Do it without magic.

[Oncedeceived]

No, It wasn't really. But science tests itself by taking into account multiple theories which can agree with each other. Like in biology. Biology is made up of a multitude of theories which when taken together cross confirm and support each other which lend credence to each individual theory.

And while it is true that newtonian physics, relativity and quantum physics don't really mesh with each other, that doesn't make them any less valid individually. Science tests itself by correcting it's mistakes like throwing out theories we know don't work (like phlogiston theory and aether theory are just a couple examples). Peer review and disclosure are another couple of ways science tests itself. If the tests are done over and over and continue to produce different results, the results of no single session may be used as evidence. If the peers find the scientists to be biased then the research can't be used as evidence. Science is constantly in a stated of making sure the findings are valid.

No, Science doesn't test it self because science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Scientists do tests and experiments and provide peer reviewed disclosures. Science doesn't test Science.

 

[SteveB28]

The question was in relation to identifying the creative impetus in evolution.

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation. The use of the word "magic" is simply a word to use to ridicule.

And yet, every definition I can think of for 'magic' invariably refers to the 'supernatural'.

Perhaps I need to read more broadly?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Have you heard of Quantum Physics? They might defy the laws of physics.

How can Quantum Physics defy the laws of physics, since Quantum Physics are the laws of physics?

Granted they defy what we used to think were the laws of physics.

 

[Davian]

The question was in relation to identifying the creative impetus in evolution.

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation.

The use of the word "magic" is simply a word to use to ridicule.

My dictionary defines magic as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces".

Words are defined by how we use them.

Back to the OP, and the diversity of life on this planet. Are you going to invoke "miracle" for every gap you perceive in the scientific descriptions of the world around us?

Children don't appear identical to other children from the same parents? Miracle.

An animal born with legs that don't work, causing it to die shortly after birth? Miracle.

A population of northern animals found with thicker fur than similar animals in lower latitudes? Miracle.

Does this work for you? Wait until the scientific world gets hold of this! All of those gaps filled!

 

[justlookinla]

And yet science is responsible for everything you enjoy in life today. Exclusively!

No it's not. Science isn't responsible for food, shelter and clothing which were around long before science as a discipline appeared.

Science is why you get to be on the internet, mass produced your bible, delivered you into the world, made every thread you wear and sleep on, put all your food on the shelf, is why you have a toilet to flush!

Science was not responsible for writing my bible, clothing is available if I so choose to make it, seed-time and harvest was present long before science and there's no science involved in making an outhouse.

Without science you might as well go back to living in the woods.

Not an entirely bad idea. Some of my fondest memories are when I live in the woods.

That said. You're wrong. But you already know that.

Science can in fact test itself. In fact that's part of the process for discovering if the tests were done well in the first place. I suppose there still a chance this might all be a lie like we're living in the matrix or something but that doesn't sound very probable to me.

No, science cannot test itself. There is a scientific method...maybe that's what you mean.

That said I'm going to reiterate myself. Science can't test any action that defies the laws of reality/physics.

I think you're meaning to say that the scientific method can't do this?

Anything that's actually real leaves evidence that can be tested in the perceivable universe. Anything that leaves evidence can be tested to learn about it's properties. If something supernatural does exist, then how can science determine it's properties? If miracles do occur then how can science test their properties? If they have properties then they're real and not supernatural or miraculous anymore since the definition explicitly pertains to things that defy the laws of physics. Any such things that does not defy these laws fails to fit that definition.

This is why the scientific method is inadequate and sometimes leads to erroneous conclusions. There is more to creation than science and it's limited methods of determining truth.

 

[justlookinla]

Science did not create the computer you are using nor the transport you use nor the millions of amenities at your disposal? They all just poofed into existence?
When will you people ever learn that science has nothing to do with religion. And when will you people just show some gratitude to science for all it has done for society.

If you are so anti science then stop using the fruits of science lest you be branded a hypocrite.

Personally, I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-Scientism.

