Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[athena]

Just because something might be currently considered outside of the realm of the scientific method to study doesn't mean it is "supernatural", only that it might be affecting the world in a way that can currently only be assessed by the results.

You can't see gravity, but you can observe and quantify its results.

The term "supernatural" is just a means to remove the subject from consideration. I don't know that anyone is claiming that intelligence is "supernatural".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_term_scien tific_mean
Gravity is not outside the realm of science. It is a word we use for an observable force. The word supernatural means, "not explainable by known forces or laws". Evolution is explainable by known forces and laws, please allow this discussion to continue, and do not continue to derail it. There is a distinct difference between science and notions that are not scientific. This is a science forum, not metaphysics or religion.

It originally comes from the word scire in latin (to know), and thus progressed into science, or the act of trying to understand and know what is going on in nature.

Scientific thus means something that is done by science, which is used to refer to an act, or idea that is based in the principle of empirical proof that is quantitatively measured (numbers with units are measured) and analyzed through statistical analysis. This means that something is scientific only if it tries to explain a phenomenon in a method that can be measured and draw definitive, statistically consistent proof. This rules out many theological and paranormal ideas, as they oftentimes have no basis in proof or mathematics to explain if the phenomenon even exists either consistently or at all.

[Meleagar]

Gravity is not outside the realm of science. It is a word we use for an observable force. The word supernatural means, "not explainable by known forces or laws". Evolution is explainable by known forces and laws, please allow this discussion to continue, and do not continue to derail it. There is a distinct difference between science and notions that are not scientific. This is a science forum, not metaphysics or religion.

I'm not discussing metaphysics, religion, or the supernatural unless it is your position that intelligence is a metaphysical, religious, or supernatural force.

The question posted by the O.P. seems to me to be in reference to the incredulity of the poster that unintelligent forces supposedly drove non-living matter into the biodiversity we see today, and if that is what Darwinism claims, then how does it support that claim?

Any answer opens an obvious debate about the capacity of unintelligent forces to generate some of the things we see in existence in the universe, and how scientifically justified it is to claim that unintelligent forces can generate what it supposedly has generated.

You don't get to remove part of the debate from science simply by erroneously asserting that it appeals to some supernatural force and is thus non-scientific.

If intelligence is non-scientific ... well, that might explain much of what many argue for in the name of science.

[athena]

Gravity is not outside the realm of science. It is a word we use for an observable force. The word supernatural means, "not explainable by known forces or laws". Evolution is explainable by known forces and laws, please allow this discussion to continue, and do not continue to derail it. There is a distinct difference between science and notions that are not scientific. This is a science forum, not metaphysics or religion.

I'm not discussing metaphysics, religion, or the supernatural unless it is your position that intelligence is a metaphysical, religious, or supernatural force.

The question posted by the O.P. seems to me to be in reference to the incredulity of the poster that unintelligent forces supposedly drove non-living matter into the biodiversity we see today, and if that is what Darwinism claims, then how does it support that claim?

Any answer opens an obvious debate about the capacity of unintelligent forces to generate some of the things we see in existence in the universe, and how scientifically justified it is to claim that unintelligent forces can generate what it supposedly has generated.

You don't get to remove part of the debate from science simply by erroneously asserting that it appeals to some supernatural force and is thus non-scientific.

If intelligence is non-scientific ... well, that might explain much of what many argue for in the name of science.

May be I do not get to remove non scientific discussion from a science forum, but someone should, so everyone learns the difference between what is science and what is not. I am sorry the definition of what is science was delayed. I am being interrupted by a child.

[Belinda]

Quote:
Your example of the roulette wheel is like Paley's watch. The thing is to discover what sort of being has intentions or purposes. To assume that intention or purpose inheres in anything other than humans and perhaps a few other mammals, or octopuses or whatever,that is a supernatural order of being, is an act of faith.

(Belinda)

Meleagar replied

Straw man. Please argue against the arguments that are actually presented. You and others insist on taking the ID-Darwinism argument into theism and the supernatural. I have never said that ID is the product of god or any supernatural being. Humans use it all the time; are we supernatural? We know ID exists in the universe because humans employ it. We know ID generates recognizable and quantifiable characteristics in phenomena.

