Unicorns and the ToE

[Dave Hawkins]

Martin B ...

A further point regarding evolution and machines: the American mathematician John von Neumann wrote about machine evolution. He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve. The point is that things that don't reproduce don't evolve. Admittedly, I'm only pointing this out for illustrative purposes: evolution requires auto-replication as a first principle.

Quote:
Now I believe that life is "manufactured" also. And I do not believe this primarily because a religious book told me so. I believe it because of the evidence. What evidence? First, I observe that life is essentially composed of high tech machines. Much higher tech than any human technology has ever produced. Secondly, I observe that no high tech machine that humans are aware of has ever come into existence by chance processes. Therefore, I infer that "living machines" must have had Designer of Surpassing Brilliance. Why should living machines be special? Why should we make an exception to the above rule that machines don't create themselves in their case? All machines that we know of require an Intelligence to create them, so why should biological machines be different? I know of no reason. Yes, I've heard the Darwinist answers to this, but so far these answers have been inadequate.

Fair enough, but the result may be circular. How do you know that there aren't machines in Nature that were not created by an intelligent force? How do you know that there isn't some process in Nature that can permit or even cause this? If there is such a process, would you like to know about it?

If you carry the analogy to its logical end, then we must conclude that non-nested hieararchies are diagnostic of design.

Quote:
You have lodged the most common objection to the machine analogy which is ... machines built by humans don't reproduce.

MY ANSWER: Yes they do. Now stick with me here. Man made machines DO reproduce, but their reproductive equipment is external to the manufactured product.

But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

OK Let's break this down. You ask

How do you know that there isn't some process in Nature that can permit or even cause this? If there is such a process, would you like to know about it?

Well ... I don't know as in absolute certainty. But scientists have been trying to find out if such a process exists for many decades now and the search becomes ever more discouraging, so I'm not holding out hope. But yes, I'm all ears. If someone finally figures out how biological machines can create themselves with no pre-existing plan, then I'm sure they will win a Nobel. And this discovery will make me seriously question my belief in the existence of God. No question about it.

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution). But that's precisely my point! Don't you see what's going on here? WE are intelligent agents. These self-reproducing machines that von Neumann predicted can only be produced by Intelligent Design!! No Intelligent Designers. No Self-Reproducing Machines. You cannot have the latter without the former.

And finally, you object

(Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices.

And you apparently fail to grasp that these Self-reproducing Automata are themselves manufactured!! By Intelligent Agents!! And without these Intelligent Agents, there will be no Self-reproducing Automata. Ever.

Martin ... I don't know how to say this any more clearly.

LIFE BEARS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF BEING A "MANUFACTURED PRODUCT."

Yes, a highly sophisticated manufactured product. A product that can self-replicate. And fuel itself. And repair itself. And "evolve" (which is nothing more than programmed ability to adapt). But it bears evidence of being a manufactured product all the same. Unless methodological naturalists such as yourself can come up with some mechanism for how these "manufactured products" can manufacture themselves, contrary to everything we know about engineering and manufacturing, then Methodological Naturalism will continue to be a poor paradigm under which to conduct scientific investigation. The most recent attempt to explain this has failed (see my sig), and, as I will show in future posts, the attempts to revive the corpse do not seem promising either.

Martin ... you are a smart guy. I can tell that. Don't let the brainwashers destroy that good mind of yours. Come out of the dark while you still can.

[JOZeldenrust]

And my answer is the same. I cannot explain the reasons for many patterns in Nature. But I would not expect to be able to if an Intelligence created it all. But this does not hinder science at all. The fun part of science is trying to figure out how "Goddidit." And figure out how things work. And science is actually bolstered if we believe that "Goddidit" because then we are operating under a paradigm which is not contradictory to known observation. Don't forget that the Founders of Modern Science were not only creationists ... many of them were Fundies! Puritans!

(my emphasis, italics and bold)

What observation would that be Dave?

The "Goddidit" part adds nothing to our knowledge. That's why science employs methodological naturalism. It doesn't have to be metaphysical naturalism (there's nothing stopping you from saying "the universe is 14 bilion years old, species originated by means of random mutation and natural selection and that's how God did it), but the last part isn't a scientific statement. That's the whole idea behind NOMA.

