Debate #9

[loosechanj]

I think my lack of opposition to Intelligent Design is due to the fact that I don't see Evolution as being particularly more valid than a properly expressed ID theory. Darwin gives people who don't want to feel beholden to any higher power the comfort of living in a universe without one, whether that's reality or not.

Comments

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Darwin didn't set out to disprove God. He set out to explain the things he was observing in the world around him. Neither the theory of evolution nor science in general have anything to say on the existence of a Magical Fairy in the Sky. It's irrelevant.

If atheists find evolution "comforting" it is only because it allows us to explain one of the great questions the universe--how do we explain the diversity of life?--without resorting to an unscientific cop-out of "Goddiddit". Evolution, along with all other powerful scientific theories, puts another coffin nail in the notion that supernatural--i.e. useless--explanations are necessary to fill in the gaps.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

Why is "Goddidit" a copout, if it turns out that's what actually happened?

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

If it's a supernatural entity we're talking about, it's not a scientitic explanation. It doesn't suggest any further questions or further avenues of investigation. It's the scientific equivalent of a shrug and a wave of the hands. If it's a natural, extraterrestrial entity we're talking, it would be great if someone could propose a testable hypothesis for it. Especially since natural selection acting on genetic diversity created through mutation is working out to be such an amazing, powerful explanation so far.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

If there is a "god", I wouldn't consider it supernatural.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

"untestable" != "disproven"

You imply that "we can't test it" might as well mean "it's not true" where it means in fact "I don't know"

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Uh...Read what I wrote.

If it's a supernatural entity we're talking about, it's not a scientitic explanation. It doesn't suggest any further questions or further avenues of investigation. It's the scientific equivalent of a shrug and a wave of the hands.

I can't see how you get "untestable = disproven" from that. Thanks for setting up that strawman, though.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

If it's a natural, extraterrestrial entity we're talking, it would be great if someone could propose a testable hypothesis for it.

So, if it's not "God" it's ok, in other words. No straw man; your own words.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Noooo...If it's not a supernatural entity whose existence is unverifiable, it isn't rejected right out of the gate by science. Aliens are at least a naturalistic explanation. If you're saying God is a supernatural entity, then, yeah, he has no place in science. That doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, just that any explanation that invokes Him will get chucked in the garbage.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

But the moment you say you'll chuck the explanation that invokes Him in the garbage you deny Him any chance to exist, in your world. That's what I'm getting at.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

No, I'm simply disallowing the use of Him as a scientific explanation for observable phenomena.

He might still be out there. Reasonable people can disagree over whether there is a divinity, a soul, an afterlife, spirits, and so forth. Best to take it to Theology or Philosophy 101, not Biology 101.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

Your reversion to stating that the existence of God is "an unscientific copout" is what I mean. That's not the same as saying "unproven." Ergo, you're more interested in seeing a "solution" not involving the existence of God. You're therefore more closed-minded than Christians who accept that some form of evolution does exist.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

You're misconstruing what I'm saying.

I didn't say anything about the existence or lack thereof of God. I was referring to the use of "Goddiddit" as an explanation for physical phenomena. It is a copout because 1) It's unverifiable; 2) It doesn't articulate a mechanism; 3) It lacks explanatory power; 4) It leads to investigatory stasis. One could just as easily conjure up any wacky explanation one wanted, declare it unverifiable, and suddenly--poof--a scientific theory! "Louise the Griffe from Gumdrop Planet did it with her Majick Ju-Ju Hammer!" Bzzzzzt. That's not science. That's kindergarten.

Ergo, you're more interested in seeing a "solution" not involving the existence of God.

No, I'm interested in seeing a theory rooted in natural phenomena that best explains the observable phenomena. It's called the scientific method. I buy into it because it has a track record of practical success, unlike, say, mysticism, which is batting .0000. Millions of other scientists around the world buy into it too, and many of them are religious.

You're therefore more closed-minded than Christians who accept that some form of evolution does exist.

False dichotomy. Accepting verifiable phenomena is not equivalent to accepting unverifiable flights of fancy. Welcome to the new post-modern world, I guess, where rejecting Santa Claus and accepting that the sun will rise tomorrow makes one close-minded.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

where rejecting Santa Claus and accepting that the sun will rise tomorrow makes one close-minded

This is what I'm getting at. I'm right with you up until you start saying that "unverifiable" => automatically a "copout". By that logic a large amount of "scientific" theory has been "a copout" in the past.

While I sympathize a lot with your desire to find an explanation that is acceptable to you, you are rejecting out of hand any explanation that "God" might be involved. That's not the same as saying unverifiable. It's your whole unverifiable => wastebasket attitude that's at fault here. Up to that point, totally understandable. After that point, "uh oh, can't have any supernatural involvement here, thankyou very much" => "Kindergarten" head in the sand attitude.

Your hostility shows as soon as you start saying "Kindergarten".

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Requiring naturalistic explanations for the physical universe does not necessarily mean that the supernatural does not exist. There are lots of scientists who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and animists. There are lots of atheists and agnostics too.

All scientists are asking that is supernatural explanation stay outside the classroom when biology, chemistry, or physics are in session. Turn a biology paper in with "Goddiddit" scribbled all over it and one will be sent back to kindergarten.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

Look, I really don't want to be "confrontational" about this :/ sorry, I've come off badly too.

I'm interested in talking somewhere other than on Mr Word's journal if that's ok? I would rather build bridges, etc etc :)

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Email: sphodros@charter.net

Feel free to send questions and/or challenges.