Evolution and Heaven?

[metherion]

So, it turns out this is actually about 35000 characters, so that's 3 posts. Sorry!

PART 1:

This seems like it's the only real problem area, clearly Darwinism rejects any miraculous explanations for life. That is clearly out of bounds for methodological naturalism and the Newtonian rules of scientific investigation.

Then, in this post, I’m going to focus on this part, and not the others. I am neither conceding the points, nor declaring victory without reading and addressing your rebuttals, merely letting them drop unresolved.

Now, you say:

clearly Darwinism rejects any miraculous explanations for life. That is clearly out of bounds for methodological naturalism and the Newtonian rules of scientific investigation.

I completely disagree. First, there is Newton’s first point: No more causes of natural phenomena should be admitted than are both true and necessary (slightly paraphrased, but I don’t believe I changed any terms). What IS life? Life can be either the generation of life, or the actual organisms themselves. The organisms are governed by biology and biochemistry. How hemoglobin transports oxygen, how DNA expresses proteins, how proteins affect the creatures themselves, that is all known under biochemistry. That is true and sufficient, no supernatural cause is to be admitted because there are true and sufficient explanations without invoking them. I will leave the matter of God’s providence upholding physical laws out of this discussion at this point.


Then, there is how life came to be. Right now, that is actually not Darwinism, nor it is evolution, it is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Right now, yes, exactly how life came to be on this planet is not understood. However, between organic chemistry, biochemistry, and biology, how it COULD come about naturally is established. To say that it cannot be so, and a miracle is required is classic God-of-the-gaps.

Furthermore, methodological naturalism cannot accept a miracle as an explanation. Methodological naturalism is the idea that all scientific endeavors, including hypotheses, events, et cetera, are to tested and explained in reference to nature and with regard to natural events. Rejecting miracles as an explanation is the definition of methodological naturalism. It is NOT out of bounds for methodological naturalism.

I believe UCD to be metaphysics because it does not leave room for a null hypothesis, or it abandoned any vestige of a null hypothesis long ago.

This is not correct. A null hypothesis is the general or default condition. In the case of UCD, the null hypothesis would be that there IS no UCD. The question is, what evidence would there be that would put UCD to rest? Well, an utter lack of common ancestors, clearly defined boundaries between various species/genera/families/whatever with no intermediates, all forms of life appearing at the same time. On the other hand, intermediates, the timeline of when various groups in the tree of life came into being, lines of descent and ancestry and so on all would be evidence for UCD. Once it has been evidenced, sure, there’s not really a vestige of the null hypothesis unless and until something huge and earthshaking comes up.

Look at it this way, when was the last time someone considered what the null hypothesis for atomic theory would be? What about for thermodynamics? After a while, the evidence adds up and comes down so heavily on one side that the subsets of one theory are what is tested, not the basis of it. Again, take atoms. After it was accepted that atoms exist, THEN experiments were made that try and find what atomic structures were like, without trying to invoke a null hypothesis of atoms no longer existing. An example would be the gold foil experiment that lead to the discovery of the nucleus. It wasn’t questioning whether or not atoms existed, it was trying to check that atoms were pretty much solid jelly globules of matter... and the nucleus fell out. It was no longer testing if atoms existing.

[quote[I just think it's important to realize that UCD, TOE and NS are all discernibly different and there lines that UCD has crossed. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means UCD and TOE are not synonymous. [/quote]
Well, they are all different, I just don’t know what lines you think UCD has crossed. NS is one of the more prominent recognized methods for evolution to occur, and UCD is a sub-area of the TOE.

I get the impression that both Realism and Instrumentalism are addressing very specific problems, most philosophical systems are like that. They are related to scientific models and I'm wondering how relevant they might be to UCD, really haven't looked into them that much.

Basically, Scientific Realism says that the world described by science is the real world, while Instrumentalism says that science’s description is only good insofar as it mirrors what the world does. As far as how they’d be related to UCD, I’ve not a clue.