Science is keeping its side of the bargain, but lately religion, in the form of creationism and ID, has been crossing the line, and real scientists (even religious ones like Ken Miller, and I would guess our very own Febble) aren't having it.

Believe all the spiritual hocus pocus you want, but if you're going to make claims about the physical world, you're trespassing on the domain of science, and science has the tools to prove you wrong.

The creationist paradigm was overturned centuries ago. It's not coming back. Reality is a much too wonderful place to rape our perception of it with such a perverted philosophy.

[SteveF]

Martin ... you are a smart guy. I can tell that. Don't let the brainwashers destroy that good mind of yours. Come out of the dark while you still can.

AFdave, author of some shitty little computer animations, patronising MartinB, author of:

Brazeau, M.D. and Ahlberg, P.E. (2006) Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. Nature, 439, 318-321.

What an unedifying spectacle.

[Plognark]

... you are a smart guy. I can tell that. Don't let the brainwashers destroy that good mind of yours. Come out of the dark while you still can.

Right back atcha, my koolaid quaffing friend.

[Plognark]

Yes, a highly sophisticated manufactured product. A product that can self-replicate. And fuel itself. And repair itself. And "evolve" (which is nothing more than programmed ability to adapt). But it bears evidence of being a manufactured product all the same. Unless methodological naturalists such as yourself can come up with some mechanism for how these "manufactured products" can manufacture themselves, contrary to everything we know about engineering and manufacturing, then Methodological Naturalism will continue to be a poor paradigm under which to conduct scientific investigation. The most recent attempt to explain this has failed (see my sig), and, as I will show in future posts, the attempts to revive the corpse do not seem promising either.

We did. Natural selection. Next question.

[JOZeldenrust]

Martin ... you are a smart guy. I can tell that. Don't let the brainwashers destroy that good mind of yours. Come out of the dark while you still can.

AFdave, author of some shitty little computer animations, patronising MartinB, author of:

Brazeau, M.D. and Ahlberg, P.E. (2006) Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. Nature, 439, 318-321.

What an unedifying spectacle.

Ouch, that's kinda embarrassing. And there's another familiar name next to that of mister Brazeau, too. This gives me the rather depressing impression that there really are only a handfull of intelligent people on this planet, seeing as the same faces keep turning up everywhere.

But then I realize that there are also intelligent people who don't publish scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications, and I'm at peace with the world once again.

[Febble]

How do you know that there isn't some process in Nature that can permit or even cause this? If there is such a process, would you like to know about it?

OK Let's break this down. You ask Well ... I don't know as in absolute certainty. But scientists have been trying to find out if such a process exists for many decades now and the search becomes ever more discouraging, so I'm not holding out hope. But yes, I'm all ears. If someone finally figures out how biological machines can create themselves with no pre-existing plan, then I'm sure they will win a Nobel. And this discovery will make me seriously question my belief in the existence of God. No question about it.

Um, Dave. It's been done. That's what Darwin did.

And geneticists have been fleshing out the detail ever since. Didn't you know that?

But it needn't lead you to question your belief in God. Why is it any less marvellous that God should have figured out a system that would run itself, rather than one that needed perpetual tinkering with? Seems to me it's the other way round.

Listen, Dave. Tonight, you and I will, in our own ways, celebrate the mystery of the incarnation. For you, it's about a story that happened in Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago. For me, not so much. I don't think that story is very likely to have much basis in an actual event. But that doesn't matter. Both you and I will celebrate what we understand as the immanence of God - Emmanuel - God-With-Us. The difference between us is that your faith seems to depend on scientists leaving an explanatory gap in the natural world into which God can slip. For me the incarnation is simply the transfiguration of the natural world by the goodness and wonder we theists like to call the grace of God.

Have a very merry Christmas, Dave!

Cheers

Lizzie

[Martin B]

Martin B ...

A further point regarding evolution and machines: the American mathematician John von Neumann wrote about machine evolution. He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve. The point is that things that don't reproduce don't evolve. Admittedly, I'm only pointing this out for illustrative purposes: evolution requires auto-replication as a first principle.

