Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the book,no help, and neither is any links you can provide, but it may be comforting to justify your atheist agenda.

Like you Stephan Jay Gould has and atheist agenda like you, and his book is Ontological Philosophical approach and the conclusions ARE NOT SCIENCE as Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any such conclusions and cannot by definition falsify the existence nor non existence of God nor whether the nature of our existence is Divinely Created or not,

If you read the essay, then you'll have seen the graphs in the essay: the histograms of body size. He gave the shape of the curve we would expect if there was some factor - any factor - causing a tendency to larger body size. He then compared this to the curve that we see when we look at the real-world data and explained how they're different, implying that there isn't a tendency to larger body size.

If you think he made an error in his analysis, then tell me what you think that error is. What you don't get to do is dismiss the data just because you think the person presenting it to you is biased.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sure that most of the proponents of orthogenesis thought that this "driving force" was placed there by God.

Maybe or maybe not, but it is a fact that orthogenesis is an old term and NOT necessarily means Divinely Created.

If evolution is not progressing to a particular end goal, then the question "is God what's causing evolution to progress to its end goal?" is wrong-headed.

Cannot be determined nor falsified by science, but your conclusions maybe comforting to your atheist agenda.

If evolution was being guided in some way - e.g. to larger body sizes, or to bipedal creatures, or to having enough mental capacity to believe in gods and practice religion - we would see it in the data; we don't.

Based on the science of Methodological Naturalism these conclusions cannot be falsified nor determined.Despite your misuse of English and the definitions of science, science DOES NOT HAVE AN ATHEIST AGENDA.

... but you do think that God is guiding evolution; so what do you think God is guiding evolution to?

I am not God, and I separate my science from my religious beliefs,but apparently you persist in justifying your atheist agenda by misusing science just as the Fundamentalist Christians manipulate science to justify their agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you read the essay, then you'll have seen the graphs in the essay: the histograms of body size. He gave the shape of the curve we would expect if there was some factor - any factor - causing a tendency to larger body size. He then compared this to the curve that we see when we look at the real-world data and explained how they're different, implying that there isn't a tendency to larger body size.

If you think he made an error in his analysis, then tell me what you think that error is. What you don't get to do is dismiss the data just because you think the person presenting it to you is biased.

Assuming Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify nor determine the existence of God nor the question of Divine Origin is by the specific definition and not an agenda.

I have read this,and no help. Error is not in analysis (analysis is science) it is like you his errors were assumptions of an atheist agenda that science by definition cannot make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@shunyadragon - I do think it's interesting where you're drawing the line here.

The methodological naturalist position on God is summed up in the famous line attributed to Laplace ("I had no need for that hypothesis"); it's a pretty sad state of affairs for God if we're arguing over whether we should stop there or go one step further and conclude that God definitely isn't involved.

I mean, that's where we are: effectively, you're arguing that we should take the qualified position "God isn't involved in evolution as far as we can tell" instead of just "God isn't involved in evolution."

Neither position is exactly support for theistic evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Assuming Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify nor determine the existence of God nor the question of Divine Origin is by the specific definition and not an agenda.

I have read this,and no help. Error is not in analysis (analysis is science) it is like you his errors were assumptions of an atheist agenda that science by definition cannot make.

So you can't point to any particular problems with his analysis.

If you thought that, say, he had fabricated or manipulated his data, that wluld be something. Or if you could give an argument for how his conclusions didn't logically flow from that data, that would be something, too.

Instead, all you have is that you think he's biased, and therefore must be wrong. This is fallacious reasoning that only serves to highlight your biases: apparently, evidence is irrelevant if someone takes a position you disagree with.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon - I do think it's interesting where you're drawing the line here.

The methodological naturalist position on God is summed up in the famous line attributed to Laplace ("I had no need for that hypothesis"); it's a pretty sad state of affairs for God if we're arguing over whether we should stop there or go one step further and conclude that God definitely isn't involved.

