with evidence. At the moment, the evidence points heavily against you. When organisms are damaged in the physical areas that have to do with decision making, the "judgements" made change, indicating that the base on which we make judgements is physical.
But academia as a whole is not science, and there's nothing to stop your ideas being discussed in a philosophy class. Also, history of science would certainly cover some "I.D." type ideas.
There's nothing to stop you looking for concrete evidence for them, either. I.D. type critics of the theory of evolution are very demanding when it comes to evidence that backs the ToE, but always seem to think that they are exempt from finding evidence for their own views.
The Beuhler summary that you point to is just a way of describing the very material way in which single cells can behave as "intelligent", which is an interesting angle, but doesn't show non-material intelligence at all. I'm not surprised that he emphatically disassociates himself from the I.D. movement.
This is hilarious:
bertvan writes:
If life is not materialistic, a materialistic explanation is not more scientific than a non-materialistic explanation.
I agree. But we observe that life is made of matter, and we haven't observed life yet which is made of something else.
So is it really surprising to you that scientists look for material explanations of, err, material? Or, to put it another way, natural explanations for natural phenomena?
If you rub a lamp one day, and a giant green genie pops out, then I'll be the first person to agree with you that we require explanations to match the phenomenon. Non-natural, non-material explanations.
Perhaps all I.D. types should be going around hopefully rubbing lamps. You've got to get your evidence from somewhere.