Quote:
Now I believe that life is "manufactured" also. And I do not believe this primarily because a religious book told me so. I believe it because of the evidence. What evidence? First, I observe that life is essentially composed of high tech machines. Much higher tech than any human technology has ever produced. Secondly, I observe that no high tech machine that humans are aware of has ever come into existence by chance processes. Therefore, I infer that "living machines" must have had Designer of Surpassing Brilliance. Why should living machines be special? Why should we make an exception to the above rule that machines don't create themselves in their case? All machines that we know of require an Intelligence to create them, so why should biological machines be different? I know of no reason. Yes, I've heard the Darwinist answers to this, but so far these answers have been inadequate.

Fair enough, but the result may be circular. How do you know that there aren't machines in Nature that were not created by an intelligent force? How do you know that there isn't some process in Nature that can permit or even cause this? If there is such a process, would you like to know about it?

If you carry the analogy to its logical end, then we must conclude that non-nested hieararchies are diagnostic of design.


But that's precisely the problem. (Notice the title of von Neumann's book: Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, not Theory of Manufactured Automata). Machines are reproduced, but not by their own devices. Thus they cannot evolve, and nor produce nested hierarchies because they don't have lines of descent constrained by genetic heritage. A Roomba is totally irrelevant here. It does a self-serving function automatically, this has nothing to do with its capacity to produce offspring.

OK Let's break this down. You ask Well ... I don't know as in absolute certainty. But scientists have been trying to find out if such a process exists for many decades now and the search becomes ever more discouraging, so I'm not holding out hope. But yes, I'm all ears. If someone finally figures out how biological machines can create themselves with no pre-existing plan, then I'm sure they will win a Nobel. And this discovery will make me seriously question my belief in the existence of God. No question about it.

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

I've taken the liberty to emphasize the important point there as well: "Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution)". So now you concede that your own analogy was flawed?

Of course it's about whether or not WE produce these machines. That's what we were talking about: why don't OUR machines evolve?

[Autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process. You need to do one thing: make a copy of yourself. In fact, the simpler you are, the easier it is to do it.]

But even that's a further digression. Let's not get too far away from why I posted that. We were talking about similarities among living things as analogous to similarities among living things. The reason why we know the similarities among human-made machines has nothing to do with common ancestry is because we already know that they didn't evolve and that they couldn't even do so in principle. It is an invalid contradiction of common ancestry, regardless of ones beliefs about evolution/creation.

With respect to living things, at least they reproduce and could, in principle, have ancestors and descendents. Even if Dave, or other creationists, believe there are some unseen absolute boundaries to this process that limit it to some ill-defined groupings known as "kinds", the question remains legitimate.

And yes, also, Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a good one!

[Martin B]

This was my original questions to Dave:

To reiterate and modify an example I brought up before: How does creationism explain the fact that animals as different as a elephant and a great white shark have three semicircular canals of the inner ear and a backbone? What cause is there for this similarity in two completely different animals? Why couldn't it have been accomplished in a different way?

There are no teleological implications here. I'm not asking for purposes at all. I'm asking specifically for explanations: some sort of reasons that the patterns occur the way they do. I was asking for some sort of existential explanation, and I don't think my question even implied this. At all. I only used "why" once.

And my answer is the same. I cannot explain the reasons for many patterns in Nature. But I would not expect to be able to if an Intelligence created it all. But this does not hinder science at all. The fun part of science is trying to figure out how "Goddidit." And figure out how things work. And science is actually bolstered if we believe that "Goddidit" because then we are operating under a paradigm which is not contradictory to known observation. Don't forget that the Founders of Modern Science were not only creationists ... many of them were Fundies! Puritans!

And the result of that answer also remains the same. If your claim of special creation does not include some means of explaining the distribution of similarities and differences among living organisms then it does not explain nested hierarchies.

I know special creation doesn't explain (m)any patterns in Nature. That's the point we've been making for over 20 pages here.

How do you propose that one figures out how God did something? And what do you mean by "how"? Are you talking about mechanisms perhaps? You're not being a methodological naturalist, are you?

[ericmurphy]

There are no teleological implications here. I'm not asking for purposes at all. I'm asking specifically for explanations: some sort of reasons that the patterns occur the way they do. I was asking for some sort of existential explanation, and I don't think my question even implied this. At all. I only used "why" once.

