Debunking Creationism 301 (Advanced) - Lesson 1

[loseyourname]

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Unfortunately, there are very few people who can talk competently, and from personal experience, about both. So what often happens is the guy who most values self-knowledge, and hasn't been very conscientious about learning empirical skills, ends up debating the guy who values empirical understanding but doesn't know squat about self-knowledge. It's an ugly sight to see !

Here at a science site, there are a lot more people who value empirical skills over anything else, so we have plenty of input on how much can be understood about externals. I always wonder how much empirical debaters know about what can be achieved with internal skills, or if they've just assumed there isn't much to it without having done their homework.

As someone who values both internal and external knowledge, I wish there were more evenly educated thinkers participating in the debates. Failing that, at least if there were more openness on both sides that would help. In these inner-outer debates, too often threads seem to end with nobody having learned anything from other perspectives.

 

[motai]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.

That seems absurd to me... created to look older than what it is? What would God be trying to prove with that? I think some of these YECs need to plan out their theories otherwise they will be left with some ethical issues (i.e. from this past statement, it is acceptible for an omniscient entity to lie to prove its point, etc.)

 

[Canute]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others.

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

 

[loseyourname]

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

 

[loseyourname]

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

I am relaxed, or was when I wrote what I did. I probably should have said casual rather than "off-handed." I was trying to indicate you may be considering self-knowledge irrelevant a bit too quickly.

If the discussion were limited to myths of Biblical creationism then self-knowledge wouldn't mean much. But as usual, this discussion has broadened into the more general idea of whether some sort of universal intelligence has been/is part of the evolution and maintenance of creation. For that, I believe those who've advanced the furthest in self-knowledge offer the best subjective evidence of that (evidence which is seldom cited).

I also was pointing out why these debates get hot. Often it's because no one is debating with an open mind, listening to and trying to understand the other side. It is hard to do that when one already thinks one is right. And it always shows too . . .it comes out as intolerance and condescension. I've seen lots of it, and lots of "debunking creationism" threads as well where it's just an excuse for physicalists to sneer at the illogic of Biblical creationism. Mad about one such thread, at the old PF I started a thread called "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly." That got pretty hot! But in the end I didn't see how any of it was useful to anyone.

I'd say there are those of us here who can see real problems with physicalist theory, and so think there is "something more." I am not religious, and I don't know what that something more is, but I am willing and even eager to debate those who believe physicalist models are adequate (or one day will be) to explain things.

So rather than have threads that ridicule, I would rather see strong debates between people who can represent their side with evidence and reason. And really, here at a science site, do we really need to talk about Biblical Creationism? If someone believes it, which I am not saying is wrong, this ain't the place to debate it (or ridicule it).

 

[loseyourname]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

I am probably more conservative about what "extra" might be part of evolution than it might seem from my other posts. I don't want to bore PF members who've seen me argue this point a lot in the past, but where I've focused my criticism of purely physicalist theory before is on self organization.

I believe the most unexplained and most glossed over principle of physicalism is the lack of an adequate self-organizing force/principle that would get chemistry to organize the way it had to in order to "live" (and for functionalists, would get brain functions to organize as they must to create consciousness). Before you start citing Miller-Urey, crystals, auto-catalytic reactions, polymers, etc. . . . I already know all about that, and none are proper examples because the self-organization there is repetitive, while the self-organization that led to and continued evolving life is what I call progressive.

All purely physical (i.e., outside of life) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s progressive organization has been essentially perpetual. That's why the potential for spontaneously forming organic molecules is not the issue (besides, biology developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to show up in the right conditions).

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

Thus far the observed potentials of chemistry to spontaneously act fall vastly short of that level of self-organization.

So, I do think there is something more needed besides known physical principles to explain life and consciousness . . . Yes, I think there might be some sort of self-organizing principle we've yet to recognize. Is that what God is? It it intelligent? Good questions. I am open to any explanation that makes sense.

 

[loseyourname]

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

Well, that's the excuse physicalistst always uses . . . we need another billion years. Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously. If you factor in the intervention of consciousness in the lab actually designing and directing things, that should reduce the time expotentially.

