Evolution Science and Naturalism

[NeitherExtreme]

Thanks again Peter,

If nothing else, you are forcing me to refine my arguments and think this whole thing through from new perspectives. For one thing, I’ve realized that it is simply too much to try to argue that evolution both didn’t happen AND couldn’t happen naturally at the same time. So, since I am not really certain that it didn’t happen (I simply have my doubts), for the moment I will concede that it did. So my point that remains is that evolution could not produce life as we know it through all natural occurrences.

[ A brief aside to finish a few thoughts on whether or not it happened: The fossil record seems to be the only good evidence one way or another IMO. And that is definitely a “connect the dots” sort of endeavor, with intelligent and well educated Evolutionists, Creationists, IDists, and Theistic Evolutionists each claiming that their own is the correct interpretation. And since they all seem to claim that the best interpretation just happens to line up with their pre-assumed beliefs, I have a hard time believing that any of them are genuinely unbiased. But whatever the interpretation of what did happen, fossils certainly tell us nothing that could help us decide between your position (natural evolution) and mine (can’t be natural evolution). ]

So with that concession, it appears that our only disagreement is on methods- and after reading the first paragraph in your last post, it seems that both of us should be feeling pretty uncomfortable in assuming that we are discussing anything that closely resembles objective science… I on one hand am suggesting that present life could not have come to be through the laws of nature, and this would obviously be quite a challenge to prove. You on the other hand seem to be defending a theory that lacks even the possibility of observable confirmation: the theory takes too long to observe, and we could not recognize it if we saw it happening; so it can not be tested, falsified, or recognized in action. Doesn’t look like either of us have a chance at calling our opinions objective science, which was one of my points from the beginning…

So we are reduced to logic, simply to see which one seems better to us personally. And I still hold to my arguments: Natural selection can not produce anything new, positive, and of increased complexity. DNA is too complex to “jump”, and it can not build slowly without a significant benefit to each generation or the mutations will simply be mixed back in with the more numerous neutral and negative mutations. Anything else would require foresight and intelligence. The stability idea (while interesting) is still not a method for introducing new complex DNA programming. And while your explanations (and those of Evolutionists in general) affectively make slow transitions sound like a plausible idea, IMO the nature of DNA is the cold hard fact that is never dealt with in such explanations. The difference between a single cell organism (no matter how symbiotic) and a multi-cell organism requires a complex change in DNA, one that could not happen by nature. And even though evolution science seems to be able to “muddy the water” surrounding the need for anything new, I still think it is obvious that there has to be some point where any new organelle, organ, limb, etc, must genetically “begin”, and even the simplest beginning is too complex of a jump in DNA to happen naturally. And that is logical to me, and to assume otherwise for the sake of mantaining a theory seems seems to me to be un-scientific. Then of course I don’t have a problem with something existing outside the laws of nature... If I did, I guess I’d have to accept the best alternative explanations that came along, and those would be the most logical to me (even if they were not altogether logical).

So IMO it all starts with belief: a world-view that is either willing or unwilling to accept the possibility of something outside our natural laws. I think that it is only logical to accept at least the possibility, as we can obviously not empirically prove or logically deduce that it can not. And based on what we know of the natural laws and life, I think it is logical to say that the laws appear to have been broken for life on earth to exist. So (IMO of course) if a person is willing to accept the possibility, then the “evidence” is there.

PS. Just a comment- We seem to have fallen into some sort of ID vs. Evolution debate (which by the way I am enjoying very much and I hope nothing so far has appeared antagonistic)… But if the evolutionist wants to stick to science, it must be mentioned that there does not need to be another “better” hypothesis put forth for the first hypothesis to fail. And if the hypothesis is “Evolution caused complex life through the natural laws”, there is (IMO) no currently available empirical evidence to suggest such a thing. Without evidence, it’s only hope to be considered scientific is to be falsifiable through unbiased logic. (Where, of course, I think it fails) If it fails, and no other scientifically acceptable hypothesis is available, then the only honest scientific response would be to admit: “We don’t know how it happened.” I don’t expect them to stop trying, shrug their shoulders, and say God did it. In fact I realize that if we did that every time we didn’t understand something, science would be at a standstill very quickly. So I’m not disapproving of trying to understand how nature could produce life, I just want the “we don’t know” until such a time as a good explanation would be found, rather than put forward ideas that can’t be falsified and don’t stand to logic.