 

[justlookinla]

And yet, every definition I can think of for 'magic' invariably refers to the 'supernatural'.

Perhaps I need to read more broadly?

If you wish to use the word "magic" to describe the supernatural, by all means do it.

 

[justlookinla]

My dictionary defines magic as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces".

Words are defined by how we use them.

Ok.

Back to the OP, and the diversity of life on this planet. Are you going to invoke "miracle" for every gap you perceive in the scientific descriptions of the world around us?

Children don't appear identical to other children from the same parents? Miracle.

An animal born with legs that don't work, causing it to die shortly after birth? Miracle.

A population of northern animals found with thicker fur than similar animals in lower latitudes? Miracle.

Does this work for you? Wait until the scientific world gets hold of this! All of those gaps filled!

Actually, the OP did not identify the impetus which created humanity....and the OP still hasn't identified the impetus which created humanity.

And neither have you.

 

[SteveB28]

No it's not. Science isn't responsible for food, shelter and clothing which were around long before science as a discipline appeared.

'Science' is a means of gathering and improving knowledge. How was the food hunted, gathered or grown; how was the shelter constructed; how was the clothing fabricated, without an accumulation of knowledge?

Science was not responsible for writing my bible, clothing is available if I so choose to make it, seed-time and harvest was present long before science and there's no science involved in making an outhouse.

And to do all of those things you need knowledge. Knowledge that has been tested for its veracity. That's science.

No, science cannot test itself. There is a scientific method...maybe that's what you mean.

Yes it does. It does so by demonstrating that it is a process that works! Our knowledge steadily improves when we follow the scientific method. We go forward in a net fashion. Because the scientific method has been tested and has passed that test.

This is why the scientific method is inadequate and sometimes leads to erroneous conclusions. There is more to creation than science and it's limited methods of determining truth.

How else would you suggest we should have discovered and utilised electricity? How should we have learnt about flight? How else should we have eradicated smallpox?

Wait for divine revelation perhaps?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What creates new life forms that are different than those of previous generations?

Assuming that you were born in the usual way, by sexual reproduction, and therefore share 50% of your mother's chromosomes and 50% of your father's chromosomes, then I can safely guarantee that you are a brand new life form from either of your parents. Not only are not not just a carbon copy of one of your parents, you're not a perfect copy of both your parents, in the mechanisms by which your DNA was constructed little itty bitty differences--mutations--resulted in a completely unique biological life form that is you.

You are a completely new life form, one that has never existed before.

Each individual organism is unique, special, an individual. That's why though my father has black hair and my mother had brown hair I am a redhead. My father is 5'11, my mother was 5'8, but I grew to be 6'1. I may have my mother's smile, and my father's eyes, I am me. And if I come together and reproduce I will pass on half of my genetic material to the next generation, and that the union and recombination of my and my future wife's DNA will not be prefect and will result in variations within my child's genome and will be a brand new, unique, completely one-of-a-kind life form. Different from both me and my wife.

So unless you've only seen identical clones walking around everywhere, then all the above is true and your "new life forms" argument is meaningless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[justlookinla]

'Science' is a means of gathering and improving knowledge. How was the food hunted, gathered or grown; how was the shelter constructed; how was the clothing fabricated, without an accumulation of knowledge?

Google "fathers of science". You'll find that people were growing food, hunting, constructing shelter, making clothing and surviving long before science came along. Knowledge was around long before the scientific method was introduced.

And to do all of those things you need knowledge. Knowledge that has been tested for its veracity. That's science.

Are you suggesting that the view of humanity being the result of a random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism isn't proven by science?

Yes it does. It does so by demonstrating that it is a process that works! Our knowledge steadily improves when we follow the scientific method. We go forward in a net fashion. Because the scientific method has been tested and has passed that test.

The scientific method is the process which allegedly works. Of course if it actually worked flawlessly, there would not be so many erroneous conclusions using the scientific method. Actually, the scientific method produces many guesses and suppositions instead of concrete truths.

