The origin of life

[Qedlin Saltum]

OKkkk

So which out of all scientific discovery DON'T go beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system ?

I'm guessing they stay scientificity but I have no idea which ones they are so I wait to be enlightened

There are so many scientific discoveries in virtually all aspects of science that do not require extrapolation or matriculation into the metaphysical, that is the norm and is outside the realm of science, it is rather metaphysical inference, induction and/or speculation. There is not room for all the examples. The discovery of the Higgs boson did not require the assignation of "god particle," the proposition of string theory and multiverse did not warrant religious, spiritual, or philosophic implications. the natural selection in biological organisms does not warrant a-theistic confirmations.


Really? And here is little ol me thinking science was out to work out how the Universe works and all the time they are in truth out to get the pope

Does the pope know about this dastardly plot? Is 007 on the case? What about the Muppets? Always had my suspicions about them. They are so open about a pig and a frog what else do they know which disproves Darwin evolution?

Science is the proper instrument for working out how the universe works, but some of the so-called workers irrationally insist that the existence of the laws and mechanisms of the creation of the universe and its progression precludes a Designer and Creator: totally unjustified and prejudicially biased and unscientific. There is no rational justification for you bringing in the pope or your other nonsensical references.

 

[Michael 345]

even though the highest level of interpretive conclusions of virtually all scientific discovery regularly goes beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system, all of which are outside of science.

So which out of all scientific discovery DON'T go beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system?

Repeat

So which out of all scientific discovery DON'T go beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system ?

I've left out

the pope or your other nonsensical references.

You can add to to the above information who are the

some of the so-called workers irrationally insist that the existence of the laws and mechanisms of the creation of the universe and its progression precludes a Designer and Creator: totally unjustified and prejudicially biased and unscientific.

 

[Qedlin Saltum]

You do not address either of my main points, namely that:

1) philosophical materialism is quite different from methodological naturalism, and it is only the latter that is required in science, or
2) ID cannot be science, as it calls for the abandonment of the scientific enterprise, for any phenomenon deemed - by ID - to be due to "design".
>
1) - MN is an acceptable first level scientific approach. PM/Naturalism is presently mandated in virtually all science, discounting and not even allowing induction that extends beyond the purely naturalistic interpretation of data.
2) ID is part of archaeology, anthropology, psychology, and eadily demonstrated in biomimetics and genetics. These are hardly non-scientific. The only "abandonment of the scientific enterprise" is when obligatory filtering by the ideology of PM/N. This impedes science, restricts it and is closed-minded: astronomy came from astrology, chemistry came from alchemy. Genetics and organic chemistry were delayed by biological predestination in the '60's, The Big Bang was suppressed by the naturalists who refused to seriously consider it for ideological reasons, the present Junk DNA mantra has impeded the systematic understanding of the nucleotide coding for ideological reasons. This is what PM/N has and is doing. It will take a new generation of objective scientists to break the hold on scientific investigation.
----
(Design by the way is a useless concept, scientifically, as there is no objective definition that can be used to determine whether or not a thing is "designed". Typically, structures in nature look "designed" to those who are ignorant of the science underlying the phenomenon.)
>
Once more, the imposition of the ideology of philosophical naturalism, not the true execution of objective science. You appear as a true believer. Virtually every aspect of origin of life research presently has no plausible natural explanation, only science of the gaps, a faith-based adherence to the ideology.
----
As for "self-deception", can you point what exactly this self-deception consists in? Of course science does not, and never has, "endorsed" religion: that is not its job.
>
The self-deception is the proposition that science, which applies to investigation of the universe, is therefore purely and solely mechanistic, materialistic and physical. Some who claim to be in science are creating their own religion, aka, scientism, as a result of their own religious bias and despise of standard religion or anything that is not science-based. They do this being self-deceived that any concept, law, or principle involved is not part of science and therefore not provable by science.
----
In fact, the avoidance of reliance on religious doctrines and other ideas that do not have a basis in physical observation, was and is a defining feature of science. This is simply part of the scientific method. There is no "self-deception" in that, surely? Or are you saying there is?
>
This "defining feature of science" is not verifiable using science, so it is beyond the "physical observation" which is limited to the physical universe, so, with the scientific method, cannot be proven using science, even though it absolutely is vital to science.