I mean, that's where we are: effectively, you're arguing that we should take the qualified position "God isn't involved in evolution as far as we can tell" instead of just "God isn't involved in evolution."

Neither position is exactly support for theistic evolution.

Your agenda again, rejects the basic foundation of Methodological Naturalism. Nothing above changes that. As far as we can tell,' is a personal philosophical agenda, the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance,' and NOT SCIENCE. Again . . .

Assuming Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify nor determine the existence of God nor the question of Divine Origin is by the specific definition and not an agenda.

I have read this,and no help. Error is not in analysis (analysis is science) it is like you his errors were assumptions of an atheist agenda that science by definition cannot make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your agenda again, rejects the basic foundation of Methodological Naturalism. Nothing above changes that. As far as we can tell,' is a personal philosophical agenda, the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance,' and NOT SCIENCE. Again . . .

Assuming Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify nor determine the existence of God nor the question of Divine Origin is by the specific definition and not an agenda.

I have read this,and no help. Error is not in analysis (analysis is science) it is like you his errors were assumptions of an atheist agenda that science by definition cannot make.

If you think that methodological naturalism has been able to tell ways that God is involved in evolution, please share.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you can't point to any particular problems with his analysis.

Again, again and again . . . It is not a scientific analysis. His conclusions are a atheist assumption and NOT science. Like Fundamentalist Christians selectively taking data to justify a religious or philosophical agenda is unethical and NOT SCIENCE

If you thought that, say, he had fabricated or manipulated his data, that would be something. Or if you could give an argument for how his conclusions didn't logically flow from that data, that would be something, too.

Again, again, again and again. . . it is the Ontological Naturalism conclusions that are NOT SCIENCE as defined.

Instead, all you have is that you think he's biased, and therefore must be wrong. This is fallacious reasoning that only serves to highlight your biases: apparently, evidence is irrelevant if someone takes a position you disagree with.

Assuming Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify nor determine the existence of God nor the question of Divine Origin is by the specific definition and not an agenda.

I have read this,and no help. Error is not in analysis (analysis is science) it is like you his errors were assumptions of an atheist agenda that science by definition cannot make.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think that methodological naturalism has been able to tell ways that God is involved in evolution, please share.

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvemen tin our natural existence.

So you have nothing?

Methodological naturalism is our best way to understand how the natural world works. If methodological naturalism has absolutely nothing to say about your god, then this means either:

- your god does not interact, directly or indirectly, with anything that we can observe or measure, or
- your god does not exist.

I agree that methodological naturalism has no way to distinguish between an irrelevant god and a non-existent god, but neither option is compatible with the idea that belief in the god is well-founded... and both conclusions imply that big chunks of the Baha'i religion are false.

...but back to my earlier point: there really are only two options: there either is or isn't evidence that God is involved in the process. If there is evidence that God is involved, we should be able to say what it is. If there's no evidence that God is involved, then it isn't "atheist bias" to point this out.

Certainly, we should qualify what we say properly and not overstate our position, but there's nothing wrong with saying "to the extent that we've looked at this, we've seen no sign of God."

And your (bizarre) insistence that seeing no sign of God has no implications for how reasonable the God hypothesis might be doesn't change the fact that we've seen no sign of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you have nothing?

Methodological naturalism is our best way to understand how the natural world works. If methodological naturalism has absolutely nothing to say about your god, then this means either:

- your god does not interact, directly or indirectly, with anything that we can observe or measure, or
- your god does not exist.

I agree that methodological naturalism has no way to distinguish between an irrelevant god and a non-existent god, but neither option is compatible with the idea that belief in the god is well-founded... and both conclusions imply that big chunks of the Baha'i religion are false.

...but back to my earlier point: there really are only two options: there either is or isn't evidence that God is involved in the process. If there is evidence that God is involved, we should be able to say what it is. If there's no evidence that God is involved, then it isn't "atheist bias" to point this out.

