Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 10 2009,13:31) | | The aspect of front-loading that might seem miraculous to us (and the part that I'm agreeing to) is the necessity for foreknowledge of world environmental conditions. This may not be "miraculous" at all, if indeed there is a being that exists outside the constraints of time.If such a being exists, then this is not miraculous at all for him. It's the natural state of affairs for such a being. It just seems miraculous to us. So, I'll agree that omniscience is a requirement for successful front-loading. |
That's tap dancing. The dust settles and omniscience is required for front loading. Hence front loading is a supernatural explanation and lies outside the purview of science.
| Quote | | Let me clarify one thing here though: the "God hypothesis" operates from the assumption that there is a God. It interprets nature in the light of such an assumption. It is obviously no use to a methodological naturalist. |
Hence it is of no use to science, and of no relevance to science. That's all I've been saying.
| Quote | | I agree that it would take a being like God to successfully front-load a genome (or genomes), but I also think it would take a being like God to design a ribosome, or to successfully integrate systems such as biochemical pathways, enzymes and co-enzymes, protein synthesis, intra and extra-cellular communications, anabolic and catabolic processes, DNA as an information carrier, etc. together into a functioning organism. You were able, in a wink, to decide that front-loading would require God, how about putting those powers of deduction to use on whether or not it would require God to make an organism? |
My position is that the search for a natural explanation of the origins of these structures is within the purview of natural science. Assertions motivated by reference to either the existence (or non-existence, for that matter) of God aren't relevant to that process. I hope, and believe, that scientific accounts (e.g. naturalistic accounts) will be attained for these structures and processes - although the precision of such accounts will certainly be constrained by the historical nature of these events, because events that occurred billions of years in the past are likely to be only incompletely knowable.
| Quote | | I knew you'd say that. But God - as the causal effect of the natural world - can also thus be linked. IOW, if God created the natural world, the natural world itself is evidence - and a link to - God. |
See? Everybody is happy. Indeed, you could fully embrace evolutionary theory and abandon your reactionary anti-scientific stance by taking that philosophical attitude to the history of life generally.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
My 2c. 
