I don’t think I need to reply as a moderator to address this. You CAN have hypotheses about supernatural cause, but material evidence is always required. Science is not a Trojan Horse, but an army storming the walls and battering down the gates, stopping only at the Demarcation Problem.
Agreed, with some quibbling over the Trojan Horse bit. 
I agree. But I think it is important to acknowledge the real problem he is overgeneralizing. If he accepts the push back, that’s fine. We all make overstatements at time.
If, instead, he doesn’t and argues that we all have deceptive intent…well then there will be a problem for the @moderators to address.
Even if all scientists have done this, it would not , therefore, mean that they all intended it that way, which I never suggested. I obviously have no idea whether that was their motive or not. They could just be doing it and not be aware or fully aware that their actions are creating that effect without intending it. So @Chris_Falter has really jumped the gun on his response here.
His pushback is valid. I’m just not inclined to used moderator power yet. Don’t tempt me.
His “clarification” makes it worse. Now he’s accusing some scientists of malice and others of being confused about what they’re doing. Best to remain silent.
I would contend that you do the very same thing 99.9% of the time. When you see rain falling from the sky do you default to a naturalistic explanation? Would you give the same credence to supernatural explanations for rain? Do you think infections are caused by natural processes, or by demons? Would you give credence to a defense attorney who said mischevious leprechauns magically planted his client’s fingerprints at the crime scene, or would you default to the naturalistic explanation?
Scientists are just doing what you do for 99.9% of your day. They look for naturalistic explanations, just like you do.
Your response has just prompted me to go more in-depth with my previous response to clear up confusion but more so address an important issue I needs to be discussed.
As I explained already in a different topic, one of the two biggest reasons why people believe God cannot be a scientific hypothesis is the false presupposition of materialism or substance dualism. Most people often forget or don’t realize that there is a third option: Idealism . Let me bring some context before I elaborate on this:
What is Objective Reality?
Realism (or philosophical naturalism) is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. [Methodological] Naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws in the form of either materialism or idealism.
Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with those ideas.
Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.
However, Substance dualism is unparsimonius and untestable while materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for reference]. This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.
Thus, I was NOT implying within my own model that the human mind or a disembodied mind/souls exists outside of space and time in the context of substance dualism, which is a hallmark of the natural vs supernatural dichotomy, but that one substance and one reality exists.
Instead of the mind/information existing as or in the brain/matter via materialism, it is the brain/matter that exists within the mind/information as an information construct. In other words, brain/matter is still real but not “Objectively” real where matter/brain and its effects are only real because the mind/information makes it real. Here, let me show you an example of what I mean…
According to John chapter 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “…The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The Greek meaning for “the Word” mentioned in John 1:1-3 is “something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a COMPUTATION; specially, the Divine Expression.” [emphasis added]
In other words, God is Digital information in the form of logical absolutes and mathematical language. This is where the quantum aspect of the human mind is relevant here since it is also digital information in the form of computation according the Orch-OR theory. So if you guys try to suggests that digital information is supernatural and quantum physics does not involve this, then you would be wrong. If you don’t believe me, please read the article below.
But, my overall point is that when scientists use MN in defense of not allowing immaterial causes, they actually are using PN instead (regardless of how many or the motive behind the actions) without realizing it because invoking a quantum mechanical mind as the cause is technically still in the realm of [methodological] naturalism just NOT materialism.
Go back and look at the fossil record for evidence.
Obviously, you are not talking about the fossil record here. Lol
As I told you before, my model deals with the universal aspect of common descent, which means you are just attacking a strawman. Congrats and pat yourself on the back for achieving nothing.
How so? Explain please because I explained why it is right. Again, I am talking about universal common descent here.
Just read the study I gave you for more
It was not just an assertion but a logical explanation of why random mutation cannot be separated from universal common descent. He is also a trained biologist, but I guess it is natural for biologists to disagree apparently.
Sorry, but I’m done.
No it isn’t.
Methodological naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces are involved in the process currently being studied (e.g… that leprechauns aren’t manipulating your lab equipment).
The view that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world is Philosophical Naturalism.
That you don’t understand this renders anything else you say on this subject moot.
Hi T
This statement contains an inaccurate proposition as gene changes are in the thousands in “Sals” flower. To say they were single events you would have to say all the events happened in parallel which is very unlikely.
You are also trying to shift the burden which is a logical fallacy.
If we are not under methodological naturalism to eliminate design you need to show how all those changes could get fixed in the population in the time allotted. Where we are now is single gene gains are very hard to model as coordinated mutations may be involved.
With all these issues unsolved a second hypothesis offered by @Winston_Ewert is very interesting to discuss. Without the constraint of methodological naturalism Winstons hypothesis becomes fair game and adds rigor to the discussion.
Quantum mechanics is considered by every scientist I know to be part of the natural world. And quantum mechanics are every bit material as any other aspect of physics. (Bad pun intended.) In fact, quantum information theory insists that information is material.
Your confusion seems to result from conflating quantum with immaterial and confusion about quantum information theory, IMO. These misunderstandings cause you to read the Wired article incorrectly.
Regards,
Chris
Thanks for your contribution but I need you and everyone else to take a look at this syllogism and critique it before I create a new topic that revises and updates my theory and model.
A) digital information in DNA is immaterial
B) digital information is known to only come from minds
C) minds have been shown to be immaterial
Therefore, the digital information in DNA probably comes from an immaterial mind.
Here are the facts that support each premise:
Information in DNA appear to be remarkably similar to human language
Positive results in pre-biotic experiments require human intervention
Mutations appear to be goal-directed
I think you are equivocating materialism with naturalism. They are not the same thing. So can you define what you mean by materialism?
Eerything you have said is wrong. Everything.
A) The info in DNA isn’t digital, and exists in material form…
B) Digital info can come from other sources.
C) Minds are material
If your premises were correct, you wouldn’t need “probably”.
No it isn’t (cf Yockey).
No they don’t (eg Urey-Miller)
No they don’t.
Are you trying to break the record for the highest density of errors in text?
Should I make another parody of this?
This is an argument that an alternative (Immaterial) model may be useful. A model should simulate what we are observing. What is unclear to me is the actual model you would be testing. This is why I offered Winston Ewerts model as something to work with.
In your model how does DNA act as information? We know it codes for functioning proteins but what else?
What evidence are you developing to support the claim “minds are immaterial”?
What evidence are you developing the claim that mutations appear to be goal directed?
Is that why you don’t believe in a supernatural cause for rain or infectious diseases?
So if I believe the Moon is made of cheese it will suddenly turn into cheese?
You still have the problem of mountains of evidence supporting natural explanations. That evidence doesn’t go away just because you want the explanation to be different.
What does that have to do with the nested hierarchy?
Immaterial would be allowed if they could be evidenced and tested. That’s what you keep ignoring.
Why would that make the proposition inaccurate?
Why? Serial events in the lineage leading to the modern species after their lineages split from a common ancestor would produce the observations.
Methodological naturalism doesn’t eliminate design. That’s flat out false. The problem is that your claims fail to meet the requirements of the scientific method, such as a testable hypothesis.
Second, just because you invent a fantasy of “coordinated mutations” it doesn’t make serial gene losses and gains any harder to model. You might as well say that mischievous leprechauns make it harder to model the idea of criminals leaving fingerprints at crime scenes.
Since when are gene losses and gains unsolved?
It is hubris to attempt to create a top down theory and model which covers disciplines in which clearly you have yet to acquire a familiarity with the basics.
You appear to be struggling to see the evidence from a non methodological naturalism stand point. You are assuming common descent in your analysis.