This is why I refer to GAE as a theological construct, not a scientific conclusion. At best it isn’t in contradiction with known scientific facts. However it must be recognized as a theological apologetic; it is not a scientific conclusion based on scientific observation and the scientific method, it is a theological conclusion with a specific apologetic aim. I say this as a Christian, who accepts the GAE.
3 Likes
Entertaining. The fact of the matter is that the GAE follows MN. This is in fact the point.
There certainly are scientific conclusions embedded in the GAE but de Novo creation extends beyond science, and is not a conclusion of science.
2 Likes
Yes. Well said.
1 Like
And therefore it does not follow MN.
No, but again, the demarcational heavy lifting is performed by the issue of testability. Whether the gremlins are natural or supernatural doesn’t enter into it.
Very confused are you!
So, then, what is the naturalistic process by which Geneological Adam was produced? Can you refer me to the peer-reviewed publications in which this is described?
Don’t worry. I’m being reviewed by practicing scientists, most of whom are not Christians. When there is more information available in public, there will be much commentary on it.
1 Like
I have a hard time believing there is all this research being done on the generation of human beings, genetically indistinguishable from the rest of us, thru naturalistic processes other then the usual process of reproduction, and there has been not a word of it reported to the public, other than on this forum.
How have you managed to keep this epochal work so well hidden?
So you didn’t answer my question? I had presumed you had, and responded accordingly. If you are not responding to my questions, then please don’t post it as a response to my comment when you are instead changing to a different topic entirely.
I’m hitting snooze on it.
I’m unclear if your questions are sincere or joking. I’ve already answered this question in the past. My book release is immanent, and deals with this head on. The second chapter is focused exclusively on this, and raised no objections from scientists such as @nlents.
So I’m hitting snooze.
But nothing is testable if undetectable gremlins might be rigging your experiments.
You think undetectable experiment-rigging gremlins could be non-supernatural?
My impression of MN is that it acts as a straitjacket to force scientists to go to unreasonable length to come up with a natural explanation of something when there just is no reasonable way with available evidence to explain it that way. Seems to me that after looking into something for a substantial amount of time that there needs to come a point where the only reasonable response is to say that it’s been extensively researched and with the available evidence so far there has not been any possible natural explanation within reason. Barring further new evidence to the contrary the tentative conclusion is that there is no natural explanation. But the impression I get is that because of MN that just isn’t an option. Kind of like it’s my way or the highway type situation. But is that really a healthy approach? It seems to me that after extensive research it would be wise to move on to other issues that would be of greater usefulness than to keep pouring into an area where no significant progress is being made, and let philosophers and metaphysicians spend some time on it and see what they come up with. But of course that might open the door to Theism which for some reason it seems in the scientific community is anathema. Not a very objective approach to take in my opinion.
1 Like
I don’t understand that at all.
What you write there does not bear any resemblance to the way that science is actually done.
2 Likes
I’m just a layperson describing how it appears to me. If I’m wrong please let me know what I’m mistaken about. However, the point I’m trying to make is that whatever happens, there needs to be a reasonable justification for how things are done.
I’ve already said I agree with this.
I have a hard time wrapping my head about undetectable gremlins, supernatural or natural. So let’s just say that I consider both propositions equally unlikely. Of course, this is a thought experiment, and the existance or non-existance of undetectable gremlins need not concern us, anymore than a discussion about the trolley problem needs to be concerned with who it is that goes around tying innocent people to traintracks.
Is there some kind of embargo against philosophers and metaphysicians trying to solve these questions at the same time scientists are addressing them? Not that I am aware. I fail to see how the one prevents the other. Could you please explain what you mean?
1 Like
Fair enough.
Did you know that MN was not put in place by atheists, but by Christians? Methodological Naturalism, So Falsely Called
1 Like
Good point. I didn’t mean to imply that there couldn’t be both going on simultaneously. The point I’m attempting to make is that the scientific community could use a little humility and admit when there’s really no natural explanation based on current research that can explain a certain event when such is the case. What seems to be the usual response is “we just don’t know” which depending on the case tends to be somewhat vague. I think it would be more clear to say in cases where it’s appropriate, based on current research we haven’t been able to find any natural explanation for the issue in question and therefore can only defer the issue to other fields of study until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things.