Methodological Naturalism

Syamsu, You are shitting me, right?YOU are the man that tells us that variation, differential reproductive success are falsely associated with natural selection. Then agree to an example where differential reproductive success due to variation is acted upon by NS.Split personality? A better descriptor of yourself, methinks? Do you have no shame?! I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you hear voices in your head, hence your apparent schizophrenia regarding your contradictory claims & admissions regarding natural selection, differential reproductive success, & variation. And as for "deranged concepts of reasoning ability", again this is a better descriptor of yourself, as regards your ability to agree to something & then in some wierd FUBAR way continue as if it never happened & at the same time disagreed.What utterly inappropriate, hypocritical charges to lay on someone other than yourself.The rest of the world could learn from Indonesia & the kind, understanding, & benevolent way it treats its mental patients. Or would that be unfair given your comments above?Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

Syamsu, Except that would be the "ye olde creationist misrepresentation", wouldn't it? Taken in context, Loudmouth disagrees with you. Are you that deluded, & such a compartmentalised thinker to think he didn't?I think it is up to you to show there is something fundamental about the universe that is good & evil, rather than subjective claims by humans of what they consider beastly & beautiful. But we both know you can't, & that therefore your whole argument regarding methodological naturalism & good & evil is nothing but the rambings of Syamsu who sees what he wants to see. Unsubstantiated rubbish, once again.Methodological naturalism allows for gods. They just need to exist in order to make them amenable for study. If they exist they can be tested, & if they don't they should be knowably shown not to exist. Failure to meet both criteria above renders gods to the same intellectual level as fairies & unicorns.Your problem, along with all anti-intellectual creationists is that you are sore that your god excludes itself from legitimate study by acting as though it doesn't exist. Vent your spleen on it, not a tried & tested method of getting closer to the truth.Maybe we should bend logic, suspend requirements of testability & falsification so we can "prove" your god? Fine by me, it's just that you "prove" all other gods at the same time, plus a limitless possibility of anything else I care to invent.Pleased with yourself? Are you going to substantiate your sad delusions?You see, the philosophy of science understands what a naturalistic fallacy is. Clearly you don't, & it leads you to laughably erroneous conclusions. See your ridiculous & pointless claims that evolutionary theory leads to morality. The point is, that when you claim an ought from an is, you have made a fallacious claim. Hence Hitler is wrong to kill Jews on the basis of "survival of the fittest", simply because he has learned a little about Darwin.Or do you actually think he's right?No? Perhaps the blame for such morality rests with those who make it, & not an accurate description of the natural world, then.Perhaps you would be so kind as to support your contention that "that the real motivation to bring all science into mn is to manipulate views of good and evil" with a peer reviewed paper that does exactly that, without committing a naturalistic fallacy?"*What was that noise?* ""Oh, nothing, just Syamsu making ridiculous assertions & failing to support them again, when will he realise that such claims have a value of zero?"Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

Syamsu, I don't accept there is any objective thing as good & evil to include or omit from MN, rendering your argument moot. Nope, I'm going to ignore them entirely because such notions are entirely irrelevant to how MN works within the scientific method.Good & evil is a red herring.Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

Syamsu, We don't strive to keep good & evil out of science, we just don't talk about these subjectives in science. I don't know why you think there is some sort of mental struggle or dilemma going on in scientists minds.I repeat: "Perhaps you would be so kind as to support your contention that "that the real motivation to bring all science into mn is to manipulate views of good and evil" with a peer reviewed paper that does exactly that?"Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

We agree at last.It logically follows that good & evil are outside the scope of science, & MN, right?Mark

Syamsu, And answering the question posed here is another.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Warren, Yes it does, & you know it. Who designed the designer? Take it back as far as you like like & you are left with three options:1/ Life/designers eternally existed.2/ Life/designers were ultimately designed by an eternal creator that using exactly the same assumptions we must also infer was designed. Thus relegating 1/ to the logical dustbin.3/ Life arose without a designer.ID is scientifically meaningless.Mark

Warren,You completely miss the point. The point is that to remain consistent you have to infer ID on ANY designer if you are going to infer it at all. Somehow I think that's where most ID'ers get illogical & inconsistent. There comes a point where they will refuse to do it because it contradicts their religious beliefs, which is why they are proponents of ID in the first place. Catch 22. Although that is true, it does mean that if the first cells were bioengineered, then ultimately the supernatural must have been involved. Consider; life on earth was ID'ed by extraterrestrial life which in turn was ID'ed by extraterrestrial life, & so on. You have to concede that life continued like this forever, arose naturally, or the supernatural kicked it off.Ultimately ID needs the supernatural which removes it from scientific investigation & puts it back in church, where it belongs.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-22-2004]

Warren, No, which post?Mark

Warren,Or perhaps abiogenesis happened here? So basically what you are saying that you can't infer design from simple life forms? Life actually CAN form very simply & become more complex!Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-23-2004]