Certainly, we should qualify what we say properly and not overstate our position, but there's nothing wrong with saying "to the extent that we've looked at this, we've seen no sign of God."

And your (bizarre) insistence that seeing no sign of God has no implications for how reasonable the God hypothesis might be doesn't change the fact that we've seen no sign of God.

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

By your definition. Methodological naturalism is just as capable of saying "we can determine no effect of God on the study results" as it is of saying "we can determine no effect of the colour of the lab technician's hat on the study results."

Methodological naturalism can examine any observable or measurable phenomenon, so the only way your god would be exempt from methodological naturalism is if it - and all of its effects - are not observable or measurable.

If you want to believe in such a god, that's your business, but don't pretend that you have justification for your beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

By your definition. Methodological naturalism is just as capable of saying "we can determine no effect of God on the study results" as it is of saying "we can determine no effect of the colour of the lab technician's hat on the study results."

No, it does not by definition. It is not my definition.

Methodological naturalism can examine any observable or measurable phenomenon, so the only way your god would be exempt from methodological naturalism is if it - and all of its effects - are not observable or measurable.

If you want to believe in such a god, that's your business, but don't pretend that you have justification for your beliefs.

I do not claim to in terms of science, because by definition science is neutral. Neither can you justify atheism with science. You conflate Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it does not by definition. It is not my definition.

Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I don't approach the question of God with the assumption that God - and signs of God - cannot be observed, tested, replicated, or verified. I struggle to understand why a theist would make this assumption, since it would mean they're conceding that there's little if anything to justify their beliefs.

How do you justify your belief in God and all the things you believe about God? As you give your justification, please be careful not to include anything that could be observed, tested, replicated, or verified.

I do not claim to in terms of science, because by definition science is neutral.

Science is not neutral with regard to unsupported claims; that's the whole point.

When you tell me that science doesn't support your position, but we know you're talking about something that is claimed to influence physical things in the natural world, then I know that what you're saying is that the evidence for your position is either non-existent or poor quality.

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"
- Dr. Steven Novella

There's nothing about the scientific approach that necessarily exempts gods from scientific inquiry. It's just that every time god claims have been put to the test in a rigorous way, they come up short. This has resulted in some theists adjusting their god-claims to make them unfalsifiable, but in the process, they rob themselves of rational justification for their beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I don't approach the question of God with the assumption that God - and signs of God - cannot be observed, tested, replicated, or verified. I struggle to understand why a theist would make this assumption, since it would mean they're conceding that there's little if anything to justify their beliefs.

How do you justify your belief in God and all the things you believe about God? As you give your justification, please be careful not to include anything that could be observed, tested, replicated, or verified.

As per the topic of this discussion,I DO NOT JUSTIFY MY BELIEF IN GOD BY SCIENCE. Neither can you justify your atheism by science.

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

Science is not neutral with regard to unsupported claims; that's the whole point.

Science does not support claims that cannot be falsified nor determined by scientific methods, and neither Theism nor Atheism cannot be falsified nor determined by scientific methods.

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

When you tell me that science doesn't support your position, but we know you're talking about something that is claimed to influence physical things in the natural world, then I know that what you're saying is that the evidence for your position is either non-existent or poor quality.

Science cannot support Theism nor Atheism.

Again, again,again and again. Methodological Naturalism by definition cannot falsify nor determine whether God exists nor Divine involvement in our natural existence.

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"
- Dr. Steven Novella

The above statement when applied to physical nature of our physical existence is true, but it does not address the question of existence nor non-existence of God.

The Baha'i Faith believes in a natural Creation by natural methods and not magic.

There's nothing about the scientific approach that necessarily exempts gods from scientific inquiry. It's just that every time god claims have been put to the test in a rigorous way, they come up short. This has resulted in some theists adjusting their god-claims to make them unfalsifiable, but in the process, they rob themselves of rational justification for their beliefs.

No. In science you cannot falsify a negative hypothesis.