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Remember, I am not questioning the natural selection plus genetics formula. Quite possibly once life is achieved that is enough to evolve all life forms we see. I am questioning that chemistry can alone self-organize itself into life. It is the progressive self-organizing principle which physicalists gloss over as though they've already demostrated it (i.e., because of Urey-Miller, etc.), when all they've actually shown is repetitive self-organization.

 

[Royce]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

Just to add my $.02 worth, yes, I do. I believe the intervention is/was contained in the original DNA in the form of a direction toward more complexity and higher organization leading toward more advanced life forms. I don't believe that that direction is now dormant nor superseded by mans supposedly circumventing natural selection.
I also agree with Les Sleeeth that abiogenisis is not a proven or universally accepted fact. There is something that makes inert matter become a living organism beyond chance or accident. In my mind that something is the life force the source of which is the Creator/Designer of the universe.

 

[Canute]

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

What makes you say that?

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

I meant 'explore what they can experience' or 'know what they can know'.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

In philosophy 'empirical' means derived from experience.

 

[loseyourname]

Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously.

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

 

[FZ+]

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

I don't understand your point at all. All the examples you cited -- "the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather" -- are what I call repetitive. They organize for a few steps and then get repetitive. But life, I say, although utilizing numerous repetitive processes, overall has kept adaptively organizing for several billions years. As impressive as the sun's organization is, you cannot possibly compare its organization to that of life. So I don't understand why you gave the sun, etc., as examples which make the progressive (life) concept incorrect.

Also, your "watch out" isn't accurate. I do not define progressive self-organization as "precisely what happened in the current run of evolution." In fact, I don't care about the details of evolution at all. What I compare between non-living and living self-organization is quality. Non-living self-organization gets repetitive REAL quick compared to life, which essentially never gets repetitive overall.

 

[FZ+]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution. From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life. Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

The time and specifics of weather are unpredictable, but every time it is rain, wind, snow, hot, cold, etc., just as volcanos erupt the essentially the same way everytime, tides go in and out the same way, the moon is getting further through the same repetitive cycling. The solar system is not evolving either unless you want to call the formation of new stars "evolution." Actually it is losing its coherence overall, and even in instances of constructive change none of them come close to matching the number of constructive steps we find in life.

Rain and wind and snow do not combine to make a new system, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that . . . seemingly ad infinitum as it does in life.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution.

No, that isn't my concept. I am preparing a thread that explains it better.

 

[Canute]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

Are you saying that living biological systems are qualitatively indistinguishable from tides and solar systems?

 

[Les Sleeth]

From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life.

What do you know that I don't? Is there another known "incarnation of life" I've not heard of. As far as we know, WE and none other, are the one and only, single, unique instance of life in a universe 12+ billions years old. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

Exactly correct. So what is your point? The "slipperiness and fuzziness" is a physicalist problem because they can't explain it. I am simply trying to remind them that they can't and that therefore they shouldn't continue assuming (yet) physical processes can explain life and consciousness.

 

[Concept]

Old-Earth creationists might allow that there were dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. But a problem for them is that there were clearly carnivorous dinosaurs, going by evidence such as shape of teeth. Biblical literalists like to say that prior to Adam and Eve there was no death, no pain, no suffering. But if a carnivorous predator like T. Rex didn't inflict pain on other living things, nothing has done so!

So do the Old-Earth creationists have to maintain that Adam and Eve lived even earlier than the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs?

The same issue has an article on a find of 25-million-year-old amber. The photos in the article show all kinds of creeping, crawling, stinging, biting, blood-sucking little vermin. Again, not a very nice thing for the Lord to have put on Earth before there was a sinful Adam and Eve for Him to blame it all on.

Old Earth creationists tend to believe that Adam and Eve came after the dinosaurs. The reason for this is certain translations of the bible. I can't speak Hebrew, but I know one of the reasons they use is just chalked up to a bad translation (God saying "replenish the earth" implying that there was something there before, the word translated as "replenish" really means "to fill") and the other one they use is where it says the world "became" without form, implying that it had form before. I'm not sure if this is a good translation or not.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

By the way, if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims. There is no claim that we know just what caused the self-replicating molecule to come into existence; in that sense, we can only speculate.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

I noticed you weren't around so I decided to discuss other things. But if you are still interested, I will work on that thread.

However, let me say your statement ". . . if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims" is not accurate.

