The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose, I can't seem to get a PM sent and I'm too frustrated to do any more troubleshooting.  If you absolutely refuse to do this in the thread then so be it.  

I saw it, but to be honest I started skimming because I thought I could simplify things by pointing out that the part I quoted was FLAT OUT WRONG.  I guess I was wrong when I thought that the bulk of your post hinged on that statement.  

And the answer is B.  

"So, then, how do I get the supernatural out of it if they don't actually contradict? By this: given that my 2^nd observation involves the creation of matter, it follows that it had a means of creation (things cannot create themselves; that's illogical). And, since we've already established that things cannot physically be created, we are left with only 1 option: a non-physical creation. If the objection is raised that “Science is not supposed to conclude on the supernatural”, what then do we do? We cannot conclude that our 1^st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted), unlike my previous paragraph. You could say “well, I guess science has failed this time”, what does that actually mean? That doesn't solve the contradiction. No, the only thing left (I posit) is to throw away the objection that science cannot conclude on the supernatural." 

First:  why can't things create themselves?  That is an assumption you are making.  But never mind; we'll roll with it.  

Second:  "We cannot conclude that our 1^st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted)"  (the 1st assumption being, I gather, "we've already established that things cannot physically be created".  

But you DO have a counter-observation, don't you?  The second observation -- the one where matter is created.  If it wasn't a counter-observation, then I don't know what the hell you are talking about because the "assumption" (theory) has not been challenged!  

In the case of science being tasked with finding a natural explanation (the only kind of explanation it CAN find) for the supernatural, it is doomed to never succeed -- BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW THAT unless you can somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist.  

I see this is actually the assertion you DO make with the following paragraph:  
"A more simple example would be this, “We constantly see matter coming into existence, and, after examining the situations from every possible angle trillions of times, exploring every corner of the universe, and having observed no physical cause for this matter's creation, we thus assume (in accordance with the tenet) that there is no physical cause for this matter's creation” Science would have to conclude like that, yes? After all, it was observed countless times that there was no physical cause. If you're saying that science says that “Only the physical exists” (which is a presupposition only), then science contradicts itself, I assert."

The problem is that, not being gods, we cannot be sure that we have actually exhausted every possibility, every hypothesis, and every idea without mathematical proof, so instead of "no physical cause" it should be "no KNOWN cause".  But even if we did, science is limited in its conclusions to things that can be tested.  How do you test for the supernatural?  So science would have to just continue to mark it up to "no known cause" while we used process of elimination to suppose that the cause was supernatural (in the belief that our scientists had not in fact overlooked any possibility).  Or we would think that perhaps true spontaneity is (naturally) possible after all!  And can I presume that you are assuming that we could somehow eliminate the possibility that the matter is being "exported" from another universe?  Seems pretty hard to disprove to me...

No, it's fine.  If you're having trouble PM'ing, I'll do it out here.  No personal worries, either.

In any event,

I'll explain my statement of things not being able to create themselves (not that it matters to much since you're rolling with it, but I might as well): To say "This thing created itself" would imply that it existed before it existed (otherwise, how could it create itself unless it was around to create?), which is nonsense.

Now, I will clear this part up here and now: the second observation in the scenario is not a counter-observation.  A counter one (or, contradictory, whatever suits your fancy) would be "Matter can be created physically"  My 2nd observation does not have "physicall" in it, so it is not contradicting it.

As for how, then, I get anything out of it,

"So, then, how do I get the supernatural out of it if they don't actually contradict? By this: given that my 2^nd observation involves the creation of matter, it follows that it had a means of creation (things cannot create themselves; that's illogical). And, since we've already established that things cannot physically be created, we are left with only 1 option: a non-physical creation. If the objection is raised that “Science is not supposed to conclude on the supernatural”, what then do we do? We cannot conclude that our 1^st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted), unlike my previous paragraph. You could say “well, I guess science has failed this time”, what does that actually mean? That doesn't solve the contradiction. No, the only thing left (I posit) is to throw away the objection that science cannot conclude on the supernatural."

In light of my explanation of how the two observations interact, I repost this, hopefully having given the clarity lacking from my example, for it lays out my case for the deduction of the supernatural.

"BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW THAT unless you can somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist." 

Fully agreed.  As you note, my 2nd example moves towards that (my first one does at well, but it probably was not very clearly worded, so that may have been missed).

"The problem is that, not being gods, we cannot be sure that we have actually exhausted every possibility, every hypothesis, and every idea without mathematical proof, so instead of 'no physical cause' it should be 'no KNOWN cause'"

This is indeed true.  On the other hand, it's true of all science; every last bit of whatever conclusion science comes to is inductive (of course, not that I think there are methods of proof at all, as you well know :P  ).   So, to say suddenly "Ah, but that's inductive!" is to blow the whistle on all of science's conclusions, and undo any assumption you have ever made using science.  We have, many times, agreed that science makes assumptions on these observations.  So, in the event of my example, science would, just as it does anytime else, assume that what it has observed is indeed the case.

In the event you (or anyone else, for that matter) decides to drop the idea that science does make assumptions, but merely says "Ok, if observed enough, it is likely true".  Well, then, it is likely that there is a supernatural (note that this is just as much a statement of science as any other).  This does not need to be tested for, because you've already tested it.  For example, consider the following,

"I was hit by something.  It was, likely, not a car.  Therefore, it was, likely, a non-car"  Saying "That which hit you is not a car" is logically equivalent to saying "That which hit you is a non-car".  It follows quite nicely (I posit).

For the first (non-issue) item, why are you ruling out something happening without cause?  

(Insert segue here)
Your first statement was "that matter cannot be created physically...", and the second was "...that matter comes into existence".  Now, taking "physically" literally (either definition) this makes no sense.  Firstly, because no such observation has been made, and in fact physics allows for the creation of matter given enough energy being spent to that end.  

And when I read it the first few times, I thought it was the  meaning of physically as in "I am physically in Best Buy" (as opposed, perhaps, to their online store), and so those two statements would be contradictory if matter was created in the "physical" universe.  

Now, as for the other meaning I can think of, as in "in accordance with the (currently known) laws of physics", that is only a contradiction of the laws of physics, and not science or nature as a whole, so perhaps that is what you meant.  

Only then you turn around and say that "non-physical cause" = "supernatural cause"!  ("we are left with only 1 option: a non-physical creation")  This, of course, would massively fail to support your point given the latter definition of "physical".  

It would be senseless for me to pursue this any further until you resolve the above.  

Also, I ask for consistency in another area:  you claim "deduction" of the supernatural, and then (it seems) explicitly use induction to get there.   

P.S.  What about the "exports from another universe" hypothesis?  How could we eliminate that possibility, as we must for even your idea of science to contemplate the supernatural?