I really don't think we need to make exhaustive responses to what has already been gone over. The only real problem is the definition of evolution and how it relates to UCD. We are pretty much in agreement on the definition of science and I see no real conflicts on doctrine, except for 'creation'. Philadiddle is talking about starting a thread just for that so I'm willing to wait and see if that can help to clarify the term, or more realistically terms associated with 'creation'. We have such a huge language and yet we have such a limited vocabulary of some pretty important things, did you know the New Testament has three words for love and we have one?

Actually, yes I did. Philos (I think), from which we get things like Philadelphia and I think fraternal, eros from which we get erotic, and agape (ah-gah-pay instead of ‘a-gape’) for something along the lines of ‘general respect you should have for another person simply because they are a human being’.


So, after THIS part of the post, I’m going to go back to your previous two posts, pick out the parts I think related to what you’ve covered above, and then respond to it. You remember the post I made on the 19th? This is where I was when I posted it.

Okay, now that that little time capsule paragraph, let’s look at the next part.


So, the first thing I would talk about is:

String theory is metaphysics, why would it be considered science?

I would ask: How is it metaphysical? What is metaphysical about it? While I would say that some of the ideas, such as extra dimensions, may be rather bizarre to say the least, I would say that merely puts it into the realm of ‘makes predictions beyond technology’ that may be a VERY long time in being tested, rather than straight up metaphysical.

Your not disputing me, you are disputing Vine, Unger and White.

That’s fine. I still disagree.

Which is Darwinism, which is transcendent, which is based on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes and a categorical rejection of miraculous interpolation (aka special creation). Which is metaphysics, which is by your own definition not scientific.

Actually, by the definition of methodological naturalism, it cannot do anything BUT exclude supernatural causes.

There are those who would disagree:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution)

That is a question of DID, not COULD. If I say that I DID not read a book, that does not mean I COULD NOT HAVE read a book in the past. Similarly, if I say God DID not create everything ex nihilio according to the definition you use, I do not say God COULD NOT HAVE created that way.

Furthermore, processes of modification are known.

Evolution in the Darwinian sense and Creation in the Biblical sense are mutually exclusive. That need not be included in the scientific definition of evolution unless you include the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

So, does that mean Lamarckian evolution isn’t contradicting creation?

The definition is 100% consistent with a Darwinian timescale or a young earth timescale. The change of alleles (traits) are simply changes regardless of the timescale which is the only real difference between Darwinism and Creationism except for the inference or rejection of the Creator.

Except for the physical evidence. The physical evidence leads back over much longer periods of time than a Young Earth timescale. The evidence also have fossils forming a continuum all sorts of variations and ‘in betweens’ between animals instead of discrete kinds. Such continuums are one of the reasons Lamarck came to his conclusion that evidence for miracles is lacking.

Furthermore, the timescale extends far beyond biology and includes other fields such as chemistry and physics.

I found this definition:
Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed.
Darwinism does no such thing, the genesis of nature by an act of God is specifically addressed as a categorical rejection.

See, I accept this idea of methodological naturalism. However, with or without Lamarck’s conclusion, the current Neo-Darwinian synthesis would still have been arrived at, because it is based on the evidence and methodological naturalism. Regardless of whether people assign metaphysical meaning to it.

Let’s look at Darwin’s quote again:

Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers,(1) the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details.
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit.

Let’s dissect that.
Darwin first talks about how current scientists (though the term was naturalists at the time) believed species to be unchangeable and created by divine fiat.
He then names Buffon and Lamarck as two who have aroused the idea of species changing.

Attention being aroused of the probability of changes due to natural law and not miracles would be the groundwork for methodological naturalism, not an argument against divine intervention.

Think about it this way. If I get a group of biologists who all believe God created at some point (they don’t know when, but at some point), you would have a discussion about what changes are too many changes to be allowed, and what God would have created, and does the evidence really show species changing, and “okay, species change, but at what point does God step in?”, and it would turn into a discussion on theology very quickly, and woe betide all if anyone who believes in the Bhagavad Ghita or the Vedas who tries to enter the discussion, with all the “But whose gods, and at what points, and...” going on.