It's only a straw man because you insist upon ignoring the elephant in the room. No, you have never said that ID is the product of ---any supernatural being because you have never said what it is the product of.I take it that you dont imagine some substance called 'Intelligence' to be floating around the world like a intangible miasma.

If you did say that ID is the product of a supernatural being you would be laying too many cards on the table for the credibility of your argument. If you persist in not mentioning the unmentionable you can keep up the pretence that what you are talking about is science.

[Meleagar]

It's only a straw man because you insist upon ignoring the elephant in the room. No, you have never said that ID is the product of ---any supernatural being because you have never said what it is the product of.I take it that you dont imagine some substance called 'Intelligence' to be floating around the world like a intangible miasma.

You are only insisting on inserting the supernatural into the debate because without it you don't have an argument against ID.

You seem impervious to reason or logic on this. Once again, let me ask you: do you ever see intelligence? Not its effects, but intelligence itself? Is a space shuttle the product of unintelligent forces, or intelligent? Even if you see biological entities (humans) building a space shuttle, how would you know they were intelligent? If humans build a random pile of rocks, or scatter leaves out under trees in the fall, can you see any intelligence?

No. The only means by which intelligent manipulation of materials or forces can be found or recognized is by recognizing it when intelligence produces phenomena with the unique characteristics of quantifiable intelligent design. Does it mean that intelligence, because it cannot be directly seen, is supernatural? No.

You're just avoiding these facts because without the classification of "supernatural", you have no argument - which is why you abandoned the "alien X" example.

If you did say that ID is the product of a supernatural being you would be laying too many cards on the table for the credibility of your argument.

Once again you are not engaging in a proper argument because you are insisting on characterizing my argument other than as I have actually made it; I don't believe any supernatural agent whatsoever, of any kind, is involved in ID; I don't believe in any supernatural agents of any kind PERIOD.

Now please get off the supernatural cop-out and argue my actual argument in good faith if you can. If you can't, just admit you have no rebuttal against the ID argument I've brought to the table.

If you persist in not mentioning the unmentionable you can keep up the pretence that what you are talking about is science.

The only one pretending here is you; you're pretending my argument is something other than what it is.

[athena]

Okay, here is away of explaining Intelligent Design that might be analyzed scientifical:

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-ga ... ence.shtml

The universe is an organization of energy and information. Each stage of evolution is a different stage of organization. Complexity refers to this kind of organization. Intelligence refers to an advanced state of organization. When the universe and our nature are structurally coupled - as they must be - then intelligence exists.

This theory does support the theory of evolution, so it might be appropriate for this discussion, however, if the subject is not treated scientifically, than it takes this thread further away from the subject of evolution and out side the realm of science.

[Juice]

It is obvious that some posters wish to remain ignorant of the question in the OP by diverting attention to from critiquing Darwinism to something else, as orthodox Darwinist are apt to do. It should always be a first priority to know what question is being asked.

What is Darwinism? There have been several attempts in this thread to answer this but let's just put it plainly;

Darwinism is Atheism!

Darwinist try to imply that Darwinism is in some fashion law as evidenced by the need of Darwinist to force its indoctrination through legal actions but Darwinism is just a notion that implies that certain populations are able to develop adaptations which assist in that populations survival. A certain level of diversity in a species is acceptable, like Tiger Woods.

Darwinism fails as an applicable concept to the more important philosophical questions, like defining "life" or on a more meaningful scale, defining humanity.

The one fear Darwinist have is of the term creation as if the mention automatically conjures hell fire, and have coined their own naturalistic term abiogenesis and despite having absolutely no irrefutable evidence of any material reaction capable of creating life the mere fact that Darwinist can "imagine" it happening seems to make it so.

Like the "illusion" of design. Someday Darwinist will take their heads out of the sand long enough to realize that the illusion of the illusion of design may have been an illusion as much as the devil contrives to make his existence an illusion.

It is not that allowing God a role in science will cause its demise but that allowing God a role in science may prove a more exacting principle to the evidence and observation which would makes the legal dogmatism necessary for the advancement of material evolution irrelevant and unprofitable.

Darwinist assume that naturalism is true and therefore are convinced that it is possible to create intelligence by undirected material forces and that such an intelligence is then able to define itself by undirected, unintelligent forces. While Darwinism may be an unarguable ideology, making it so by force certainly allows for a considerable amount of wasted dogmatism if its not.

