From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 5/09/2025 3:56 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/4/25 12:17 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> Thoughts on these review excerpts? Anyone read the book?   
   >>   
   >> Rau's six categories: "Naturalistic Evolution (NE), Nonteleological   
   >> Evolution (NTE), Planned Evolution (PE), Directed Evolution (DE), Old-   
   >> Earth Creation (OEC), and Young-Earth Creation (YEC). A chart in the   
   >> second chapter and extensive charts at the back of the book help sort   
   >> out the different models in a visual fashion."   
   >>   
   >> "Rau points out that each position is ultimately based on “different   
   >> philosophical presuppositions that are outside the realm of   
   >> science” (p. 176). The most important of these presuppositions, in   
   >> Rau’s view, is the definition of science itself. For example, a   
   >> definition of science that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of   
   >> the existence of or interaction with a supernatural realm cuts off any   
   >> inquiry or explanations that refer to the supernatural. It   
   >> automatically excludes any evidence or inference that would point to   
   >> an intelligent agent as a cause for the origin of life. Those who   
   >> presuppose this definition of science approach questions about the   
   >> origin of life looking exclusively for natural causes. Similar blind   
   >> spots are caused by presuppositions of those holding other positions."   
   >   
   > This is a form of "both-sides-ism". The suppositions of the different   
   > groups are not comparable, and this quote misunderstands the nature of   
   > science.   
   >   
   > Science can't deal with the supernatural because it's so ill-defined as   
   > to allow for no testable hypotheses. The definition of "supernatural"   
   > might as well be "that which cannot be studied by science". No evidence   
   > is excluded, but what evidence could there be of the supernatural? How   
   > would you distinguish a supernatural event from a natural event of   
   > unknown causes? This is especially true if the hypothesis is of an   
   > omnipotent being, since anything could be made to look like anything   
   > else, and a common way to deal with evidence is to appeal to divine   
   > inscrutability.   
   >   
   > How, specifically, would you look for a supernatural cause of the origin   
   > of life? What evidence could there be?   
      
   It seems to come down to causality, probability, and individual   
   judgement, regardless of what one believes:   
      
   * Where natural causality adequately explains something, then there is   
   no warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural involvement.   
      
   In this case, one may still consider supernatural involvement, but that   
   would only be on the basis of other epistemologies (e.g. theology,   
   philosophy) and personal convictions (e.g. religious faith). An example   
   of this position would be Rau's category of Planned Evolution (PE).   
      
   * Where natural causality does not adequately explain something, then   
   there is warrant from scientific evidence to consider supernatural   
   involvement.   
      
   Obviously, this raises the question of what constitutes an adequate   
   explanation. As I've suggested here previously, I suggest something like   
   this, using origin of life as an example:   
      
   If, after 100 or 1000 years of concerted research into naturalistic   
   explanations for OoL, a general scientific consensus emerged that all   
   known hypotheses were inadequate (i.e., something like what James Tour   
   is presently claiming), what then? To be clear, I'm not asserting this   
   is the case, but asking if it were so, what then?   
      
   A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration   
   of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific   
   evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in   
   parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a   
   negative cannot be proven.   
      
   To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,   
   not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,   
   which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.   
      
   Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.   
      
   What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?   
   In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural   
   domain. Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and   
   "special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from   
   what I know of the universe and from life things like design,   
   intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty,   
   morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a   
   supernatural agent.   
      
   What position would you/do you take?   
      
   ------   
      
   An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold   
   to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of   
   supernatural involvement. Biblical miracles served that purpose (not   
   arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the   
   principle). For example:   
      
   Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to   
   the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had   
   dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.   
   When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)