But if you get a group who only look at natural effects, and make no assumptions either way, and don’t discount any possibilities due to God not allowing something because God isn’t allowed as an explanation, then you get an entirely different discussion that can be entered into no matter if any biologist involves believes in any holy books, or none. And, if there were a divine fiat at some point, you would expect a consensus of ‘Huh. Everything that should be there beyond THESE points is completely absent.’, even if there are no reasons why.

The quote you have posted from the Origins of Species preface is not in the tone of “GOD DIDN”T AND NEVER DOES AND NEVER HAS DONE ANYTHING”, it is in the tone of “The physical evidence that was previously not considered due to assumptions of divine interaction shows things that would not be there if the assumed divine interaction occurred, so it is better to not assume divine action occurred to cloud what really happened.”

To be continued:

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Part 2!

Furthermore, I am curious, have you read this paragraph from later in the preface?

Professor Owen, in 1849 ('Nature of Limbs,' p. 86), wrote as follows:- "The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.' In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks (p. li.) of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or of the ordained becoming of living things.' Farther on (p. xc.), after referring to geographical distribution, he adds, 'These phenomena shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that by the word ''creation'' the zoologist means '"a process he knows not what.'' He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their origin to a great first Creative Cause.' If we interpret these sentences given in the same Address, one by the other, it appears that this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his confidence shaken that the Apteryx and the Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes, 'he knew not how,' or by some process 'he knew not what.'

And finally, I would end this part with these three quotes that Darwin found fit to include at the beginning of his book,
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."
--Whewell: "Bridgewater Treatise".
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is STATED, FIXED or SETTLED; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."
Butler: "Analogy of Revealed Religion"
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."
Bacon: "Advancement of Learning"

I would submit that these first two quotes say nothing if they do not express what I stated was the tone of Darwin’s reference to Lamarck: Natural events occur without being the result of miracles, therefore miracles should not be assumed in all cases. The last is an inspiring exhortation not to be content with knowledge and cease learning, but it does so in a way that reinforces the world as authored by God, as the book of His works.

And now, the last part!

Not completely unobserved, God was there.

I believe that. You believe that. But it is not objectively so. I mean, what about Apsu and Tiamat fighting on high before the creation of time and space? What about Eros, the Abyss, Gaia, and Erebus emerging from Chaos? How do we tell which is which without resorting to subjective belief?

Look, I realize that revelation is very different from a scientific investigation of a natural phenomenon.

Granted...

But the creation of the universe (Cosmos if you prefer), life on earth and the soul of man does not fall under the umbrella of natural science. If we are defining science in terms of methodological naturalism then at the point of creation or any miracle science must stop, not demand a naturalistic explanation.

The soul, I’ll grant you that. The others, and the premise that at any miracle science must stop, I disagree. Lightning bolts come from Zeus. That’s a miracle, a god throwing things, should lightning not be investigated? It butts up against lighting being a miracle. The Water Beetle, Beaver’s grandson, made the earth when he brought up soft mud while seeing what was below the water(assuming I remember my Cherokee stories correctly). Does that mean subduction and related areas of geology should not be studied? It butts up against the Water Beetle making the earth. The sun is pulled across the sky by the chariots of the sun god. Is that not a miracle? Should astronomy not be studied? It butts up against Apollo (or others) pulling the sun. Gilgamesh built the wall of Uruk with superhuman strength and survived the great flood. Those are miracles, why should archaeology be studied? It butts up against Babylonian miracles. Why should the miracles that a specific faith believe in be given special status? Why should Christianity alone be able to go “No, wait, that’s a miracle, back off, and no matter what you find, it’s still wrong!”?

