So on what basis do you accept that a cell arises naturally if it is not evidentiary?
Would you claim this to be science?
Observation is the easiest manner to see what nature does. Even if we use tools to “see” it.
Just claiming something must happen naturally when it is not observed to happen naturally is merely a faith statement.
Claiming such when the empirical evidence shows it doesn’t happen naturally is an infringement on the scientific method based on a faith. No?
Atoms forming molecules happens is quite evidentially based. How do you think that equates to a cell arising naturally?
Bigotry is unbecoming to any person or profession.
Sadly too many consider anyone not of their naturalism religion to be “unscientific” And any scientific concept of intelligent design to be mandated as scoped within their own religious level of acceptance.
So do you believe that science infers to your view of lack of the metaphysical but cannot ever be allowed to infer to a presence of the metaphysical?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
520
None of them were bigots. What is naturalism religion? Any scientific concept of ID is an oxymoron. There is no need to go there. If nature manifested intelligent design both the design and its intelligence would be incontrovertible.
I don’t know what metaphysics has to do with reality. If science were confronted by observable, measurable, repeatable, invokable, six sigma supernatural agency, that would then be incorporated into science. It would have to be of the qualitative impact of the raising of the dead. When by Mum and Dad and Nan come back I’ll let you know.
Such things are ultimately explained by natural means, and the odds of it happening are pretty much certain given natural selection. Here is a discussion of such: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.221440898
Plus, if you are holding that the development of chloroquine resistance is impossible naturally, then you are in the odd position of holding that God purposefully intervened and created a resistant parasite to kill more of the weak and vulnerable.
And here you consider that applying metaphysics to a cell arising natural as incontrovertible science while life coming from life is what is observed in nature. And the evidence shows a cell doesn’t arise naturally.
So because you really, really believe it then you call it science? Or do you have evidence?
As I understand it, the evidence is that the development of chloroquine resistance is a natural random change of 2 nucleic acids in 1 out of 10^20 which roughly corresponds to the 10^9 for a single nucleic change needed for other resistance changes.
Natural selection acts on maintaining a beneficial random change. It has no cause on a random change initially happening - probably why it is called random.
That was my question to you -
The rate of any changes are very high and very deleterious. But what is the rate of random evolutionary changes? That which is additive AND beneficial for natural selection to act positively on.
You said you have not seen any scientific tests showing Behe’s point.
I was wondering why you didn’t consider this point but it seems you may be unaware of this point he makes. Which of Behe’s points were you thinking of?
I used to be a YEC, and then an OEC embracing ID (I still believe in lowercase “id” because “luck” is not in my working vocabulary). I became an “evolutionary providentialist” after being introduced to neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution in my early geezerhood, maybe four years ago. The neutral theory of evolution wasn’t a thing when I was in seventh grade, and it wasn’t mentioned in the two university biology classes I took post-baccalaureate to finish the premed curriculum. The point is, neutral drift can and does produce complexity. If you are unfamiliar with it you should check it out.
That was a factor in convincing me of the validity of evolutionary science too.
Another was a comment by a Christian molecular biologist:
…the most common mutations, transitions, are not really ‘copying errors,’ because the keto-enol transition of the base is driving them and the polymerase is working correctly. So if you’d like, that can be seen as providence more than chance.
I did.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
529
How do you apply philosophy to a cell? I know of no cell that arose supernaturally. What do you know?
I don’t believe. I know. I have all the evidence possible and all the reason (necessary).
How do you deny physical evidence based on your belief that everything must be natural in spite of the empirical evidence is that it is not a natural event?
Why do you introduce a metaphysical ability on to nature? How is that science?
Believe what you want but just be honest with the actual empirical evidence. Your belief does not elucidate our scientific knowledge.
If one starts with A as their dogma then one needs exactly 0 evidence or logic to arrive at the conclusion that A is true.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
531
I don’t do beliefs, apart from that I believe that everyone deserves universal social justice. There is no empirical evidence of the supernatural or the need for it. Nothing about nature requires it. I am completely honest about the limits of empiricism. Beyond that, all we need is rationality. The greatest single fact is eternal nature: rationality from empiricism. Nature goes beyond our rationality even in its strangeness, as Haldane rightly said.
Those that the majority of Americans learn about in school: better known as “Dalton’s atoms”.
The other kind are the ones that are true atoms, the “un-cuttables” first described by Democritus, i.e. indivisible things that move through space. Nobody has ever seen the latter. They have been and still are–by some–assumed to exist, without evidence.
By my understanding of your words, belief in those “atoms” is a “faith statement”.
I suspect you believe in the former, but have little to no idea about the latter. Sound about right to you?
Calling your belief a “fact” doesn’t mean you don’t do beliefs.
But the real problem is when one then bastardizes actual empirical science with their dogma. One should at least be honest enough with themselves to not pretend their belief is empirical evidence.
The logical proof of BGV theorem strongly indicates that the expanding universe(s) cannot be infinitely old. Play the starship traveling through space backwards would require it to eventually travel faster than the speed of light.
As Will Rogers said “We’re all ignorant just in different subjects”. However, it seems that I am not as ignorant on elementary particles as you suspected. Just never heard them referred to as atoms. They also are hardly unevidenced nor counter indicated as a natural arising of a cell.
First is seems that the electron is an elementary particle, second the collider is evidence of elementary particles. The evidence is newer and on the cusp of our reaching to the small. It would not be too shocking if we will later gain new evidence that shows our current understanding may be quite skewed; however, the evidence of detecting particles from collisions is actual evidence even if we are misunderstanding it.
I also am not ignorant that you skipped my main question for my sidebar comment. I’m not sure what you’re suspecting my question is asking for besides evidence of life arising naturally. And I still do not see the analogies you gave as logically connected to my question. If we had the same “evidence” proffered for elementary particles as we do for a natural initial cell formation (i.e. “Because everything must be natural”) then I would not accept either.
We don’t.
I don’t accept the negatively evidenced one.
For that very reason and none other.