And my answer is the same. I cannot explain the reasons for many patterns in Nature. But I would not expect to be able to if an Intelligence created it all. But this does not hinder science at all. The fun part of science is trying to figure out how "Goddidit." And figure out how things work. And science is actually bolstered if we believe that "Goddidit" because then we are operating under a paradigm which is not contradictory to known observation. Don't forget that the Founders of Modern Science were not only creationists ... many of them were Fundies! Puritans!

But you're not figuring out how things work, Dave. How is "goddidit" a "better" explanation for the origin of species than the standard explanation? What does that tell us about how life has evolved?

Anything?

This is exactly why creationism is a science-killer. "I cannot explain the reasons for many patterns in Nature. But I would not expect to be able to if an Intelligence created it all." And then, the ultimate non-sequitur: "But this does not hinder science at all."

If you don't expect to be able to explain things if goddidit, then why do you bother to try? Clearly creationists don't. Contrary to your claims, creationists are not "trying to figure out how "goddidit." They spend all their time trying to show godmustadidit, and no time at all trying to figure out how hedidit.

[ericmurphy]

Martin ... I don't know how to say this any more clearly.

LIFE BEARS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF BEING A "MANUFACTURED PRODUCT."

Dave, the problem is not that you're not being clear. We all know what you're saying. The problem is that you are wrong.

Life bears none of the hallmarks of being a manufactured product. It is for the most part trivially easy to distinguish between human-made objects and living organisms. The only time there's ever trouble is when humans attempt to copy living organisms.

Further, human-made objects do not reproduce. Living organisms do. No matter how you try to tap-dance around this issue, it's the critical distinction.

Unless methodological naturalists such as yourself can come up with some mechanism for how these "manufactured products" can manufacture themselves, contrary to everything we know about engineering and manufacturing, then Methodological Naturalism will continue to be a poor paradigm under which to conduct scientific investigation.

Dave, we already know they can. We see it all the time. In fact, the most obvious attribute all organisms have is that they can "manufacture themselves." You've got kids, Dave. You should know this. I assume not all your children are adopted.

[VoxRat]

...If you don't expect to be able to explain things if goddidit, then why do you bother to try? Clearly creationists don't. Contrary to your claims, creationists are not "trying to figure out how "goddidit." They spend all their time trying to show godmustadidit, and no time at all trying to figure out how hedidit.

I don't think I'd mind nearly so much if they did "spend all their time trying to show godmustadidit".

But in fact they spend all their time trying to convince the public that

• science and scientists are all part of an Evil Atheist Conspiracy
• kids need to be inoculated against science
• you can learn more about scientific discipline X by reading a single, crappy creationist tract than PhD scientists who have spent a lifetime at it know
• the theory of evolution is their strawman cartoon of it (see the notorious propagandamation) and not what it actually is
• there's a parallel world of "creationist science" - parallel to real-world science - that is every bit as rigorous and scholarly, and which world you choose is just a matter of perspective
• Science is hobbled by "materialism", and would zoom ahead if only it adopt the God paradigm
• and similar crap along the same lines

[ericmurphy]

By the way, Dave, before I forget: are you going to change your blog article entitled "Nested Hierarchies: Failed Prediction of ToE"?

After all, you have now conceded that, contrary to your claims that "The Nested Hierarchy that we actually see in nature is not the one predicted by the ToE, but rather the one predicted by the Theory of Special Creation (it’s actually a ‘retrodiction‘)," special creation does not, in fact, predict nested hierarchies, and worse, has no explanation for why nested hierarchies exist.

We've already made pretty clear to you not only that evolutionary theory predicts nested hierarchies (any theory that proposes common ancestry will), but also that it explains why there are nested hierarchies (nested hierarchies are a necessary consequence of common ancestry). You've conceded that special creation has no explanation for nested hierarchies. Therefore, to leave your blog article as written would be, well, it would be pretty dishonest, don't you think?

[Martin B]

We've already made pretty clear to you not only that evolutionary theory predicts nested hierarchies (any theory that proposes common ancestry will), but also that it explains why there are nested hierarchies (nested hierarchies are a necessary consequence of common ancestry).