[Didymos Thomas]

The fossil record seems to be the only good evidence one way or another IMO. And that is definitely a “connect the dots” sort of endeavor, with intelligent and well educated Evolutionists, Creationists, IDists, and Theistic Evolutionists each claiming that their own is the correct interpretation. And since they all seem to claim that the best interpretation just happens to line up with their pre-assumed beliefs, I have a hard time believing that any of them are genuinely unbiased. But whatever the interpretation of what did happen, fossils certainly tell us nothing that could help us decide between your position (natural evolution) and mine (can’t be natural evolution).

I just want to point something out. Creationism and intelligent design are not science - they cannot be tested. The scientific community has debates about evolution, about some of the more complex mechanics of evolution, but there is no real debate as to evolution's validity.
The notion of evolution is not grounded in pre-existing beliefs, it's grounded in careful observation. That observation is comprised of, in part, the fossil record.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I just want to point something out. Creationism and intelligent design are not science - they cannot be tested. The scientific community has debates about evolution, about some of the more complex mechanics of evolution, but there is no real debate as to evolution's validity.
The notion of evolution is not grounded in pre-existing beliefs, it's grounded in careful observation. That observation is comprised of, in part, the fossil record.

Thanks, and for the most part I agree. (I would say that the fossil record appears to be debatable, but then I'm not a paleontologist, so I can't give any expert interpretations.) So, assuming evolution has occured, my point would simply be to say that I see no viable way for it to have happened naturally. The "natural" explanations seem quite far fetched IMO, and apear to me to be accepted too authoritatively as a defense of the naturalist belief system. I am actually not opposed to someone holding to such beliefs- I just wish that it would be more generally accepted that there is no objective scientific explanation for life currently available. Sometimes it is mindboggling to me that a scientist defending naturalism can be so self-unaware that he doesn't realize that his own world-view affects his own interpretation of facts, and that this is true for everyone everywhere.

Of course that is my opinion, and affected by my world-view, but it seems logical enough to me...

[Didymos Thomas]

The beauty of science is that, even though our own beliefs can give us a bias, observable facts are difficult to contest, especially if they are observed over and over. For example, if someone voraciously denied gravity, despite their opinion, objects would still fall to the earth.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that the process of evolution is natural. As yet, scientists have found no evidence of anything supernatural influencing evolution. Are there any aspects of evolution which are unnatural?

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The beauty of science is that, even though our own beliefs can give us a bias, observable facts are difficult to contest, especially if they are observed over and over. For example, if someone voraciously denied gravity, despite their opinion, objects would still fall to the earth.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that the process of evolution is natural. As yet, scientists have found no evidence of anything supernatural influencing evolution. Are there any aspects of evolution which are unnatural?

I agree with your first paragraph, I would simply not put piecing together the origins of life out of the few clues we have in that category. Have you ever seen anything evolve to a higher state of complexity?

What I find unnatural about evolution (or life in general) is that it exists in a natural universe only capable of entropy, and life is extremely complex- to the point of needing foresight and intellegence for it to come about. In particular, I see this in the fact that nothing new or of increased complexity could ever be added to the genetic code (DNA) of an animal by chance. Even the simplest "somthing new" that would give a significant advantage to one organism (to the point that it would out-reproduce its competition) would have a DNA coding that is too complex to happen in a single genetic "leap". At the same time, nothing complex can be added over many generations because each tiny mutation, since it is not complex enough to add a very siginificant advantage, would be cycled back into the gene pool along with the much more numerous negative and nuetral mutations. The net result could not be positive, and in fact logic would suggest that the net result would be negative over time due to the fact that mutations are much more often negative than positive. The math simply doesn't add up. As far as I'm concerned, if evolution is natural it is due to some law or something that we have yet to discover- but not because of anything described by current science or logic.

In short form, here's my logical problem:
Natural Selection + Lots of Time = Decay

[Didymos Thomas]

I agree with your first paragraph, I would simply not put piecing together the origins of life out of the few clues we have in that category. Have you ever seen anything evolve to a higher state of complexity?

But it's not "a few clues", it's every shred of evidence we have collected on the matter. To answer your question: no. But I must ask: so what?

You are trying to argue that life cannot become more complex naturally, yet science disagrees entirely. I'm no expert with DNA or any other scientific concern, but when every credible expert in the field agrees on something, an appeal to authority is entirely logical.

