I have already demonstrated that your religious devotion to MN is due to idelological zealotry and not to evidence that it's the only way to do science. If you'd set aside for one minute your dogmatism, your education, your common sense, your ability to read, and your years of experience in the lab, you'd understand what I'm saying. You do understand it, you're just confused about it. You keep making these claims, even though I have already said that any arguments in support of MN are invalid since they're made in support of MN. You're like that old lady who keeps slamming the door of the triple loaders, and when I complain she tells me to go piss up a rope. You see the decline in civility since the advent of Darwinism.
quote:I have provided much evidence to support my claims, but then evolutionists don't accept any evidence whatsover to the point at issue because of the naturalistic fallacy. Wouldn't you know it, the people who go on and on and on about evidence, don't actually accept any evidence whatsoever when push comes to shove.
Let's take a look at the "evidence" you have provided 1. you have not read any of the books you claim to be so threatened by except for either the title or the in the case of the Selfish Gene, portions of the preface. 2. you have made assertions without demonstrating a single study, observation, or datapoint that supports what you have said.
And then you get pissy because nobody accepts your evidence.
Here is an example of you supplying evidence,
Syamsu rapes vegetables in his his neighbors garden. He rapes pumpkins and potatoes. This is supported by the fact that I say so and because he subscribes to the typical fundie fallacy. It is also supported by the book the Shipping News because a review I read a part of said that there is a rape described in the book...Nazi's raped people..so there you have it Sy...you are a Nazi veggie pervert.
And besides being a veggie pervert...you are also a coward as you ran like a scared dog from my last post, avoiding the holes I poked in your babbling.
It's 2004 Sy...wake up.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 01-19-2004]
MrHambre<< This assumption is known as Methodological Naturalism (MN hereafter). This is science in its essence, and anything claiming to be scientific must follow this assumption. It differs from Ontological Naturalism (i.e., atheism), which claims that nothing exists that cannot be empirically detected or verified. Anyone who tries to conflate the two notions (like Phillip Johnson) does so out of a basic misunderstanding of the philosophy behind MN, an urge to decieve those who don’t know better, or both. ON is a philosophical position. MN is a methodology that science requires in order to generate testable hypotheses.>>
Please cite a reference where Phillip Johnson argues that the assumption of methodological naturalism in science is tantamount to a commitment to philosophical naturalism. I've never heard him say anything like that. I would be surprised if that is his position as ID is perfectly compatible with MN. If you think it isn't then let's hear you explain why..
MN by itself is no problem for ID, however, many scientists assert that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. This view is indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism and I suspect this is the point Phillip Johnson is trying to make.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-19-2004]
What I want to know is, how someone supporting MN could say this, from another post on this thread:
Supernatural explanations, on the other hand, have led nowhere.
As you describe it, MN is sensible science, except you aren't too specific about the methods. But hypothetico-deductive science is clearly a subclass under MN, with very specific methods.
But, what does supernatural mean? Classically, the Greeks I think supposed some archetypical part of the universe from which our electro-magnetic world was derived, like a shadow. Thus, super-natural over natural like super-intendent over attendent. Superbowl game over bowl game. (Placing the meaning of college football as just a training ground for pro football).
Anyway, since shadows are natural, formed by the reality of the super-natural, of course they can be studied in MN.
Let us not forget that supernatural explanations led to the formation of Switzerland, still leading the pack as the most successful society on record as far as peace, health, and prosperity goes. And to the US, although we were back-pedaling pretty fast when the Constitution was written, which shows in our history, now drawing to a close.
There really is no useful scientific distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” unless we know all there is to know! Otherwise, we are left in the absurd position of calling “supernatural” all that is left to be discovered.
There is indeed a profoundly anti-scientific inclination in this attitude. It resists any advancement of science into domains previously unexplored and unknown. How in the world can that be justified scientifically?!
This has nothing to do with “nature,” but only with what we know about “nature.” The distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is purely artificial. It is our own invention. Bounded, as always, by what we know and don’t know. “Naturalism” is as artificial as any such bound we place on what can be known. Science defies these bounds!
LOL One might say that science is continually reclaiming the “supernatural” to the “natural.” But that’s just calling the same thing by another name.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-19-2004]
Syamsu, Maybe you have answered this elsewhere, but if you could humor me? I would like to know what makes your god real and everyone else's god(s) a myth, a joke, etc? Since I think the one requirement that is shared by every group of people with different deities is a little thing called faith and alot short on proof. In the end, you will believe and have faith in whatever you like.
Well, let's see. A guy introduces a theory, tying it to natural selection, which basically says that, if a Creator had anything to do with creation, it was once upon a time, and involves no hands on contact and choices or design. It was all "natural." Not artificial, which the author of the theory makes clear he knows all about, but chooses not to involve in his theory. This theory becomes known eventually as evolution, "out of the life cycle." God, if He exists, is not necessary to explain why things appear designed. The theory of "intelligent design" as in, "a greyhound has been intelligently designed to run fast" by the dog breeders who artificially select dogs is widely criticized as a poor alternative to "evolution."
But, you want to lump these two together, just like that. So much for Darwin's priority. And where does that put you re intelligent design?
To my mind, it makes a huge difference. I don't have to even thank anyone for a species that has come about through natural selection, but I have to pay good money to buy a dog produced through artificial selection.
Also, there is the evidence for descent, which it turns out says nothing about the distinction between intelligent design type creation and evolution. About natural or artificial selection. To do strong inference, I have to look for different data. Hence, the terms evolution and evolition, to retain this distinction. Darwin, I think, would be pleased.
Otherwise, wouldn't we have to include Divinely directed artificial selection as an alternative in all text-books on the origin of species?
The theory of "intelligent design" as in, "a greyhound has been intelligently designed to run fast" by the dog breeders who artificially select dogs is widely criticized as a poor alternative to "evolution."
Ah, no. The greyhound breeders do not do the design to make a dog that runs fast. That is what an engineer does when he designs the components of a F1 car's suspension or engine. That is not what a dog breeder does.
A dog breeder lets the different "designs" happen through the reproductive process. He then picks what he likes -- applies selection.
The difference between articficial and natural selection is not in the "design" part. It is, as the names make clear, in the selection part. In the case of dog breeding the breeder supplies only the selective pressures. Since we can see selective pressures applied in nature by purely natural means there is no need for additional entities.
Is a sculpted statue designed or selected? To my mind, the main issue in design is a vision of the completed product in the mind of the person making willful choices to achieve that vision. But the sculptor only chooses what to eliminate from the piece of granite.
But, give us time. Genetically engineered greyhounds must be right around the corner.
Is a sculpted statue designed or selected? To my mind, the main issue in design is a vision of the completed product in the mind of the person making willful choices to achieve that vision. But the sculptor only chooses what to eliminate from the piece of granite
Exactly how does that address the point in your favour?
"To my mind, the main issue in design is a vision of the completed product." So in artificial selection there is design going on since there is a completed vision, more or less in the case of dogs? However, we see in natural selection that there is nothing moving to any "vision" it is simply what works now.
However, it may be useful to distinguish between architecture and design. The vision you speak of is more architecture as is the vision of the completed scupture. However, design is the detailed implementation, within the limits of the available resources, to realize the vision. Thus the distinction between architecture and engineering.
In neither the artificial or the natural selection case is any design (implementation to meet a vision) supplied by any intelligence.
In one case we see an intelligence supplying a vision to select against in the other we see selection happening through natural processes. The artificial selection "experiment" demonstrates the power of inherited changes to supply potentially acceptable designs. The selection part is seaparate.