Careful, these two things are one and the same.

[ericmurphy]

We've already made pretty clear to you not only that evolutionary theory predicts nested hierarchies (any theory that proposes common ancestry will), but also that it explains why there are nested hierarchies (nested hierarchies are a necessary consequence of common ancestry).

Careful, these two things are one and the same.

They are the same. The central tenet of evolutionary theory is that all life is related by common descent with modification from one or a small number of universal common ancestors. A necessary consequence of any process of common descent, whether it be living organisms or human languages, is a nested hierarchy. Hence, evolutionary theory predicts that all organisms will sort into objective nested hierarchies. It turns out that such nested hierarchies are observed. What is the explanation for those nested hierarchies? Why, common descent.

Dave claims that special creation "predicts" nested hierarchies. But he can't tell us why. He makes some vague claims about common design, but nested hierarchies are not a necessary consequence of common design, as Dave amply demonstrated by proposing automobiles as examples of common design. Automobiles cannot be sorted into objective nested hierarchies. Which hierarchies one gets is entirely dependent on which characteristics one believes to be important, as contrasted to objective nested hierarchies, which remain the same regardless of which characteristics are considered to be important.

Since nested hierarchies are not a necessary consequence of common design, common design cannot be used as an explanation for nested hierarchies. Since nested hierarchies are a necessary consequence of common descent, common descent can therefore be used as an explanation for nested hierarchies.

Of course, nested hierarchies are not proof of common descent. But if common descent is true, nested hierarchies must be present. If they are not, common descent cannot be true.

[Guzman]

[QUOTE=JOZeldenrust;156806]

The "Goddidit" part adds nothing to our knowledge. That's why science employs methodological naturalism. .

that doesn't make methodological naturalism right. Let me give you a correlation:

Let's play like we lived a long time ago in a land far away. We both had very little knowledge of the world around us or how nature operates. Now let's say we walked out into the forest and had a discussion regarding how trees grow, specifically -- how they take in water. Now not known to either one of us is there are hidden roots growing beneath the ground. But you, as a materialist -- one who only believes in what you can see -- would argue that the tree must be taking in water from the rain that falls on its leaves....that it must be this way because that's all you can see. I, on the otherhand postulate that the rain falls on the ground, and then as a result, some of it seeps through the ground and gets absorbed by what must be some sort of a root system. Now not having a shovel, you and I argue tirelessly, you yelling, screaming, and laughing at me at how dumb of a concept that is and how it can't be proven. Then you say "roots-did-it adds nothing to our knowledge" and/or "roots are a science-stopper." And by that logic you just blindly and steadfastly hold to your theory of rain absorption through leaves, because this is the only possible "scientific" answer.

Does that make your "science" right? If it's not right, why stick with something just because the alternative is unthinkable and/or nonscientific?

[ericmurphy]

The "Goddidit" part adds nothing to our knowledge. That's why science employs methodological naturalism.

that doesn't make methodological naturalism right. Let me give you a correlation:

Let's play like we lived a long time ago in a land far away. We both had very little knowledge of the world around us or how nature operates. Now let's say we walked out into the forest and had a discussion regarding how trees grow, specifically -- how they take in water. Now not known to either one of us is there are hidden roots growing beneath the ground. But you, as a materialist -- one who only believes in what you can see -- would argue that the tree must be taking in water from the rain that falls on its leaves....that it must be that way because that's all you can see. I, on the otherhand postulate that the rain falls on the ground, and then as a result, some of it seeps through the ground and gets absorbed by what must be some sort of a root system. Now not having a shovel, you and I argue tirelessly, you yelling, screaming, and laughing at me at how dumb of a concept that is and how it can't be proven. Then you say "roots-did-it adds nothing to our knowledge" and/or "roots are a science-stopper." And by that logic you just blindly and steadfastly hold to your theory of rain absorption through leaves, because this is the only possible scientific answer.

Does that make your right? If it's not right, why stick with something just because the alternative is unthinkable and/or nonscientific?

