So...Where were we...
I just think you might benefit from understanding where the creationist is coming from with this. Unlike many of my Calvinist brethren I do not rely exclusively on presuppositional logic. I think the evidencial approach has some merit so I find myself pouring through the voluminous tomes of Genetic research so readily available across the internet and the local Library. I think there is some common ground here, an appreciation for how a person's world view influences a philosophy of natural history can be helpful.
Well, I appreciate the courtesy, but I still don't see how it relates to Science. the Scientific Method by definition seeks to learn things about this universe, and the world around us, religion and the supernatural just aren't applicable. As far as I can see, all it would do is bring people to the problem with their own pre-packaged bias, that would only serve to hinder any investigation, not enhance anything. If it were that it has an effect on reality, then there would be the thing, it would then be part of this reality we can then investigate. Until then, I don't see how it has any place.
Just do me one favor, consider the definition from Nature and we can talk some more about these things. It may well help you understand the nature of the evidence being explored and suggests some of the limitations of scientific method. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means you can't get to the subject of origins in a lab.
Well, like I said, I don't really have a problem with that definition anyway. That said, if you were going to make a play on words and say it doesn't mean what the scientific community generally accept it to be, then I can't come on board with it, is all.
There is something called a mutation rate and the deleterious effects of mutations that is well worth considering:
In the living cell,
DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being
replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic
cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus,
mutation is a failure of DNA repair.
Mutations
Selection explains the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. Mutations account for most of the variety but adaptive evolution cannot be explained by random copy errors, it's utterly absurd. You are left with presently unknown molecular mechanisms making profoundly dangerous changes in highly conserved genes. It might be a little more complicated then you have been led to believe.
But as has been pointed out here before, not every mutation is deleterious. Even so, & I'm not sure if you're aware, but given around 70% of human pregnancies auto-terminate, that might indicate that quite a few deleterious mutations are sorted well before they leave the gate... These aren't scientific sources though, but included for reference, Miscarriage Statistics:
http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm on the rate of failed pregnancies and "What causes a Miscarriage"
http://www.babycenter.com/0_miscarriage-signs-causes-and-treatment_252.bc :
Between 50 and 70 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the
wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.
This might shed some light on where all those deleterious mutations went...
I'm not trying to ditch science, the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution ran concurrently. The academic tyranny of Rome was broken around that time as will as it's ecclesiastical and political control. Ever heard of the Thirty Year War and the Civil War in England, it's related to the rise of the Protestant Reformation that paved the way for the Scientific Revolution. Don't get me wrong, I don't credit religion exclusively with the many milestone breakthroughs, telescopes, microscopes and the mighty printing press were instrumental and could be considered the key.
Sure. I'm still not getting why (and for that matter, How) the supernatural gets involved to make the scientific method any better than what is already in place and working just fine?
You don't seem like a troller, I actually enjoy these exchanges. I have long thought these discussions can be very stimulating and lead invariably to a better understanding of science, religion, history and philosophy. Most of what I get out of this has little to do with the core controversy that spurs it on. I hated Biology in school, thought cutting up Crustaceans was a pointless and disgusting practice. Now I've learned that there is a deep philosophy and dynamic history involved, it's made it much more intriguing.
I see it as less of a sport and more as a legitimate defence of our collective knowledge & technological progress & prosperity...
...and Now to move on...
God can be tested, just not empirically and there are some very sweeping predictions literally fulfilled in the past, present and future. I'm not arguing for Creationism as an empirical methodology just saying, the end product of science is fair game for philosophical and religious thought. Science does not preclude a Creator, that much is true, not does it get to exclude God being creator at the point of origin.
Well Science just isn't in a position to speculate. As for sweeping predictions, the bulk of biblical prophecy can't be verified as anything but stories given the Bible is the only record. The prophecies that are fulfilled would either be trivial, and/or vague enough to be interpreted retroactively to fit any number of scenarios, and then there are the specific enough, but failed prophecies too, such as Tyre falling to King Nebuchadnezzar & being wiped bare as a rock, never to be used for anything more than a place for laying out fishing nets...
Your arguing in circles, because science investigates natural phenomenon the only cause has to be naturalistic. Therefore all causation, going back to the Big Bang and including the origin of life must be naturalistic. It's absurd. They lost because God as cause is essentially religious in nature thus the Establishment Clause prohibits it. It's as simple as that.
All the causes we've ever found are naturalistic, and the only causes we can test for are naturalistic ones. This though, has been working very well for us, so not sure why this is a problem. The moment we include the supernatural, scientific inquiry stops. Again, if the Supernatural is ever the causal event of something, then surely it becomes part of the natural world, and can therefore be tested!
Yet in reality it must be.
If that were the case, then Science could test for it - so no, it isn't.
Yea, so what? We are talking about natural history whether we actually mention that fact or not. Speciation is just the first tier.
Sure, but the wheels just keep turning while those little changes become divergent between the populations as time goes on...
If it's still up in the air then it's still up for grabs whether or not God created life. Evolution is a living theory, it starts happening after life has started. What speculation there might be for naturalistic causes are all well and good but the is an inverse logic that cannot be rationally ignored.
Right. I don't accept your inverse logic here, and I'm perfectly rational in doing so. There's still no evidence for your particular God, or any other supernatural causation so offering that false dichotomy on the beginning of life just isn't Science.
It was included in Principia, the magnum opus of his scientific career.
Yes, as his personal belief, not as part of any actual scientific experiment. It was only when giving up and throwing genuine investigation at the feet of his God that it served to stymie any further scientific inquiry, not enhance it.
You are making a pointless rationalization here, God isn't subject to Natural Selection nor is evolutionary processes an explanation for natural phenomenon needing God except at the point of origin. Don't conflate the two.
If we've learned anything from Newton, it's that accepting a supernatural cause effectively cuts away any further genuine scientific inquiry. If you think it's prudent to continue investigating anyway, then Great! We can discard having to consider your God anyway, so we're back to where we started, and Science is doing just fine without considering Supernatural causation.
Again, we are not talking about the methodology, we are deciphering the end product. What a scientist does is not that different from what a plumber does, the tools and technology are more advanced in some instances but science is little more then a tool. What it produces is no longer subject to the same restrictions a lab scientist is disciplined by, the phenomenon lays down the evidence, the evidence can be used in other ways.
Great! I still fail to see how Scientific Inquiry in any capacity can benefit from considering the Supernatural. Given we can't test for it, what benefit & knowledge will we get by considering that in any aspect of our research?
Accept no causes except those that are sufficient to explain the phenomenon, that is as far as it goes. I does not exclude God as Creator, Newton would have thought such a conclusion absurd.
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” (Isaac Newton)
He didn't believe in a world without God. Chance mutations are equally absurd so the has to be another explanation and it's not provided by Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.
I agree on your (...well, Newton's) first statement, and again, I agree that Science and the Scientific Method don't rule out a God, but there's nothing that warrants it to be considered. That's the domain of Religious folk to postulate post-fact. Great about his personal beliefs too, but Science had a Huge and very successful track record without ever including the Supernatural, I still don't see any value, and have underlined a few detractions were we to include the Supernatural as a causal agent. Of course, both you and Newton are free to postulate about your respective deities (I suspect you don't believe Newton was Jesus Christ reincarnate?), just leave Science out of it!
It's been fun, thanks for the exchange. Looking forward to hearing more from you on this subject.
Okay, now a question for you - I'd like to hear how you suggest that Science, and the Scientific Method would benefit by the specific inclusion of the supernatural. How would you include it in a way that we make meaningful progress from Science? In fact, If you could postulate a working example (real or not) that we can dissect, that would be Great!
Same to you.