Are you new at this, or do you just reject logic because it gets in the way of your belief system? I do not have to support, explain or validate the default position.
Lee Spetner’s work is well known. If you haven’t encountered it previously you have not covered the bases. Here’s a quick and dirty intro…Evolutionary mechanisms.
Your challenge does absolutely nothing to further this conversation because anything I can or cannot answer cannot be used as evidence for your position. Reality just doesn’t work that way.
In a rational debate, you do not get to decide the default position. You assert nothing exists outside the natural universe. If you cannot support that, it is only your belief, and as such has no more validity than that which you reject.
Oh but it does. Your position is that nothing exists outside of the natural universe. Your assertion is that morality can be explained by purely naturalistic mechanisms. I have challenged you on that because I believe that if it can be demonstrated that morality cannot be so explained then there is at least a likelihood of an external agent.
It seems you are avoiding that challenge?
Spetner based already suspect math on two things: An imaginary difference between micro and macro evolution, and the number of atoms in the observable universe.
I have no problem with belief in God … and I’ve never said that I don’t believe in Him. However, if I did say that … if I said, “I believe in God, and furthermore, He created the Universe”, it wouldn’t really mean anything except to me, because there is no way I could make a convincing argument to a Scientist. Yes, you can make arguments … no, they are not convincing. Scientists are the “guardians” of reality. Whatever goes bump in the night, the Scientist will shine the light of reason on it. From what I’ve read, from Thomas Aquinas to John Polkinghome, the moment God is inserted into a discussion of natural events, faith takes over, since there is no actual evidence of the supernatural to consider, and no purported evidence stands up to the Scientific method … so far.
If you presented actual evidence and explained how it stands up to experimentation, and if you had a theory we could examine, and if you could answer questions about your theory, rather than dropping names to be Googled, then we’d have something.
And if there isn’t an objective moral code?
You haven’t formulated that challenge yet. The ball is still in your court.
Why do you think morality cannot be explained by natural mechanisms?
No-I am denying that your challenge does what you claim it does, because you do not recognize that there is such a thing as a default position. The fact that there is a universe full of evidence for a natural world, and there is absolutely no solid evidence for a supernatural world makes the natural world the default position. Your “supernatural world” has as much right to be considered real as does the Easter Bunny.
That’s all been answered. Rather than just reading the superficial reviews, read the body of communication he has engaged in. Or better still, read the book. His work has been published for about 16 years now.
Intrinsicvalue, just to clarify a few terms that are typically used on this board that you appear to be using differently.
Creationism is pretty much the assertion that Goddidit. It may take the form of Young Earth Creationism with a 6,017 year old Earth (Bishop Ussher) or a 5,774 year old Earth (Jewish calendar), or some similar timeline. It may take the form of Old Earth Creationism, with allusions to “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” to adjust for the geological record that clearly indicates an Earth much older than 6,000 years. In either case, however, the claim put forth is that life on Earth is not subject to evolution, (or, occasionally, small examples of “microevolution” may be found, but that "macroevolution is not historically accurate).
Intelligent Design is an Old Earth Creationist attempt to allow for some examples of minor evolutionary development, but with the assertion that they could only have occurred with the direct involvement of the Creator. (Most of the assertions of “mathematical impossibility” arise from this group, typically using skewed math to arrive at their predetermined goal.) Philip Johnson, (a lawyer who finds evolution distasteful for personal philosophical reasons), Michael Behe, (a biologist from a conservative religious background who proposed some arguments against evolution that have been disproved), and William Dembski (a theologian with really poor math skills), are the chief proponents of Intelligent Design.
Theistic Evolution (which, it seems, may be what you are identifying in some of your claims for creationism), is the assertion by believers that the evolutionary record as we find it is accurate, just as it stands, with no Divine interposition. Authors/scientists such as Keith Miller and Kenneth Miller, (no relation as far as I know), are among proponents of this philosophy in which we address the natural world as we find it, but do not exclude God from our personal lives. (I have seen the phrase “Evolutionary Creationism” employed for this approach, but it is confusing in these discussions because the word “creationism” already has a firmly settled meaning.)
Oh but there is. Is the torture of an innocent child ever morally acceptable?
I don’t need to. There is no objective evidence to support the existence of anything defined as supernatural. I am free to reject the idea using just as much evidence.
[quote]
2. Here’s a few more…List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia
[quote]
No, that’s just a list of Christians who also happened to be scientists. While there might be some overlap, they are not all Creationists.
But that isn’t the working definition of ‘Creationist’. A Creationist rejects evolution and accepts the biblical accounts of creation.
If you can’t find the evidence you need to support your idea, why should I do your work for you? BTW, the fact the he never backed down from his claim that the Archaeopteryx was a fraud makes his work even more suspect.
The null hypothesis suggests otherwise.
Position 1) There is nothing outside the universe influencing its workings.
Position 2) There is a particular something outside the universe influencing its workings in a specific way.
Position 2 requires proof (or at least evidence) of what the thing is and how specifically it is influencing the universe’s workings. Position 1 does not; proof of non-existence and non-influence is impossible to provide, and the position can only be refuted. They are not equal positions to hold. And if you have no evidence of the “something” to refute Position 1, your argument has as much merit as the standard IPU hypothesis.
You are making a very good attempt at running away from the debate, so let me simplify this.
- You reject the possibility of anything existing outside the natural universe.
- You require me to provide you with argumentation that might encourage you to rethink.
- It is your position that morality can be explained by naturalism.
- I have taken this position and sought to engage you on that.
- My position is simply that if I can demonstrate that an objective morality cannot be supported by naturalism alone, then you will have grounds to reconsider you original proposition.
- You have refused to even entertain the challenge. That is of course your prerogative, but it seems to be very closed minded.
It is perfectly fine to believe that an intelligent agent (or even a personal God) created the universe. The two Millers I mentioned in my preceding post hold that belief. However, that is a belief. It is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis may be tested. It may be held up to the challenge of being falsified. I have never seen any proposal of divine origin that meets that standard of scientific inquiry.
Can you propose a test that would permit science to investigate the idea that God, (or any divine or intelligent agent), created the universe? Without that test, there is no hypothesis.
I looked up his bio and I didn’t see where he has ever indicated he was ever anything but a devout Christian and believer in creationism.
Do you have someone to cite who “hold[s] creationist beliefs because of what they observe in the natural world”?
We, as humans, tend to have an intrinsic objection to violence, which can be overridden in certain people depending on the situation. Having an intrinsic objection to the harming of people we percieve as innocent both helps our family survive, by not promoting random violence against our family, and the species survive, by ensuring that unless there is a conflict, we do not kill each other.
My explanation above is not a well fleshed out hypothesis at present but for all that is still much more plausible than the assertion that morals exist independently of the brain and were created by an unseen immortal being.