From: the_thompsons@earthlink.net   
      
   MarkE wrote:   
   > 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?   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)