More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 31, 2015, 21:06 (3189 days ago) @ dhw

Tony: To assume that something we have never observed must have happened in order to explain something else that we have never observed for the sole purpose of getting rid of God? (i.e. one of the stated primary purposes of naturalism)[/i]
> 
> No, no, no, that is not the purpose of the theory of evolution! ...-
I did not say evolution, I said naturalism:-"Naturalism is a simple term with an early history. According to J. Donald Butler
(1968), naturalism finds its roots among the oldest philosophies in the western world.
Ancient philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes found no reason to
look beyond nature for truth. As the name implies, the philosophy of naturalism suggests
an explanation of life based solely on the laws of nature. With the understanding that
natural laws are sufficient to explain all phenomena and life, naturalism abandons the
need for a higher power, creator, and God." (Emphasis mine)--> 
> 
>DHW: As an agnostic, I find it a little sad to hear theistic pots and atheistic kettles using the same language about each other: nothing ever observed (evolution/God) to explain something never observed (speciation/separate creation), no evidence, wildly imaginative stories to cover the holes - usually called gaps. -Believe it or not, this is not a case of a pot calling the kettle black. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is most often the correct one. Yes, we have not directly observed God or evolution. But which story is simplest: That an intelligent design had an intelligent designer, or that things that defy the laws of probability (and numerous other laws of nature) not only happened, but happened hundreds of millions of times?-
>DHW: ..If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God:
> 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent).
> 2) God created all the new species separately.
> 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent).
> 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)).
> 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).
> 
>DHW: All of these theistic or potentially theistic hypotheses involve factors that have never been observed and that may well remain unobservable. -This is where your ideas fail, because while direct observations of direct creation are impossible observe, the corollaries to that theory are not impossible to observe. -From the very nature of creation according to kinds:
a) Organisms will appear in the fossil record without precursor.
b) Organisms will appear fully formed and fully functional.
c) There will be no observed macro evolution. 
d) There will be variation within a 'kind', but no transition between one kind and another.-From the nature of a single designer:
a) Organisms will have similar functionality
b) Similar functionality will have similar design patterns inherent to it. 
c) A careful study would show purpose behind the design.
d) Disparate systems would be designed to work together, despite having no logical evolutionary pathways to arrive at such cooperation.
e) The system would tend towards balance(random systems tend towards chaos)-And that, my friend, is exactly what we OBSERVE. -
>DHW: Thank you. We are all speculating. The abilities that make nest building possible would be what I call the autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism which God may have given to all organisms. -But, to counter your point, don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme?-
>DHW: Given that palaeontologists themselves cannot agree on classifications, and you yourself regard classifications as no basis for rational judgement, and given that none of the hypothetical explanations, including your own, have ever been observed, I had hoped to establish some common ground. -It is hard to agree on classifications when you are trying to fit the data to the theory instead of the other way around. And given that funding is not granted to anti-evolutionary scientist, which paleontologist with a sense of self-preservation is going to speak out against it?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.