How else would you suggest we should have discovered and utilised electricity? How should we have learnt about flight? How else should we have eradicated smallpox?

How else would we have embraced the view that the universe is eternal, no big bang, how else would we have embraced the 'science' of thousands of thalidomide babies, ect., ect. One must never place their ultimate trust in science for science will teach one thing one day and then another thing the next many time.

Wait for divine revelation perhaps?

Perhaps.

 

[justlookinla]

Assuming that you were born in the usual way, by sexual reproduction, and therefore share 50% of your mother's chromosomes and 50% of your father's chromosomes, then I can safely guarantee that you are a brand new life form from either of your parents. Not only are not not just a carbon copy of one of your parents, you're not a perfect copy of both your parents, in the mechanisms by which your DNA was constructed little itty bitty differences--mutations--resulted in a completely unique biological life form that is you.

You are a completely new life form, one that has never existed before.

Each individual organism is unique, special, an individual. That's why though my father has black hair and my mother had brown hair I am a redhead. My father is 5'11, my mother was 5'8, but I grew to be 6'1. I may have my mother's smile, and my father's eyes, I am me. And if I come together and reproduce I will pass on half of my genetic material to the next generation, and that the union and recombination of my and my future wife's DNA will not be prefect and will result in variations within my child's genome and will be a brand new, unique, completely one-of-a-kind life form. Different from both me and my wife.

So unless you've only seen identical clones walking around everywhere, then all the above is true and your "new life forms" argument is meaningless.

-CryptoLutheran

You're human, just like your parents, you're not a new life form.

Now, would you like to give your view of what created the new life form of humans from the previous life form which wasn't human?

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet science is responsible for everything you enjoy in life today. Exclusively!

Science is why you get to be on the internet, mass produced your bible, delivered you into the world, made every thread you wear and sleep on, put all your food on the shelf, is why you have a toilet to flush!

Without science you might as well go back to living in the woods.

That said. You're wrong. But you already know that.

Science can in fact test itself. In fact that's part of the process for discovering if the tests were done well in the first place. I suppose there still a chance this might all be a lie like we're living in the matrix or something but that doesn't sound very probable to me.

That said I'm going to reiterate myself. Science can't test any action that defies the laws of reality/physics. Anything that's actually real leaves evidence that can be tested in the perceivable universe. Anything that leaves evidence can be tested to learn about it's properties. If something supernatural does exist, then how can science determine it's properties? If miracles do occur then how can science test their properties? If they have properties then they're real and not supernatural or miraculous anymore since the definition explicitly pertains to things that defy the laws of physics. Any such things that does not defy these laws fails to fit that definition.

Science is still needed to live in the woods, a cave, anywhere. Whether you understand it, measure it, manipulate it, study it, challenge it. It doesn't matter. You are controlled and limited by it.

You can teach any of the sciences without bringing creation or evolution into the lesson. You do not need to know where the organism came from to study it, kill it or understand how it functions today. The scientist does not need to know where the atom came from to be able to split it. The physicist does not need to know where the laws came from in order to apply them.

If these things were not true, you would be able to prove where life came from. A creator or spontaneous arrival.

However, God stands outside the dimension of space, time and all the laws and theories of "science". He is not bound by them.

 

[SteveB28]

Google "fathers of science". You'll find that people were growing food, hunting, constructing shelter, making clothing and surviving long before science came along. Knowledge was around long before the scientific method was introduced.

'A rose by any other name.' The term may not have been coined until much later ( after all, we had to wait for the invention of Latin!), but those people were 'doing science' nevertheless. And yes, the robust process of forming hypotheses/ testing evidence may not yet have been formalised into a recognised discipline, but I'm sure those early humans were embracing the techniques that worked better and discarding those that didn't. That's also science.

Are you suggesting that the view of humanity being the result of a random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism isn't proven by science?

I'm old and my brain doesn't function as well as it once might, but I have absolutely no idea what that apparently jumbled collection of words means. Could you please clarify?