Science was invented by God, using the metaphysical principles of laws, logic, reason, mathematics, testing, language that thought has developed because of human consciousness formed in the image of God. Christian principles and philosophy founded scientific principles and science has been most productive in Christian cultures. None of this is pure science nor provable using science. But, since God invented science to allow humans to better understand his creation and design, the full and true reasoning that properly interprets the scientific data will inevitably promote metaphysical concepts and propositions about what is discovered. God intended this to lead to him, not deny him. This is the basis of Christianity.
----
P.S. You will have to explain This "Lewontin Mandate" thingie. I've never heard of it.
>
Richard C. Lewontin - "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
----

 

[paddoboy]

This is more the issue - science is so closed-minded and prejudicial now that any hint of anything that extends or expands the areas of scientific investigation that are not approved by the philosophical naturalists, PN, of anti-theists is categorically dismissed, denigrated or excluded. ID is a perfect example, despite that anthropology, archaeology and psychology are scientific areas that require ID, the PN's strangle hold on science is hypocritical. The abject denial of PN's for the design of the universe and life shows the arrogance, blindness, prejudice and denial of many of the so-called scientists, who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon.

Pot, kettle, Black! You are kidding are you not?
Hypocrisy and close mindedness is the exclusive "qualities" of all religions.
I just answered in the thread, re "the universe being made for intelligent life"
"No to the question in the OP heading. Probably intuitively it may seem that way as the universe appears finely tuned for life. But the facts are, if it wasn't that way, we would not be here. see.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
If some still think that some intelligence was necessary, or a deity as you suggest, Carl Sagan puts it rather succulently ......

And of course although still rather speculatively, how we came to be, that is the universe/space/time, planets, stars, us, from what we would call nothing is explained here
https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

In essence then a deity or some all powerful deity not only seems beyond logic but also superfluous.
The Darwinian theory of evolution is really beyond doubt, and Abiogenesis, is really the only scientific answer available for how life came to be. Chemistry and chemical reactions are the obvious answer.

The BB is a powerful and well supported theory of the evolution of space/time/universe, and while only being a limited theory in that it does not tell us the how and why, and only goes back as far as t+10-43 seconds, will in all likelyhood be encompassed by any future validated QGT, whether that be an infinite universe or a type of cyclic one...It has that much going for it".

What question needs to be asked now, is that this is a science section, and any ID is a non scientific explanation.

 

[exchemist]

Pot, kettle, Black! You are kidding are you not?
Hypocrisy and close mindedness is the exclusive "qualities" of all religions.
.

This is quite untrue, Paddo. Hypocrisy and closed-mindedness can occur in any human activity, including science. Religion has no monopoly on them, nor are they necessarily intrinsic to religion.

Where I obviously agree with you is that it is neither closed-minded nor hypocritical to exclude ID from science, for the reasons I have outlined in this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

This is quite untrue, Paddo. Hypocrisy and closed-mindedness can occur in any human activity, including science. Religion has no monopoly on them, nor are they necessarily intrinsic to religion.

Half right, it certainly is not exclusive to religion, agreed, but evidence certainly shows it is intrinsic to religion.

 

[exchemist]

Half right, it certainly is not exclusive to religion, agreed, but evidence certainly shows it is intrinsic to religion.

Intrinsic would mean more than simply that it can be found in some - or even most - religious people. It would need to be in all, or else built into religious doctrines in demonstrable, e.g. documentary form. I think you will have trouble showing that. I have come across plenty of open-minded and not apparently hypocritical religious people, including clergymen.

 

[paddoboy]

Intrinsic would mean more than simply that it can be found in some - or even most - religious people. I think you will have trouble demonstrating that.

I'm speaking of religion per se, not religious people particularly:

 

[exchemist]

Would you mind posting this again, as the formatting has gone wrong, making it hard to distinguish your words from mine?

 

[Michael 345]

Hypocrisy and closed-mindedness can occur in any human activity, including science.

Agree

Religion has no monopoly on them, nor are they necessarily intrinsic to religion.

While not a monopoly certainly the lion's share
I would go with hypocrisy fitting into religion intrinsically like a debit card fits into a ATM - made for each other

I'm speaking of religion per se, not religious people particularly:

So am I - (but a lot of the people fit the mould shhhh)

 

[paddoboy]

While not a monopoly certainly the lion's share
I would go with hypocrisy fitting into religion intrinsically like a debit card fits into a ATM - made for each other

Or a hand in a glove, or GR with the BB, or Donald and Daisy duck, or Trump and irrationality, or a fish in water.......

So am I - (but a lot of the people fit the mould shhhh)

I'm pretty sure that was obvious.