From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/09/2025 7:37 am, 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   
   >> domain.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)