First of all, the the issue isn't merely self-replicating molecules. Life is hardly just the replication of a single molecule; there is development and adaptation, neither of which can be explained by current physical principles. Second, there is an accepted theory, one which is quite boldly promoted to the public as "most likely." You know, "billions of years ago, in the prebiotic soup of Earth's oceans, some set of conditions 'most likely' converged to create the first self-organizing molecule which had the the ability to adapt to its environment and take advantage of available resources . . . " Want proof? Read your kid's science book, or watch science specials on TV. There you will find no mention of the fact that this "most likely" theory is utterly unconfirmed experimentally, and in reality is nothing more than physicalist propaganda. And to think how outraged the physicalists are that creationists want equal time! To someone like me, who thinks neither side can make their case, I find the physicalist outrage even more stomach-turning than creationist nonsense.

 

[loseyourname]

Sleeth, again, abiogenesis is not pertinent to evolutionary theory. The movement from self-replicating molecules packaged in a membrane to precursors of working cells - protobionts, they are called - has been documented. Granted, you do need DNA, RNA, replication enyzymes (in most, but not all, cases) and the membrane, but once you have that, evolution will take place.

Also, trust me when I say there is no generally accepted theory. I make my living in the biological sciences, and I can assure that what is being taught is only the most popular hypothesis. Another hypothesis gaining much ground involves the construction of self-replicating molecules from inorganic crystals, and even these two are not the only hypotheses. Just because one is being taught doesn't mean that it is accepted as fact by the scientific community. As you say, it has never been demonstrated, and there is really no evidence for it, only speculation. Again, though, evolutionary theory starts where abiogenesis ends. Perhaps I should qualify self-replicating molecules by saying that you must have molecules that both replicated rapidly (usually with the help of polymerase) and that mutate, so as to create variation. Once you have this, you have step-wise, cumulative selection, something that no one can dispute.

 

[Canute]

I think Les was pointing out that most people do not think that evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenesis. They assume that it does, and often argue the case strongly. It is argued in school textbooks, which leads people into error. Good scientists perhaps don't make this mistake but it has become part of modern folklore that abiogenesis can be explained in wholly physicalist terms despite what you say about the actual truth of the matter.

 

[loseyourname]

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature. In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Also, trust me when I say there is no generally accepted theory. I make my living in the biological sciences, and I can assure that what is being taught is only the most popular hypothesis.

Just so you know where I stand, I find your comment "trust me" a bit irritating. I hope we can agree that you don't need to instruct me in science. I'm educated in science, and love it. I've debated a lot of scientism believers here and they often assume my criticism is because I am either uninformed about science or that I am religious (or both), neither of which is true. Actually I have no criticism of science at all; my criticism is people glossing over gaps in physicalist theory, or employing dubious logic so they can reach the conclusions they wish to reach. They represent themselves as "objective" when in reality they are confirmed physicalists. They refuse to admit their education is quite narrow when they claim things like "there is no evidence," and all they've looked at, and are willing to look at, is what science produces.

As for me, I am just after the truth, and I don't care if that includes God or if it means everything is purely physical. But so far, physicalist theory fails to explain certain necessary aspects of life and consciousness, and certain human experiences, and it is in those places where I am open to other possibilities besides a physical explanation.

 

[loseyourname]

Sleeth, educated or not, you made a false claim. I imagine you probably meant something more along the lines of what Canute said, and that's fine. I'm not trying to offend you here.

What the hell is scientism? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on people simply because they are looking for scientific explanations. That is all I am doing. One man cannot explore every avenue. Of course physicalism has gaps. Given that we don't know everything, any theory of the nature of reality will have gaps. I imagine this will always be the case. Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sleeth, again, abiogenesis is not pertinent to evolutionary theory. The movement from self-replicating molecules packaged in a membrane to precursors of working cells - protobionts, they are called - has been documented. Granted, you do need DNA, RNA, replication enyzymes (in most, but not all, cases) and the membrane, but once you have that, evolution will take place.

I don't know why you are bringing up evolution, I haven't questioned that.

Perhaps I should qualify self-replicating molecules by saying that you must have molecules that both replicated rapidly (usually with the help of polymerase) and that mutate, so as to create variation. Once you have this, you have step-wise, cumulative selection, something that no one can dispute.

That doesn't do it. All PCR does, for instance, is replicate; it doesn't lead to a living system.