[Alun]

Darwinism is Atheism!

I am not an atheist. I believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection, as inspired by Darwin's thinking, is accurate.

When you can post something that is a response to my actual posts and my actual arguments, instead of your incoherent straw man reconstructions of them, I'll respond.

Ok. As far as I understand you, you agree that evidence shows convincingly:

P1) DNA/RNA is pretty much the sole basis for biology.
P2) Change to DNA is the basis for evolution.
P3) Change to DNA is almost entirely caused by mutations.

Where I'm not sure whether we disagree:

P4) Mutations are ultimately selected based on what allows for better reproduction.
P5) Mutations are caused mostly by physical factors--protein chemistry, radiation, and toxicity.

More importantly, I'm fairly certain you disagree with the below:

P6) Protein chemistry, radiation, and toxicity have existed and have effected evolution as regular features of the world--they have largely been derived from natural causes.
C1) P4 and P5 come into play almost entirely in 'natural,' unintelligent, or physical circumstances.
C2) Evolution is caused primarily only by natural means.

As far as I can tell, you don't think there is evidence for at least one of the premises 4-6--either that or you do not think P6 leads to the characterization of 'unintelligent.' Besides the simplicity of the above picture, do you think this covers what we've been talking about? If so, can you specify what premise/conclusion I haven't supported? If not, then can you briefly explain what is missing from the above reasoning?

[Meleagar]

This theory does support the theory of evolution, so it might be appropriate for this discussion, however, if the subject is not treated scientifically, than it takes this thread further away from the subject of evolution and out side the realm of science.

So only discussions that support your perspective of the theory of evolution can be classified as scientific? There is nothing non-scientific about the mainstream definition of ID theory:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Unless one is going to argue that purebred Pekingese and space shuttles are better described as the results of unintelligent forces, ID is both a fact and a necessary scientific theory.

[athena]

Meleagar, The concern about the quote being about evolution is this thread is about evolution. The concern that the discussion be scientific is this is a science forum.

From there, do you think it is possible the quote I gave is in agreement with your argument?

Where we might have a problem is with the meaning of intelligence. I began a thread to discuss what is intelligence.

Alun wrote " P4 and P5 come into play almost entirely in 'natural,' unintelligent, or physical circumstances". I don't think of the universe as unintelligent. I think of the universe as an organization of energy and information, and that organizing force is intelligent. Not all powerful god, but an evolving intelligence. What happens is the only thing that can happen under the conditions of the happening. In the physical realm, what happens is a matter of cause and effect. What happens in the quantum physic realm is evidently by chance and is not predictable. I am not going to give birth to snakes. The organizing force does not allow for that kind of chaos or chance.

Juice Darwinism is no more atheism than believing the earth revolves around the sun is atheism. Chardin, a Chatholic priest, wrote god is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We can believe all things are of the one, coming from the monad, and hold a concept of god.

The first expression of the monad was hydrogen, which transforms into the rest of the elements that make our physical existence possible.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860075.html
After the bulk of a star's hydrogen has been converted to helium by either the proton-proton or carbon-nitrogen-oxygen process, the stellar core contracts (while the outer layers expand) until sufficiently high temperatures are reached to initiate “helium-burning” by the triple-alpha process; in this process, three helium nuclei (alpha particles) are fused to make a carbon nucleus. By successive additions of helium nuclei, the heavier elements through iron-56 are built up.

[Juice]

Alun-I did not say that you are an atheist but that Darwinism is atheism since Darwinism basis its theoretical modeling of life's generation from its creation through its successive progression on purely naturalistic causes. A theory which God deniers have commandeered, through educational and legal manipulations, in order to force an ideology which itself goes beyond the definition of science. Is it the role of science to advance the unprovable ideologies of atheism which often leans towards credentialing the imaginable and possible rather than the reality? If one believes in a creator then how can that creator be excluded from the creation and is that the purpose of science?

If you are saying that God "designed" evolution as the mechanism by which life was created and evolved then isn't it obvious that such a mechanism would have been included in the "substances" of life and hence deducible and definable by intelligent observation of the evidence in Gods creations as mechanisms of purpose? In doing so are you not advocating for a sort of "metaphysical naturalism"? In keeping with the science if the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate material was a random chance event then that event could have a natural cause but is unrepeatable and therefore can never be specifically defined and recreated with the expectations of having the same results, currently observed and defined, since such results would also be random chance in nature when those events are also subject to random events concurrent with random, unrepeatable influences. If expected results prove the equivalent of current observations and evidence then does that not prove a design mechanism?

