Those experiments fail because they don’t test your claims. All they do is test other peoples’ claims, and it does so poorly. It isn’t enough to falsify other claims. You still need to support your own.
3 Likes
How so? explain please
A 1000 base indel would be 1000 bases that differ between the genomes even if it was a single mutation that produced the difference. It seems entirely appropriate to look at the percentage of bases that are shared between the genomes.
Not in an evolutionary context. But if you want to use that 95% figure you can, but you should at least make clear what exactly is being measured. The 98.7% figure is measuring the percent similarity of aligned sites.
1 Like
The claim of “common descent” is powerful under methodological naturalism as there is no alternative explanation for “Sal’s flower”.
The claim of “common descent” is trivial when you analyze Sal’s flower without the constraint of methodological naturalism as it becomes at best a partial explanation. Outside methodological naturalism it becomes a trivial and at best partial explanation for what we are observing.
The filter I am talking about is that it is hard for you to look at Sal’s flower and see anything other than “common descent” as you have been trained to use methodological naturalism as a method to make sense of the world.
Its a fallacy even if I am confused. You are using a label which is a fallacy called a labeling fallacy. “Nested hierarchy” and “common descent” are also labels. Donald Trump is the master at using this fallacy.
Common descent is a powerful explanation because it is consistent with Sal’s flower, as has been shown to you multiple times.
It does become trivial to dream up any explanation you want when you remove the constraints of evidence and testing.
@John_Harshman has shown that the vast majority of Sal’s flower can be explained by single gene gains and losses as predicted by the common descent model. We aren’t just seeing this. It is a demonstrable fact. Until you deal with this fact you are guilty of the crime you are accusing others of committing, the crime of filtering out inconvenient evidence.
4 Likes
Methodological naturalism is just the assumption of an orderly universe, whether God created it or otherwise. Of course it is possible to evaluate separate creation as an alternative, why not? And as a means of understanding nature, what does methodological supernaturalism look like and how is one trained in its use?
5 Likes
Does anyone have a clue what @colewd is getting at with his continued use of the term “methodological naturalism”? Do Winston Ewart and Sal Cordova agree with Bill that common descent is the only explanation for the observed patterns of genomic differences and similarities between species unless one invokes the existence of the supernatural?
3 Likes
it seems we have reached a point of negative returns.
2 Likes
@colewd is effectively saying that ID/creationism only makes sense if you ignore evidence, logic, and reason. I think I actually agree with him on this point.
5 Likes
That he has no rebuttal?
2 Likes
I think he got that from Paul Nelson, who also rails against it. Bill is basically just copying the talking points of a few ID favorites of his. Depending on the subject it’s either Behe, Ewert, or Nelson that are his go-to trio of ID authorities.
3 Likes
Yeah, well the ID gang are not really any better at philosophy than they are at science or anything else. Meyer, who supposedly got a philosophy degree from Cambridge, thinks that according to MN one is not allowed to say the Rosetta Stone was carved by human beings.
5 Likes
Oh please. Tens of thousands of devout Christian scientists who do their work according to the rules of methodological naturalism have now been roped into a conspiracy of deep, dark atheism, according to @Meerkat_SK5 .
This irresponsible, pernicious, inflammatory speculation about motive is actually forbidden by the rules of the forum.
@moderators, please address.
7 Likes
Certainly some scientists have used it as a Trojan horse. That’s true, and is candidly stated by some (so it isn’t speculation about motives). It’s just not true that all scientists have done this or have have this motive, or that something forces that misuse of the science.
1 Like
Meyer really is an astonishingly bad philosopher. His latest book is very sloppy. My favorite bit was the way that he kept using the fact that we know HUMANS design things to argue that we knew that GOD designing and manufacturing things was “causally adequate” as an explanation. But this inability to understand that analogy is very different from identity pervades all of ID Creationism. Without it, for example, the whole “DNA is coded information and so must have an author!” argument simply fails.
Well, okay. It actually fails WITH that, too, but the Dokters of Filosiffy at DI would never admit that.
7 Likes
The problem with @Meerkat_SK5 's statement is that he did not use the qualifier “some.” You used the qualifier “some,” but he did not. Instead, his accusation was global and general:
EDIT: See? Not a hint of qualification!
5 Likes
I think it is quite a defensible position to take that the reason methodological naturalism works so well is because philosophical naturalism is true. I don’t think one could justify calling that a “Trojan horse”. I am not aware of anyone who assumes MN for the express purpose of pushing PN, however, which is what @Meerkat_SK5 implied.
6 Likes
There are a few that transparently conflate the two. I see no reason to call them out specifically here though.
Hi @Timothy_Horton! Long time no E 