From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:37:39 -0700, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 9/4/25 5:28 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.   
   >   
   >No, there is not. That's the old "god of the gaps" argument. Just    
   >because you don't understand something is no reason to believe it's due    
   >to supernatural causes, especially if it's complex. Why not natural    
   >causes you don't know about or don't know how to apply?   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   >Time to come up with other hypotheses. But why supernatural ones? And    
   >what does "supernatural" even mean to you? Again, it's too vague to base    
   >predictions or hypotheses on, and thus impossible to do science with.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Once again, how would you study a supernatural cause?   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Once more, what supernatural cause? What would a supernatural cause look    
   >like? How would we recognize it?   
   >   
   >> 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)