Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

No it isn't.

So prove it wrong. Show me one instance of a supernatural process.

This discussion has nothing to do with politics. And you have revealed the source of your bias. Call upon your savior Peltzer to give you a pseudo-scientific cover for your ignorance and hatred of the left.

There is no such thing.

So the whole theory is a mask for ignorance? Basically it's magic, don't look for a cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that Bertrand Russell once suggested the possibility that the universe came into being just a second ago, complete with no end of "physical evidences" of a past that never happened and ourselves full of "memories" of the same thing. So I'm not convinced that science could demolish the claim that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. The best it could do is argue that the young-Earth hypothesis is inconsistent with the physical evidence.

I guess that abstractly, that's another version of the same global-skeptical problem that is illustrated by 'brains in vats', Descartes' evil demon or by the many 'we might be dreaming' conjectures dating back to the ancient skeptics. We are used to thinking about the possibility that we might be wrong about particular things, but what about the possibility that we are wrong about everything? I'm not convinced that science conducted by the 'brains in vats' inhabitants of the 'Matrix' would ever detect the nature of their existence.

If the supernatural realities are what generates the hypothetical 'Matrix', then they may continually be very busy. In other words, if 'God' is hypothetically the ultimate ontological ground and creative source of being itself as many theologies suggest, it needn't imply any violations of the order of nature observed by the inhabitants of that reality. God's "laws" may indeed seem absolute and inviolable to them. We might have a 'deist-style' reality in which reality issues from a higher source and then operates according to an order of nature determined by that source.

I think that there might be another difficulty as well. Suppose that some hypothetical supernatural reality is responsible for sporadic violations of the natural order observed here in the physical reality of our experience. (Miracles.) Would science even be able to recognize those violations?

Scientific observers would just observe what would appear to them to be a temporarily-inexplicable causal anomaly. Applying their methodological naturalism, they would go looking for a natural explanation and would start generating naturalistic hypotheses, even though ex-hypothesi the particular anomaly in question had a supernatural origin. Science might concoct a (false) speculative explanation for the event or it might continue to consider its explanation unknown, but I don't anticipate it ever concluding that the explanation was supernatural. That's just not something that science does. (Methodological naturalism, again.) I think that these remarks might have some relevance to some of the issues in the 'fringe' fora.

True. My point was merely to contradict the common atheist assertion that "there is no evidence for the truth of religion". My suggestion was that the experiences of contemplatives in many traditions contradict that. Atheists can't just dismiss religious experience without a lot more argument than most of them seem willing to devote to it.

My use of mathematics as an illustration was purposeful. I was pointing to non-physical realities (the abstract objects that mathematics addresses) that don't fit comfortably within physics' inventory of reality, yet seem to have objective reality. (Mathematicians discover the properties of groups and rings, and their mathematical proofs are supposed to be valid for any rational being.) So here we have non-physical realities known by non-sensory intuitive means, discerned by the "mind's-eye" of our reasoning faculties.

The analogy to what the religious contemplatives say they are doing should be obvious. Buddhist monks believe that their meditation practices lead all of them towards the same objective result and that this can be (it must be) verified in experience. That's the whole point of the practices.

Exactly. They need to though, if they want to indulge in the kind of rhetoric that the "new atheists" do, setting up 'science' as the paradigm of 'reason' in opposition to 'religion', caricatured as the paradigm of 'unreason'. They need to if they want to present themselves to laymen as society's ultimate authorities on what kind of unfamiliar realities may or may not exist in addition to the physical realm of sensory experience that the natural sciences concern themselves with. It's why scientists seem to me to be sadly out of their depth when they try to play metaphysician.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't dismiss religious experience, in fact it studies it. What it does dismiss is these experiences being able to determine that the physical universe came to be through a supernatural process. Supernatural is the same thing as meaning, "there can be no evidence". That without evidence need not be believed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why wouldn't I rehash the fact that he has been classed as just another creationist loony, albeit an educated one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course in my opinion, a many times more respectable position to take, rather then siding with the creationist loony simply, to gain some notoriety from being in an innocuous position for so long:
And of course the fact that ID is a non scientific, short circuiting cop out.

It seems that as your imagination is running wild, you may like to just consider the fact, that I prefer to go along with the scientific methodology, and scientific evidence, rather then accepting any fixed categorised position that I am an Atheist, Agnostic or believer...
Again far more intelligent position to hold then the position of bluster and rhetoric, expressing so much arrogant certainty in making outrageous claims issuing many challenges based on said outrageous claims, while ignoring the pertinent facts.
Abiogenesis, by whatever means, is in reality the only scientific answer to how life started. Invoking ID by its very nature is unscientific and a cop out.
Denying that simply because we are as yet unable to pin point the means of Abiogenesis, smells of the old "god of the gaps" cop out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To re-create the scenario that brought about Abiogenisis, the time frame, and whether it actually occurred elsewhere off the Earth, is akin to finding a needle in a haystack, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and accept some view from a creationist who needs to gain notoriety, by suggesting/insinuating a god of the gaps: A closet creationist more then likely would be the agenda.

 

I understand Peltzer has done some important work on climate change, but he seems ideologically shackled when it comes to ID.