The universe is a natural thing, it can be studied naturally. Life is a natural thing. It runs by natural processes, it arises by natural processes (I am referring to reproduction with that sentence, by the way), it ends by natural processes. Trying to say ‘No, stop, you cannot study X naturally, God must have done it, and there is no possible explanation’ is combining God of the Gaps, argument from incredulity, and special pleading. If there is a point where something happened miraculously, there should not be misleading evidence that points perfectly to a continuation of known physical phenomena. Everything should just break down and stop at that point.

Now, here’s the question:
If science says the earth orbits the sun, is that a metaphysical argument AGAINST Apollo pulling it with chariots?
If science says that land is formed by cooling rock from the mantle, and is subducted and uplifted and all that jazz, is that a categorical rejection of the actions of the Water Beetle?
If science says that lightning is caused by electric charges in clouds, is that science stepping onto supernatural turf to deny Zeus?
If science says there was no Great Deluge of Gilgamesh, is that overstepping methodological naturalism’s bounds?

Who gets preference on the “My religion’s miracles are exempt from science, and any attempts to explain anything claimed as a miracle disqualify your science from being science and turn it into anti-theism” list, and why? Why should anyone get that?

I merely see an assertion that some things cannot be known about naturally, with naught but belief to back it up, and an assertion that things that violate that belief cannot really be natural inquiry.

I don't subscribe to any God of the Gaps nonsense, I don't even care to know what that is.

God of the gaps is when a gap in scientific knowledge is taken to be evidence for God’s existence.

The testimony of Scripture did not float down from heaven like manna in the dessert. It was confirmed by signs, miracle and mighty judgements. All Scripture is confirmed by God who does things only God can do to confirm the Word that is going out. Heck, half the time the prophets and apostles didn't believe what was being promised, sometimes even when it happened. I have in mind the resurrection here.

Yes, it was often confirmed by signs and miracles. The thing is, those signs and miracles wouldn’t leave huge lasting effects that contradict alls of physical evidence around today.

My point is simply that there are limits to methodological naturalism and the testimony of Scripture is evidenced even if it's not empirically testable. Just because it cannot be reduced to a testable hypothesis does not mean it did not happen and I'm far more concerned with boundaries here then semantics.

Yes, there are limits to MN, it cannot make claims about the supernatural. I believe in God because of subjective experience and faith, not because of objective scientific evidence. However, sometimes claims by religion are also made about the natural world. One example is the OEC/YEC/Day-Age/Gap/etc.

Being Catholic, I would bring here some of the things the Roman Catholic Church does. One of the more well-known examples is Lourdes, France, and the springs there. I believe that there have been miraculous healings there. However, neither I nor the Church believe that every single claimed healing is miraculous. However, how is one determined miraculous? If you’re interested, you could read up on it here:
Lourdes Medical Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
under the section “Investigation of apparent cures”.

Now, do I present this as some method to turn you to Catholicism? No. Do I expect YOU to believe that have been miracles at Lourdes? No. I present this because I think it’s pretty much the best archetype of science/religion interaction/miracle declaring. A full, multi-year scientific investigation by the doctors run by an independent organization whose French initials are CMIL, followed not by a vote of “is it a miracle” but “is it medically unexplainable”, followed by a referral to the local bishop of the person involved who then consults with the Vatican. As I remember, there have been over 7000 investigations, with under 75 being confirmed as miracles.

You see, that’s how I think science SHOULD interact with religion. And this is also why I accept the scientific explanation of evolution and UCD.

It is quite possible for a claim of religion and a claim of science to overlap. Example from above: John Doe has an incurable disease, John Doe has been cured miraculously. Now, an incurable disease generally only goes away by death, not by drinking or bathing in water. But in the cases of miraculous intervention by God through the miracle of healing water at Lourdes, science does not say God does or does not heal. Science only says “The phenomenon of the Incurable-us Disease-icus sickness leaving John Doe is medically unexplainable.” If it were explainable, it wouldn’t be a miracle, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WASN”T THE WORK OF GOD.