If life is the result of purposeful, directed and determined events congruent to an expected result then by the same scope within the science then that influence would also be a natural cause necessary to creation and subject to the same rules of evidence and observation as any other natural cause whether probabilistic or mathematically inherent and so expressed.

If science, Darwinism, is propagated for one sole idealogical purpose and philosophical principle, which is material evolution and atheism, which manipulates its strict adherence by political and legal aims then it is no longer science but a world view dedicated to the denigration and expulsion of God from every other world view and trending towards secular discrimination in practice and means. And, frankly, the foundational principles of Marxism and totalitarianism as political identifiers.

While the language of the Darwinist may seem scientifically functional, its philosophy has strict aims, particularly when it refuses to meet the aims of the underlying questions posed by existence. To this end advocacy of Intelligent Design is not only of scientific value but also a necessary philosophical balance to material evolution.

I am greater than the sum of my parts and I have been specifically designed to execute my great purpose. The better portion of which has yet to be realized with no restrictions by time or history. I will not succumb to the banality and apathy of unintelligent cause.

[Meleagar]

Athena,

Why do you think the term "selection" is prefaced with the modifier "natural"? What was the point of calling it "natural" selection, instead of just selection? Furthermore, why is the modifier "random" used in front of "mutation"? Why not just call them "mutations"?

You don't hear about "natural" gravity, or "random" turbulence. What about "natural" erosion or "random" meteorite strikes? Ever hear those terms used?

There's a reason why the words "random" and "natural" were inserted into Darwin's theory; Darwin, his contemporaries and those coming afterward were making a deliberate, specific argment against design. He was making an ideological assertion and argument by using those terms.

The real debate was started when scientists decided to adopt the ideoloigcal therms "random" and "natural" without ever offering a shred of evidence that those are proper characterizations of the phenomena in question. They won the ideological war by simply inserting such terms into the lexicon of evolution without warrant or vetting.

The real debate is about which characterization is more suitable; intelligent, or unintelligent.

Since that is the real argument that the term Darwinism points towards, nobody gets to remove intelligence from the debate by fiat or decree of supernaturalism. Intelligence exists; humans have it. Whatever it is, it affects things, and leaves recognizable configurations.

In order to argue about Darwinism, one must engage the positon that Darwinism was invented in deliberate contradiction to: intelligent design.

[Alun]

I did not say that you are an atheist but that Darwinism is atheism since Darwinism basis its theoretical modeling of life's generation from its creation through its successive progression on purely naturalistic causes.

Either you're referring to something other than what I am advocating when you say, "Darwinism," or you think I'm really advocating atheism. I agree that natural selection implies 'purely naturalistic' causes for speciation, but this is a scientific theory, not a metaphysical theory. It is only about phenomena.

If you are saying that God "designed" evolution as the mechanism by which life was created and evolved then isn't it obvious that such a mechanism would have been included in the "substances" of life and hence deducible and definable by intelligent observation of the evidence in Gods creations as mechanisms of purpose?

No. If God created all known physical laws, then we'd have no way to detect God--since all of our means of detection are based upon those laws. I.e. I do not expect any phenomena to support the idea that God exists.

In keeping with the science if the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate material was a random chance event then that event could have a natural cause but is unrepeatable and therefore can never be specifically defined and recreated with the expectations of having the same results,

Once again, 'Darwinism' is definitely not about abiogenesis. Also, you're misrepresenting abiogenesis. The theory is that whatever happened was repeatable.

If expected results prove the equivalent of current observations and evidence then does that not prove a design mechanism?

Eh?

If science, Darwinism, is propagated for one sole idealogical purpose and philosophical principle, which is material evolution and atheism, which manipulates its strict adherence by political and legal aims then it is no longer science but a world view dedicated to the denigration and expulsion of God from every other world view and trending towards secular discrimination in practice and means. And, frankly, the foundational principles of Marxism and totalitarianism as political identifiers.