The scientific method is the process which allegedly works. Of course if it actually worked flawlessly, there would not be so many erroneous conclusions using the scientific method. Actually, the scientific method produces many guesses and suppositions instead of concrete truths.

If you seek " concrete truths", you aren't involved with the scientific process. It's a method of testing and retesting ideas to improve knowledge. And that process is not a perfect straight line function. We sometimes take one step backwards before taking 5 forwards.

Tell me about this. You're a teacher. You test your students in a really demanding examination. One of your students scores 97% in the test. Do you consider her to be a failure because she made some errors, or do you congratulate her for the excellent progress she has made?

How else would we have embraced the view that the universe is eternal, no big bang, how else would we have embraced the 'science' of thousands of thalidomide babies, ect., ect. One must never place their ultimate trust in science for science will teach one thing one day and then another thing the next many time.

Please tell me, what was the process by which we improved our understanding of each of those things? A 'message from the heavens'?

 

[justlookinla]

'A rose by any other name.' The term may not have been coined until much later ( after all, we had to wait for the invention of Latin!), but those people were 'doing science' nevertheless. And yes, the robust process of forming hypotheses/ testing evidence may not yet have been formalised into a recognised discipline, but I'm sure those early humans were embracing the techniques that worked better and discarding those that didn't. That's also science.

No, those people were living in their environment to the best of their ability. Science was not necessary to determine which clothing was warmest, planting corn will yield corn, and a roof on a structure will keep one dry. Science was not needed in the determination that salt improves the taste of food.

Your attempt to appropriate knowledge as science doesn't work.

I'm old and my brain doesn't function as well as it once might, but I have absolutely no idea what that apparently jumbled collection of words means. Could you please clarify?

The words convey a view of how humanity was created from an alleged single life form from long long ago. It was by a random/chance, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless process. What's not to understand?

If you seek " concrete truths", you aren't involved with the scientific process. It's a method of testing and retesting ideas to improve knowledge. And that process is not a perfect straight line function. We sometimes take one step backwards before taking 5 forwards.

Right. Science is rife with guesses and suppositions.

Tell me about this. You're a teacher. You test your students in a really demanding examination. One of your students scores 97% in the test. Do you consider her to be a failure because she made some errors, or do you congratulate her for the excellent progress she has made?

I'm a teacher. My students answer their test questions by guesses and suppositions. How much progress have they made?

Please tell me, what was the process by which we improved our understanding of each of those things? A 'message from the heavens'?

Please tell me, does science teach error today as they have in the past?

 

[Inkfingers]

No, those people were living in their environment to the best of their ability. Science was not necessary to determine which clothing was warmest, planting corn will yield corn, and a roof on a structure will keep one dry. Science was not needed in the determination that salt improves the taste of food.

Your attempt to appropriate knowledge as science doesn't work.

Science comes from scientia, which is the latin word for knowledge.

Those people in the past tested their environment and responded to the evidence. To say that it wasn't science is a strange game of semantics. Experiment does not have to be carried out in a formal laboratory to be science; it can be done (literally) in the field.

Please tell me, does science teach error today as they have in the past?

"Science" (more correctly, "scientific knowledge") teaches to the best of its awareness; which is of course no more or less susceptable to corruption of dishonesty than any other realm of human endeavour. No parent knows perfectly, so should we question their child-raising ability?

The problem comes when people treat scientific knowledge like it is a religious revelation; granting it some kind of sacred status to be protected from heresy. But on the other side, if you don't protect it, you get all manner of charlatan snake-oil peddlars hiding behind its label.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Agreed. I believe God created the Earth around 10000 years ago. But gave it the appearance of being 4.5B years old.

Why make something look old?
Seems like this god went out of his way to make it look as if he had nothing to do with it...

 

[Inkfingers]

Agreed. I believe God created the Earth around 10000 years ago. But gave it the appearance of being 4.5B years old. At that time evolutionary processes began.

That would be a staggeringly deceptive thing to do, wouldn't it?

 

[Kylie]

What creates new life forms that are different than those of previous generations?

The process that I described operating over many generations.