That’s the principle I apply to things like life. Life is a natural phenomenon. It arises by natural laws (reproduction), it continues by natural laws (biochemistry/organic chemistry), the existence of life is determined by physical methods, and it ends according to natural laws. Ditto with the universe: it is a natural thing, governed by natural laws. Science has the job of trying to explain natural things. If there is a miracle, such as miraculous creation of kinds, there should be the utter absence of scientific explainability for how they came about, JUST LIKE there is the utter lack of scientific explainability for how the Lourdes healings happened. There should not be a scientific explanation that fits the evidence but is completely wrong, there should be no explanation.


To be continued:

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Part the last!


I’m going to address these next two points at once:

I strongly disagree with that, Darwinism directly addresses special creation, it is in fact, one long argument against it. That is profoundly different from methodological naturalism.
...
You seem to have overlooked the part where it applies to all life, even life that has not been discovered. That is an a priori assumption, not an empirically determined fact.

Both of these statements are incorrect.

The Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis of evolution is not one long argument against special creation. It is an explanation of natural evidence that appears on earth. The fact that is contradicts special creation does NOT mean it is a long argument against it. It means that the observed physical evidence, observed natural laws, and so on contradict it. Evolution is a positive statement of what did happen and why it happens, not a negative argument against something else.

Evolution being assumed to apply to life not yet discovered is no more transcendent than it being assumed gravity applies to undiscovered life, or thermodynamics applying to undiscovered life. Darwinian evolution, that is, evolution by natural selection occurs when there are imperfect replicators with a selection criterion for survival, of which finite resources such as food to eat or space to occupy are adequate. This happens in non-organic-life areas such as evolutionary computing, where models are propagated imperfectly and the ones that model more poorly are selected against. It is not a logic that can only apply exclusively to life. It is no more transcendent to apply it to undiscovered life with the caveat that said life is made up of imperfect replicators than it is to say gravity applies to said life because the rest of the universe is made up of matter (even though we haven’t visited it all yet).

You see, Mark, your definition of Darwinian, especially w.r.t evolution is not the most common definition for Darwinian by a very long shot. Generally, in biology, when Darwinian Evolution is talked about, it refers to natural selection (as opposed to, say, Lamarckian, which says that characteristics acquired during lifetime are passed down). So, Darwinian evolution being a logic would be referring to... natural selection. Later in that paragraph, he states that certain things may be considered artifacts of earth, and gives the double helix of DNA as one thing. UCD could be another, if life originated two separate places on a planet (say, two different unconnected oceans) and those underwent selection independently.

Unless gravity, the existence of matter, thermodynamics, physics, et cetera are ALSO a priori assumptions because they are assumed to apply to stars/planets/life/whatever that has not yet been discovered AS LONG AS is it made up of matter, has mass, etc, then saying natural selection would apply to other biosystems is not transcendent either.

Personally, if there is an acceptable null hypothesis to Darwinism I have no problem with it. I certainly don't disagree that natural selection is a phenomenon in nature. All of which is purely academic, the real question is whether Darwinism is transcendent and precludes the empirical process or if it's just a direct observation or demonstration. Where it is the later it is not in conflict with creationism in any of it's forms. Where it is the former it's a categorical rejection in all of it's forms.

The null hypothesis to Darwinian evolution would be “natural selection is not responsible to the spread of genome changes through populations”. However, since your term Darwinism is different, I suppose one null hypothesis might be “neither natural laws nor effects of natural laws are capable of explaining the diversity of life”. This would, of course, be shown wrong right and left. See, this is where the whole definition thing gets really confusing, especially with the insistence of non-standard definitions everywhere.

So let me try to reword that.

All of which is purely academic, the real question is whether “applying natural law instead of miracles as the cause of changes in life “is transcendent and precludes the empirical process or if it's just a direct observation or demonstration.

So, then, the question should be clearer now. Now, as I was talking about above with the Lourdes thing, if a miracle has occurred, then something should be scientifically unexplainable. Not “there should be a natural explanation that is consistent with all the data but is still wrong”, but “unexplainable”. Therefore, the fact that there IS a natural explanation that is consistent with the data would be observation and empirical process that miracles are not the explanation.

