From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 10:28:31 +1000, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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:   
      
      
   Do you recognize that your individual judgment about the origin of   
   life is based on a greater ignorance, compared to those who actually   
   work on the question?  If so, will you recognize that your relative   
   lack of knowledge makes comparing your individual judgment a false   
   equivalence?   
      
      
   >* 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)