In short form, here's my logical problem:
Natural Selection + Lots of Time = Decay

Criticisms of science aside: we can certainly agree that instead of a decay of life, we have seen life become more complex and varied. We also agree that a great deal of time has passed. The debate is over natural selection. Well, if I were to say 'okay, scrap natural selection' what would you suggest in it's place?
You speak of "foresight and intellegence" as being necessary for the development of life, but there is no evidence of this. Nor could there be evidence of such a thing, unless there is some being with unimaginable ability to alter physical reality at will.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But it's not "a few clues", it's every shred of evidence we have collected on the matter.

When asked why there aren't good fossilized examples of intermediate forms, many evolutionists would tell you it is because we have such a small percentage of life recorded in the fossil record. But then they turn around and claim that the record is so complete that it is not debatable... Tough to argue with that.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

To answer your question: no. But I must ask: so what?

Objective science is best when it studies what it can observe and test.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You are trying to argue that life cannot become more complex naturally, yet science disagrees entirely. I'm no expert with DNA or any other scientific concern, but when every credible expert in the field agrees on something, an appeal to authority is entirely logical.

First, you have defined science as "evolution science", and you have obviously defined "credible" to mean those that agree with evolution... IMO there is a logical flaw somewhere in there.
Secondly: There have been very educated and intellegent scientists (including athiestic) that have disagreed with the theory ever since it was introduced. As far as appealing to authority: First I'd point you to my first post in this thread, and though it is quite long winded, the section titled "History of evolution" and "More reasons I don't trust..." might give you a give idea of why I don't find the evolution science community to be very credible themselves.
And thirdly, if I am simply going to appeal to an authority rather than use my head, I could appeal to the authority of the ubiquitous human instinct that has been with us since pre-history which assumes the supernatural. (Something I don't throw out as easily as others might...)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Criticisms of science aside: we can certainly agree that instead of a decay of life, we have seen life become more complex and varied. We also agree that a great deal of time has passed. The debate is over natural selection.

Yes. Maybe (But I'll concede this for now). And close, but not quite... The debate is over wether or not nature can produce complex life, through natural selection or any other acceptable scientific theory. And obviously I don't think so, though of course many others would disagree with me.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You Well, if I were to say 'okay, scrap natural selection' what would you suggest in it's place?

In science, a hypothesis does not need a replacement to be scrapped. If there is no logical explanation, than an honest scientist would say "I don't know."

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You speak of "foresight and intellegence" as being necessary for the development of life, but there is no evidence of this.

Lets say you got to use a newly designed super-telescope, and were able to look at planets that are in far a way solar systems. On one planet you find the word "HELLO" perfectly etched into the landscape, would that be evidence of foresight and intellegence, or of a random act of nature. While there is no clear scientific line to draw (that I know of), there are levels of complexity that should only be explained by intellegence. To me, the complexity of DNA (even it's simplest program) is clearly in that category.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Nor could there be evidence of such a thing, unless there is some being with unimaginable ability to alter physical reality at will.

Umm... Yes. I have a much better time logically accepting that scenerio than one that is built on laws which it ignores. (Naturally explaining increasing complexity in a nature that is only capable of entropy.) Edit: An alternate scenerio would be that a designer designed DNA to include genetics that enabled long-term evolution. These genetics could not get there by chance though, as per my previous arguments. I have no idea how such genetics could work, it's just a shot in the dark. Of course what I am suggesting is not science... But I'm not claiming it to be either.

I hope I don't sound antagonistic. I actually enjoy this, and appreciate your interactions very much.

Also, if you want to see someone much more educated than I find fault with both evolution and creationism, this is a neat sight I just found:
A New Approach to Earth History » What evolution?
(dealing with evolution problems)
A New Approach to Earth History » Current theories don’t work
(dealing with evolution and creationist problems)
A New Approach to Earth History » Current theories don’t work
(dealing with earth's timeline)
And there's a lot more... I was surprised to see that he argues some of the same issues that I have with evolution, but does it better IMO. I haven't read it all, but I've been reading a piece at a time. My point in showing you that site is not so that you will agree with him (I'm not even sure if I do yet), it is simply to demonstrate how I think there are multiple ways to peice the facts together, and that none of these versions it should be called Objective Science. (At least not at this point.)