Perhaps, but the only reason it is assumed that it has a physical explanation is that the assumption is being made by scientists. They can't study anything non-physical, so their hypotheses must be physical in nature.

There are plenty of scientists who say they believe everything that occurs in the universe can be explained with physical principles (I have a nice library here, do I need to quote them?).

The problem is, that confidence is produced by what they are looking at. If all I study is quartz, am I justified in trying to explain everything as quartz?

The proper logic for science would be, the empirical technique I employ has only revealed physical process, therefore I am justified in concluding that empiricism only reveals physical processes (i.e., not that physical processes are all that exist). Also, all I study is the physical, therefore I am justified in concluding that my models of aspects of the universe are only able to describe their physical attributes.

In addition, science has a great history of explaining that which was previously unexplainable, through physical means. As this is done, the theists and idealists always have to retreat one step further back, to the next unexplained phenomenon. There will always be an out, as I don't see any way we'll ever explain everything.

They have a great history of explaining physical processes . . . period. What dedicated physicalists can't explain, they claim "one day we will." Yet I say there are two areas where they continue to fail that should make them question physicalist theory: life and consciousness.

Again, the argument I have for this needs a separate thread because it can't be explained easily. I'll try to finish it this weekend if you are still interested in debating it.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't know why you are bringing up evolution, I haven't questioned that.

I am bringing it up because that's what this thread is about. If you don't question it, I'm not sure why you ever posted in here to begin with.

That doesn't do it. All PCR does, for instance, is replicate; it doesn't lead to a living system.

PCR only replicates the DNA. No genes are ever expressed. I should have noted that you need transcriptase as well.

There are plenty of scientists who say they believe everything that occurs in the universe can be explained with physical principles (I have a nice library here, do I need to quote them?). [/QUOTE[

I am aware of this problem, and I agree that they are overstepping their bounds by saying this. Just know that your conflict is not with me.

The proper logic for science would be, the empirical technique I employ has only revealed physical process, therefore I am justified in concluding that empiricism only reveals physical processes (i.e., not that physical processes are all that exist). Also, all I study is the physical, therefore I am justified in concluding that my models of aspects of the universe are only able to describe their physical attributes.

True, but it isn't much of a leap to at least guess that there is nothing more to it, given that we have never observed a non-physical process (and it is not clear whether or not conscious processes are physical or non-physical, so this may be the out I was speaking of).

They have a great history of explaining physical processes . . . period. What dedicated physicalists can't explain, they claim "one day we will." Yet I say there are two areas where they continue to fail that should make them question physicalist theory: life and consciousness.

The things is, sleeth, it has a great history of explaining physical processes that were previously thought to be the result of non-physical forces.

Again, the argument I have for this needs a separate thread because it can't be explained easily. I'll try to finish it this weekend if you are still interested in debating it.

I'd like to see what you have, certainly.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sleeth, educated or not, you made a false claim. I imagine you probably meant something more along the lines of what Canute said, and that's fine. I'm not trying to offend you here.

What false claim did I make? I've yet to understand what you mean.

I don't think you are trying to offend me. I just want you to debate me without assuming I am uninformed. When you catch me being illogical or needing information I don't have, then at that time let me know. I don't mind adjusting my opinion in the slighest, and I want to find out when there is something I need to learn.

What the hell is scientism? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on people simply because they are looking for scientific explanations. That is all I am doing. One man cannot explore every avenue. Of course physicalism has gaps. Given that we don't know everything, any theory of the nature of reality will have gaps. I imagine this will always be the case. Science cannot give all the answers, and neither can any other discipline.

It's a term an issue of Scientific American coined last year to describe those who believe science can answer all answerable questions. The follow-up logic from that belief is that if science can't confirm it, then likely it's nonsense.

I don't mind someone being a physicalist as long as he is willing to debate fairly. I am leary because most of my debates in the past have been with thinkers who a priori have assumed the absolute epistomological priviledge, to use metacristi's term, of empiricism. From that perspective, they judge all statements with a standard still in question if it is capable of evaluating all that exists.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am bringing it up because that's what this thread is about. If you don't question it, I'm not sure why you ever posted in here to begin with.

My involvement was first due to your statement about the value of self knowledge, which in my opinion is related to the assumption I believe I saw, and still see, that science can answer all the questions.