String theory does, heck, most natural laws can be regarded as transcendent.

Ah. Well, that does answer one of my questions above. So, you would say things like gravity and thermodynamics and the like ARE every bit as transcendent as applying to idea of natural selection to undiscovered biosystems?

For a philosophy of science to make claims regarding God's sovereign activities in the natural world is not methodological naturalism, it's not even close.

The thing is, back when Darwin wrote Origin, the idea that God created species as they are was still taken to be a valid hypothesis. That is not methodological naturalism EITHER. It is clear than MN had not yet fully taken hold, while it HAS for modern science. This is why taking single quotes from the founders of scientific ideas approximately 150 years ago and saying that modern incarnations of that idea are still subject to it generally yields poor results and false claims.

That depends on what you consider metaphysics and clearly, String Theory is mean to be a theory of 'everything', all ontological theories are

The term ‘theory of everything’ means a putative theory in physics that explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and could theoretically predict that outcome to any experiment in principle. One of the main problems in doing that is uniting relativity and quantum mechanics, which is what string theory is trying to do. That’s not an attempt to be an ontological theory, it’s an attempt to be a scientific theory that unifies currently disparate fields. Credit to wiki for the definition, which I’ve taken almost word for word from there.

Rule one covers a natural occurring phenomenon, rule 4 would address miracles in rule 4 as an exception, if scientific method can address miracles at all.

Rule 1 applies because life is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and science cannot address miracles, so rule 4 would not contain an exception.

The main thing to realize here is you are not to make any assumptions regarding the cause until it has been directly observed or demonstrated. With regards to creation the genuine article of science is silent or neutral but in Darwinism it is overtly hostile.

On the other hand, the assumption that it is creation and not something else is still an assumption. It is an assumption that God is the cause without direct observation of demonstration, only belief, so it too should then be thrown out. Natural laws, however, have been directly observed and demonstrated, so their use as an explanation in science is totally valid.

He never did change his mind about natural selection being metaphysics:

Ahem. Incorrect, as I previous stated. Two paragraphs and a one-sentence paragraph before your quote, he states

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

and immediately afterwards, he states:
]quote]
I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
[/quote]

This shows your claim

He never did change his mind about natural selection being metaphysics

wrong.

The Lamarck quote indicates a naturalist assumption at the heart of Darwinism and Newton's method of investigating naturally occurring phenomenon is limited to naturally occurring phenomenon. If you ever investigate a miracle you would address it as an exception.

You have mistaken rule 1 for a naturalistic assumption, that's a no no.

The Lamarck quote indicates a break away from God being an acceptable cause in science and the move towards MN. If you were to scientifically investigate a miracle, you would not do so as an exception. You would come up with no explanation. Rule 1 may not be a naturalistic assumption, but it is a method to rule out un-necessary supernatural causes being added.

Okay. That took a nice long time to write out and do! Sorry about the wait.

I basically took everything in a big word file, split it up into 3 parts, and copied it over. So, that's why some of the gaps may seem at odd places, or I talk about various 'parts'. I did that while writing, referring about when I was writing, and which post, so they may not match up with which post is which. Sorry.

Metherion

 

[RobbieD80]

Nobody's perfect, haha. So, yes.

 

[Greg1234]

I would submit that these first two quotes say nothing if they do not express what I stated was the tone of Darwin’s reference to Lamarck: Natural events occur without being the result of miracles, therefore miracles should not be assumed in all cases.

It's not so much about miracles as it is about the nature of phenomena. Miracles are expected. A door stops at the door frame. There is no trivial reason as to why a door must stop at a frame. You say instruments show that the door and frame are solid. But if you were in the world where solid doors went through solid frames then the reason why a solid door goes through a solid frame is, again, because they are solid.