[Didymos Thomas]

When asked why there aren't good fossilized examples of intermediate forms, many evolutionists would tell you it is because we have such a small percentage of life recorded in the fossil record. But then they turn around and claim that the record is so complete that it is not debatable... Tough to argue with that.

I'm not sure what the problem is. You ask for intermediate forms - are you unfamiliar with, for example, cromagnon (pardon my spelling errors)? Or neanderthal? The neanderthal is particularly interesting - a human like form that died out due to competition and interbreeding with cromagnon, a species very close to modern human, the precursor of modern man.

Objective science is best when it studies what it can observe and test.

Well, just because I have not seen anything evolve before my eyes into a higher state of complexity does not mean that such a thing is not observable. Evolution is not observable on such a small frame of time as my lifetime. Adaptation, however, is, and that has been seen. Reminds me of the moth in England - prior to the industrial revolution, this particular moth was white. Once England industrialized, due to the soot, the moths adapted to a dark grey. Now that England has introduced environmental standards, the moths are returning to white.
Evolution is still observable and testable.

First, you have defined science as "evolution science", and you have obviously defined "credible" to mean those that agree with evolution... IMO there is a logical flaw somewhere in there.

No, you have only assumed so much. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community is agreed on the mater of evolution.

Secondly: There have been very educated and intellegent scientists (including athiestic) that have disagreed with the theory ever since it was introduced.

This may be, but their postulations have been rejected in the face of evidence. You will always have someone here and there disagree, but once you move past the fundamentalists who substitute theology for science, the field of people standing in opposition is terribly thin.

And thirdly, if I am simply going to appeal to an authority rather than use my head, I could appeal to the authority of the ubiquitous human instinct that has been with us since pre-history which assumes the supernatural.

You should lookup the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. The benefits would be twofold: one, you would see why this particular appeal is valid and two, you would realize why what you call "ubiquitous human instict" does not fit the bill.

As for your links at the bottom of the page, this page reeks of the misinformation well intentioned God fearing people put out. This sort of clap trap is everywhere.
Take for example this gem: "The world that existed before the Cataclysm does not exist now, so we have no direct evidence of what it was like."

Except that we have rocks dated to well over 3 billion years.

I'll say this again for reinforcement: the scientific community is in agreement that evolution is, by far, our best and most complete theory regarding the origin of life.

[NeitherExtreme]

Well, it looks to me like our biggest difference really lies in how much we trust the modern evolution based scientific community. And I don't know of any way to work that one out... I've tried to express some reasons that I question them, but if they don't hold true for you, then we might be at an impass on that one...

As far as logic goes- my problem is with something new, not something "adapted", or simply keeping something that was already there.

As far as the fossil record goes, like I said I'm no paleontologist. But alternate interpretations abound, so this goes back to who we trust.

As far as the website- I don't take it as any extreme authority, I just find it interesting to see what other people think. And something interestin: you found it very easy to through out the whole site (again, I'm not saying it's all good) based on a few problems you had with it. Can't I do the same with evolution? Especially if my problem with it is the very thing it is based on?

As far as appealing to authority- I obviously missed the specific definition that you were using, and that's my mistake, and I see what you are saying. But again this one will go back to the trust issue...

So all in all, I guess I trust my reasoning more than the authority in this case... And you are perfectly allowed to chose the authority over my reasoning.

Got to go now, but I'll try to reply to any more comments you have later.

[Didymos Thomas]

As far as logic goes- my problem is with something new, not something "adapted", or simply keeping something that was already there.

What do you mean by new, then? Even new physical qualities are just reorganizations of what has already been.

As far as the website- I don't take it as any extreme authority, I just find it interesting to see what other people think. And something interestin: you found it very easy to through out the whole site (again, I'm not saying it's all good) based on a few problems you had with it. Can't I do the same with evolution? Especially if my problem with it is the very thing it is based on?

My point was to show the website was anything but an authority, or even a source worth considering. The organizers of the site obviously have trouble with science in general, and not just evolution. That's why I chose that example - it had no relation to evolution.

As far as appealing to authority- I obviously missed the specific definition that you were using, and that's my mistake, and I see what you are saying. But again this one will go back to the trust issue...

An appeal to authority is one of many logical fallacies. A fallacious appeal to authority would be something like - "My dad says that pigs can fly, therefore pigs can fly". A non-fallacious appeal to authority would go something like "Dr. Jonh Q Professor, leading T-Rex expert, says that T-Rex was a bad mama-jama".