I'm sorry, but this is just crazy. I am not a Marxist, an advocate of totalitarianism, or an advocate of atheism. But I am an advocate of most mainstream scientific theories, including evolution by natural selection. Hence I do not trust your generalizations whatsoever.

While the language of the Darwinist may seem scientifically functional, its philosophy has strict aims, particularly when it refuses to meet the aims of the underlying questions posed by existence.

Who are you talking about here? I do not understand the purpose of your characterizations.

Meleagar, I edited my previous post while you were posting; I think there's a better chance I can understand what you're asking for if you make your criticisms in terms of the framework I outlined in that post.

I don't think of the universe as unintelligent. I think of the universe as an organization of energy and information, and that organizing force is intelligent. Not all powerful god, but an evolving intelligence.

Well, I think this is possible, at least from a metaphysical standpoint. But from a phenomenal perspective only, it doesn't make sense to characterize physical laws themselves as intelligent, because then we'd call everything intelligent.

[Juice]

OK, let me spell it out, the underlying questions posed by existence are; "How did life start?", and, "Does life have a purpose?" Questions Darwinist and material evolutionist determinately shy away from, even though, particularly in the case of how did life start, unanswerable by materialism, then Darwinism becomes nothing more than defunct filler for materialism and atheism.

As stated "natural" selection, "random" mutations and gradualism do nothing for speciation and biological diversity let alone the allusive "Origin Of Life". This is evidenced by the constantly changing historical paradigms of defining natural selection and random mutation, and the suggestion of punctuated equilibrium since paleontologist have always contended that the fossil record shows no signs that prove a gradual evolutionary process, but does show rapid appearances of populations which then gradually adapt to needs and may diverge into common phyla through the isolation of ancestor organisms. Most striking, along this mean, is the rapid appearance of Modern Man.


From Edward Blyth, 1835 (24 years before 1st publication of "Origins"

"There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.".

Blyth argued against transmutation of species, believing it would destroy species integrity. How insightful from an obvious intellect to divine, without the technology, the true nature of mutations. Much has been written about the relationship between Darwin and Blyth which I believe Blyth to be the only man of integrity of the two. Arguable?

Marxism-It is well known that Marx admired Darwin and even sent him a copy of his book, Das Kapital, which Darwin never read, but a spurious connection on ideological principles has been documented and can be made by Marxist anti-God necessity.

More to the point, as I stated it is hardly possible to present a concept which describes an aspect of the formation of life without having a clear idea on how life got its start, unless one presents it as a possibility resting on proofs of life's creation and not on imagination. In that regard then abiogenesis and intelligent cause become as equally viable and presentable, allowing intelligent design to be as equally a consideration as material evolution.

Darwinism is atheism as strengthened by the fact that legal and political steps have been taken to prevent ID from entering the public forum from atheists and secularist. Unless an unretractable material explanation can be provided then by no means can intelligent cause be cancelled out, especially by such manipulative and devious means which undermines the integrity of science.

Saying that the origin of life is not included in evolution is an intellectual dodge and excuse since all of Darwinism fails at the point of life's creation, since nonbiological substances cannot self replicate.

[Belinda]

Meleagar has stated categorically that he or she does not believe in supernatural beings. I understand now, Meleagar.Then Meleagar and I have to agree to differ upon whether or not 'intelligence' is a universal or alternatively if intelligence inheres only in individuals.
My contention is that intelligence inheres only in individuals and is therefore not a universal.I disbelieve in any universals at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

From Meleagar #95

You seem impervious to reason or logic on this. Once again, let me ask you: do you ever see intelligence? Not its effects, but intelligence itself? Is a space shuttle the product of unintelligent forces, or intelligent? Even if you see biological entities (humans) building a space shuttle, how would you know they were intelligent? If humans build a random pile of rocks, or scatter leaves out under trees in the fall, can you see any intelligence?

No. The only means by which intelligent manipulation of materials or forces can be found or recognized is by recognizing it when intelligence produces phenomena with the unique characteristics of quantifiable intelligent design. Does it mean that intelligence, because it cannot be directly seen, is supernatural? No.

The above is a clear statement of belief in the existence of universals, or at least of intelligence as a universal.If intelligence is a universal, why not yellowness, or goodness, or hardness, or life, as other instances of universals? It's a question for the Metaphysics board, but the question serves to show how both scientists and religionists have metaphysical presumptions whether those are implicit or explicit.