From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/4/2025 7:28 PM, 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:   
   >   
   > * 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.   
      
   This has a 100% failure rate upon application.  It has never resulted in   
   explaining the cause of anything in nature.  All you would need is one   
   success to claim that this assertion might be valid, but all the   
   god-did-it claims that we have been able to figure out what actually   
   happens or happened the god-did-it claim has failed and been replaced by   
   something else.  The only such claims left on the board are the gaps   
   that you are only using for denial purposes because we have not yet been   
   able to fill them.  Even Newton failed in this regard when he invoked   
   angels to account for some of the results that he could not explain.  He   
   just could not account for all the variable, especially, not the planets   
   that had not yet been discovered.   
      
   >   
   > 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?   
      
   This does not matter.  No one ever expected to fill the origin of life   
   gap with what may have actually happened.  Without a time machine all   
   that was expected is that we come up with the most likely explanation,   
   but a more unlikely route could always have been taken.  A lot of   
   prebiotic chemistry might be out the window if self replicating polymers   
   of RNA were brought to the earth or assembled by some asteroid impact.   
   Almost no one expects to fill the Big Bang gap because of the   
   singularity involved, but a few haven't given up hope.  As improbable as   
   filling the gap might be it is still more likely than something that has   
   never been verified to exist to have done anything.   
      
   The 100% failure rate for god-did-it explanations started thousands of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)