PCR only replicates the DNA. No genes are ever expressed. I should have noted that you need transcriptase as well.

I am not familiar with the term "transcriptase" . . . is it synthesized transcription? If so, that doesn't generate life either.

True, but it isn't much of a leap to at least guess that there is nothing more to it, given that we have never observed a non-physical process (and it is not clear whether or not conscious processes are physical or non-physical, so this may be the out I was speaking of).

That's what physicalists say alright. Again, what else are they going to observe if the method they use only reveals physical processes? Can you see the flaw in physicalist logic?

The things is, sleeth, it has a great history of explaining physical processes that were previously thought to be the result of non-physical forces.

I agree. But people used to practice alchemy and represent that as science. Are we to conclude all science is nonsense just because something is done in its name? Just because people ignorantly attributed spiritual causes to physical things doesn't mean there isn't something other than what we define as physical.

 

[loseyourname]

What false claim did I make? I've yet to understand what you mean.

You were wrong to claim there is an accepted theory of abiogenesis. There are only competing hypotheses, though certainly one gets more attention than any of the others.

It's a term an issue of Scientific American coined last year to describe those who believe science can answer all answerable questions. The follow-up logic from that belief is that if science can't confirm it, then likely it's nonsense.

Oh - I had never heard of that. I don't particularly like that term. Science is not meant to be a system of metaphysics.

I don't mind someone being a physicalist as long as he is willing to debate fairly. I am leary because most of my debates in the past have been with thinkers who a priori have assumed the absolute epistomological priviledge, to use metacristi's term, of empiricism. From that perspective, they judge all statements with a standard still in question if it is capable of evaluating all that exists.

Is that not logical positivism?

My involvement was first due to your statement about the value of self knowledge, which in my opinion is related to the assumption I believe I saw, and still see, that science can answer all the questions.

As long as you don't believe that I am making that assumption, given that I just stated I don't think science will ever answer everything.

I am not familiar with the term "transcriptase" . . . is it synthesized transcription? If so, that doesn't generate life either.

Trancriptase is the enzyme that transcribes DNA into mRNA so that it genes may be expressed. Remember that it is not the self-replicating molecules themselves that are alive, it is their expression that is alive.

That's what physicalists say alright. Again, what else are they going to observe if the method they use only reveals physical processes? Can you see the flaw in physicalist logic?

There is only fallacy employed if one comes to the absolute conclusion that there exists nothing of a non-physical nature. There is no fallacy in guessing that that is probably the case if we never observe anything of this nature. I don't mean that scientists don't observe it, either. I mean that no one observes it.

I agree. But people used to practice alchemy and represent that as science. Are we to conclude all science is nonsense just because something is done in its name? Just because people ignorantly attributed spiritual causes to physical things doesn't mean there isn't something other than what we define as physical.

For the most part, science has been right. For the most part, spiritualism has been wrong. They are not on equal footing. Again, I'm not saying that there is nothing in existence that we can't define as physical. I have no idea whether or not there is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You were wrong to claim there is an accepted theory of abiogenesis. There are only competing hypotheses, though certainly one gets more attention than any of the others.

I guess we'll have to disagree about how accepted it is because I have seen that pre-biotic soup theory promoted as "most likely) since I was a student back in the '70's, and still see/hear it more than any other explanation offered. Only recently have some been suggesting life on Earth might have come from outer space (which, of course, begs the question).

There is only fallacy employed if one comes to the absolute conclusion that there exists nothing of a non-physical nature. There is no fallacy in guessing that that is probably the case if we never observe anything of this nature. I don't mean that scientists don't observe it, either. I mean that no one observes it.

What if sense observation isn't the way one experiences that? This, to me, relates to the original reason I questioned you in this thread, which was your statement about the value of inner experience. There have been people who've gotten quite accomplished inwardly, spent their entire lives practicing in fact. But the average science devotee posting at this site has never studied that rich history, and yet speak confidently when they say "no one has ever experienced . . . "

For the most part, science has been right. For the most part, spiritualism has been wrong. They are not on equal footing. Again, I'm not saying that there is nothing in existence that we can't define as physical. I have no idea whether or not there is.

Spiritualism might be wrong, but spiritualism (and I'd include religion) might have nothing to do with an experience of the non-physical.

Gotta go, it's racquetball time! I'll work on that thread over the next few days.