That's exactly the difference between science and religion, Guzman, if only you had the wit to grasp it. If this discussion were carried on between two religious nutcases, the argument would never be resolved. But there is a way to resolve this question: it's called "methodological naturalism." A practitioner of methodological naturalism would formulate a hypothesis (in this case, either absorption of water through the leaves or through a hidden root system), and then proposes various tests that can distinguish between the two hypotheses. In principle, it is possible to actually find out what the answer is. But only through methodological naturalism. Lounging around appealing to unknown causes through unknown agents will never, ever discover what really happens.

Saying "rootsdidit," without any attempt to discover how, or if, rootsdidit, adds nothing to our knowledge. Going out and finding a shovel will add to our knowledge. Scientists are looking for a shovel. Creationists are content to assume rootsdidit without lifting a finger to discover if they're actually right.

[Guzman]

The "Goddidit" part adds nothing to our knowledge. That's why science employs methodological naturalism.

that doesn't make methodological naturalism right. Let me give you a correlation:

Let's play like we lived a long time ago in a land far away. We both had very little knowledge of the world around us or how nature operates. Now let's say we walked out into the forest and had a discussion regarding how trees grow, specifically -- how they take in water. Now not known to either one of us is there are hidden roots growing beneath the ground. But you, as a materialist -- one who only believes in what you can see -- would argue that the tree must be taking in water from the rain that falls on its leaves....that it must be that way because that's all you can see. I, on the otherhand postulate that the rain falls on the ground, and then as a result, some of it seeps through the ground and gets absorbed by what must be some sort of a root system. Now not having a shovel, you and I argue tirelessly, you yelling, screaming, and laughing at me at how dumb of a concept that is and how it can't be proven. Then you say "roots-did-it adds nothing to our knowledge" and/or "roots are a science-stopper." And by that logic you just blindly and steadfastly hold to your theory of rain absorption through leaves, because this is the only possible scientific answer.

Does that make your right? If it's not right, why stick with something just because the alternative is unthinkable and/or nonscientific?

That's exactly the difference between science and religion, Guzman, if only you had the wit to grasp it. If this discussion were carried on between two religious nutcases, the argument would never be resolved. But there is a way to resolve this question: it's called "methodological naturalism." A practitioner of methodological naturalism would formulate a hypothesis (in this case, either absorption of water through the leaves or through a hidden root system), and then proposes various tests that can distinguish between the two hypotheses. In principle, it is possible to actually find out what the answer is. But only through methodological naturalism. Lounging around appealing to unknown causes through unknown agents will never, ever discover what really happens.

Saying "rootsdidit," without any attempt to discover how, or if, rootsdidit, adds nothing to our knowledge. Going out and finding a shovel will add to our knowledge. Scientists are looking for a shovel. Creationists are content to assume rootsdidit without lifting a finger to discover if they're actually right.

You missed it.

In my purely hypothetical example I am saying that we don't have a shovel and there is no way to ever find out if there are roots or not.

[ericmurphy]

You missed it.

In my purely hypothetical example I am saying that we don't have a shovel and there is no way to ever find out if there are roots or not.

No, Guzman, you missed it. There are shovels. That's what methodological naturalism is. Now, there are problems for which there are no shovels. The existence of god is an example of a problem for which no shovel exists. That is precisely why the existence of God is not a scientific problem.

The existence and evolution of life are problems for which there are shovels. Scientists use those shovels. Creationists don't.

Which is why creationism has added nothing to human knowledge in over two thousand years.

[Guzman]

You missed it.

In my purely hypothetical example I am saying that we don't have a shovel and there is no way to ever find out if there are roots or not.

No, Guzman, you missed it. There are shovels. That's what methodological naturalism is. Now, there are problems for which there are no shovels. The existence of god is an example of a problem for which no shovel exists. That is precisely why the existence of God is not a scientific problem.

The existence and evolution of life are problems for which there are shovels. Scientists use those shovels. Creationists don't.

Which is why creationism has added nothing to human knowledge in over two thousand years.

I would suggest there is a "root" of life...aka a spiritual/non-physical aspect. This root can never be seen or measured by science -- just as the roots in my hypothetical story can't be seen or measured because shovels are not available. If you are going to respond to my hypothetical, don't change the rules.

[ericmurphy]

You missed it.

In my purely hypothetical example I am saying that we don't have a shovel and there is no way to ever find out if there are roots or not.