Every winter a man puts on a coat. If I were simply using my instruments to look at the interaction of a man and a coat, when someone asked me why there is a coat over the aggregate over there I would simply tell them what my instrument showed me- "when it's cold a wonderful thing happens. The aggregate extending to the side moves towards the coat and forms a bond. This bond is known to scientists as a 'grip bond.' The aggregate then moves the coat over the top shoulders." One winter, while the law of cold-grip-bonds is in effect, we see that the aggregate did not form a bond with the coat. Oh my...clipboards go flying everywhere. Is it an anomaly? Maybe we didn't see it right. Can we repeat it? Smother it before someone religious sees it. Maybe it was just a bird. Maybe I'm drunk. Maybe it's Maybelline. Someone comes and says perhaps Jim was angry. Jim? Who's Jim? Surely you can't be saying that a conscious agent is angry.

Then the man's master returns. Let's call him Jesu. Jesu tells the man in the winter to toss away the coat, take snow and bury the coat under it, then poke the coat with a stick. Miraculous? Yes. Within the law? From the perspective of consciousness, yes. From the perspective of materialism, no.

The soul, I’ll grant you that. The others, and the premise that at any miracle science must stop, I disagree. Lightning bolts come from Zeus. That’s a miracle, a god throwing things, should lightning not be investigated?

Why do you guys always pick the outer solar system? If you want to debunk the presence of consciousness or the depth of its substance then why not pick a man? The processes in the human's physical body are ruled by the soul and spirit. Let's call that spirit Zeus. Lets now say that a man becomes frightened and his heart starts to race, blood pumps faster, hairs on his arm rise, etc, which of those processes you saw with an instrument debunks the presence of Zeus?

Specific thoughts can cause diseases. Faith heals a person. You saw a disease with an instrument. You saw the disease destroy the body (note that body refers to the physical body). Have you debunked Zeus? Everytime the Nazarene healed he said your sins are forgiven. When a disease persisted like it did he traced it all the way back to God. "Your" is you, or in this case, Zeus. Zeus caused the disease. You could say God also caused the disease because of sin. Whether or not you saw physical discord with an instrument, Zeus did it.

Why not pick a bee or a beaver? Why not a single cell? Why not say that people used to believe that life came from the soul but we saw cells in a microscope? Why say "The soul, I'll grant you that" instead? Materialists do the same thing when they pick the outer solar system.

The universe is a natural thing,

The physical universe is a physical thing.

Life is a natural thing.

The physical body is a natural thing, life is not.

It runs by natural processes, it arises by natural processes (I am referring to reproduction with that sentence, by the way), it ends by natural processes.

Yet reproduction is not reducible to the feed from the instrument at hand.

Who gets preference on the “My religion’s miracles are exempt from science,

To be exempt from a physical instrument it would have to, in completion, exceed the scope of said instrument, as seen in the case of Creationism. The portions which fall under the eye or the microscope are what you look at. To look at the phenomenon is one thing, to reduce the phenomenon to the instrument's feed is another.

God of the gaps is when a gap in scientific knowledge is taken to be evidence for God’s existence.

As a Christian you should know that consciousness rules everything. Even if we are trying to find the motive behind a man should shoveling his yard, his mood at the time, his mental capacity, what pathway his thoughts took, and ultimately his physical actions, that he is a conscious entity is not a "gap in knowledge."

The eye would tell you that something in a symmetrical arrangement formed a bond with an object in the yard and dug into the ground. That would be the "scientific explanation." Anyone who starts out with Frankdidit would be disfavored by a strict materialist. And once you look inside the body in the yard and you see a heart pumping blood to the arms bonded to the shovel, you turn around and say "Frankofthegaps." But there was never any gap.

That’s the principle I apply to things like life. Life is a natural phenomenon. It arises by natural laws (reproduction), it continues by natural laws (biochemistry/organic chemistry), the existence of life is determined by physical methods, and it ends according to natural laws. Ditto with the universe: it is a natural thing, governed by natural laws.

I disagree. Study and apply what has been given in texts.