No, Guzman, you missed it. There are shovels. That's what methodological naturalism is. Now, there are problems for which there are no shovels. The existence of god is an example of a problem for which no shovel exists. That is precisely why the existence of God is not a scientific problem.

The existence and evolution of life are problems for which there are shovels. Scientists use those shovels. Creationists don't.

Which is why creationism has added nothing to human knowledge in over two thousand years.

I would suggest there is a "root" of life...aka a spiritual/non-physical aspect. This root can never be seen or measured by science -- just as the roots in my hypothetical story can't be seen or measured because shovels are not available. If you are going to respond to my hypothetical, don't change the rules.

I'm saying your hypothetical is irrelevant. Are there questions science can't answer? Sure. It has no answer to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It can't tell us whether God can create a weight so heavy he can't lift it, or if Jesus can microwave a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

But there are plenty of questions science can answer. How old is the universe? How did life begin? How did life evolve? How does the sun shine? Why do rocks fall when we drop them? And the way to answer those questions is through methodological naturalism.

Your hypothetical assumes there's no such thing as shovels. That's where your hypothetical is wrong. I'm not changing the rules; I'm showing you why your hypothetical is not an accurate representation of the real world.

Now, this thread is supposed to be about nested hierarchies, and what they tell us about the natural world. Do you have anything to add to that discussion, Guzman, or are you going to maintain, as your hypothetical seems to be saying, that there are no answers to why nested hierarchies exist, and we just have to give up and say goddidit?

[Martin B]

The "Goddidit" part adds nothing to our knowledge. That's why science employs methodological naturalism. .

that doesn't make methodological naturalism right. Let me give you a correlation:

Let's play like we lived a long time ago in a land far away. We both had very little knowledge of the world around us or how nature operates. Now let's say we walked out into the forest and had a discussion regarding how trees grow, specifically -- how they take in water. Now not known to either one of us is there are hidden roots growing beneath the ground. But you, as a materialist -- one who only believes in what you can see -- would argue that the tree must be taking in water from the rain that falls on its leaves....that it must be this way because that's all you can see. I, on the otherhand postulate that the rain falls on the ground, and then as a result, some of it seeps through the ground and gets absorbed by what must be some sort of a root system. Now not having a shovel, you and I argue tirelessly, you yelling, screaming, and laughing at me at how dumb of a concept that is and how it can't be proven. Then you say "roots-did-it adds nothing to our knowledge" and/or "roots are a science-stopper." And by that logic you just blindly and steadfastly hold to your theory of rain absorption through leaves, because this is the only possible "scientific" answer.

Does that make your "science" right? If it's not right, why stick with something just because the alternative is unthinkable and/or nonscientific?

Tree roots are supernatural?

[Guzman]

[QUOTE=Martin B;157089]

that doesn't make methodological naturalism right. Let me give you a correlation:

Let's play like we lived a long time ago in a land far away. We both had very little knowledge of the world around us or how nature operates. Now let's say we walked out into the forest and had a discussion regarding how trees grow, specifically -- how they take in water. Now not known to either one of us is there are hidden roots growing beneath the ground. But you, as a materialist -- one who only believes in what you can see -- would argue that the tree must be taking in water from the rain that falls on its leaves....that it must be this way because that's all you can see. I, on the otherhand postulate that the rain falls on the ground, and then as a result, some of it seeps through the ground and gets absorbed by what must be some sort of a root system. Now not having a shovel, you and I argue tirelessly, you yelling, screaming, and laughing at me at how dumb of a concept that is and how it can't be proven. Then you say "roots-did-it adds nothing to our knowledge" and/or "roots are a science-stopper." And by that logic you just blindly and steadfastly hold to your theory of rain absorption through leaves, because this is the only possible "scientific" answer.

Does that make your "science" right? If it's not right, why stick with something just because the alternative is unthinkable and/or nonscientific?

Tree roots are supernatural?

no they're just unable to be seen or verified.

[Martin B]

Tree roots are supernatural?

no they're just unable to be seen or verified.

Tell me more.

[ericmurphy]

Tree roots are supernatural?

no they're just unable to be seen or verified.

Assuming, of course, that shovels don't exist. Which is false. Rendering your entire argument false.