 

Ain't that a fact!
Let me say again, To re-create the scenario that brought about Abiogenisis, the time frame, and whether it actually occurred elsewhere off the Earth, is akin to finding a needle in a haystack, but just give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play and experiment, and they might do just as well as nature once did!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or as someone put it, "that, given sufficient time and opportunity the unlikely becomes likely"

 

Sorry Michael, but none of those conditions count as different ways. Different ways, as generally understood, refers to different hypothetical chemical pathways for build-up of useful peptide chains and then on. Different environments, which you sort of listed, will be preferred by various such pathways, but the two concepts are distinct.

Great. That makes at least two of us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I wrote before, once you show the odds of any conceivable realistic natural process are fapp zero, you either carry on with that hypothesis regardless out of sheer ideological commitment, or conclude there is strong circumstantial evidence favouring an unseen intelligence(s) at work.

See above. A designer designs, doesn't throw dice all day hoping. If the designer is good enough, the job, no matter how complex, gets done!

The same error certain other posters have fallen into. Once you accept that chemistry is universal, it's down to to the odds in any realistic natural environment. Those odds of passing the very first hurdle are fapp zero in any trillions of Goldilocks-zone Earth II's you may want to conjure up.

 

You wish to persist with that approach - your choice.

Peltzer is NOT my saviour, and stupid tactic to make such a baseless assertion. But thanks for confirming you are strongly to the left.

In your hugely biased mind perhaps.

That's it. Keep misrepresenting to create straw-man caricatures. Feels good to knock em down, huh?

 

Why not? a legitimate approach, and a reasonable request.

As in yours.
As per most creationist arguments, no source of data or knowledge will ever be accepted or considered, merely ignored and/or written off as superfluous.
Also as with many other alternative claims made on this forum and others, or highlighted, they will not be properly reviewed or opinionated on any science forum, open to all types cranks and quacks of the creationist, god bothering type.
Plus of course this thread is primarally with regards to the comparisons between Sagan and Dawkin's and their differing styles, both by the way would ride roughshod over Peltzer and his creationists friends.

 

"You wish to persist with that approach - your choice."
The underpinning of my atheism is that there is no reliable evidence of God.

"But thanks for confirming you are strongly to the left."
I actually didn't do that.

"In your hugely biased mind perhaps."
ID is based on religion, this has been determined by a court of law. Which is why you can't teach it in public school.

"As I wrote before, once you show the odds of any conceivable realistic natural process are fapp zero, you either carry on with that hypothesis regardless out of sheer ideological commitment, or conclude there is strong circumstantial evidence favouring an unseen intelligence(s) at work."
You can't show the odds of a natural process are zero. This is a common ID fallacy. They look at modern life forms and conclude that the first life form must be at least that complex. This is not the case. The first replicators didn't even need a cell membrane, they were just organic molecules that could replicate with some form of metabolism. All those complex proteins could come later. And besides, evolution is a mechanism that transcends mere chance.

 

Thanks for YOU confirming your status as hypocrite - I refer back to your Bingo!!! of #87. Above is pure atheist mode - maybe you just can't see that. Go learn what a genuine agnostic believes and ask yourself how a genuine agnostic would react. You are either hopelessly confused as to what you really are, or more likely too careless and incompetent at playing the ace opportunist game. If you want to be a chameleon at least try and be sakillful at it.

 

And political pressure plays no role in such determinations? I guess you are familiar with a fellow tribesman - David Berlinski? He would strongly disagree with you, and give good reasons why. Reasons I would very likely agree with.

You missed out on the fapp I inserted purposefully. Of course it's always possible to concoct a scenario where an infinite number of chance events will lead to essentially anything. Which doesn't impress someone trying to get real odds for the real world case.

Who are 'they'. Obviously not Peltzer, or any number of other competent ID researchers I could name. Another straw-man.

You seem to speak with certainty about things for which there is zero actual evidence. So you have Faith that Nature found a way. Great.

 

"And political pressure plays no role in such determinations? "
The political fact of separation between church and state.

"Which doesn't impress someone trying to get real odds for the real world case."
Which you can't calculate since we don't know what really happened.

"Who are 'they'."
You, who conclude that there is zero probability of a natural cause of life.

"You seem to speak with certainty about things for which there is zero actual evidence. "
I'm speaking theoretically. The first replicators would not have to have been very complex.

 

What you confirm in your eyes, is well known and evidenced in many of your threads.
You are of course entitled to believe what you will.
Again what I said, was "It seems that as your imagination is running wild, you may like to just consider the fact, that I prefer to go along with "the scientific methodology, and scientific evidence, rather then accepting any fixed categorised position that I am an Atheist, Agnostic or believer"
My own thoughts and what in my eyes you have confirmed, is that you appear to be a creationist, and that's not just based on this thread, but similar stances taken elsewhere, that are similar to the stances taken by god botherers and the like.
Whether you are careless, incompetent or hopelessly confused, I'll leave for others to judge.
Now would you like to get back on subject and discuss the comparable talents of Dawkins and Sagan, instead of raising this hero of yours Peltzer who some put in the loony bin and is off topic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Different environments, which you sort of listed, will be preferred by various such pathways, but the two concepts are distinct."

So different environments in my list leads to different ways .. preferred by various pathways.... So we got there.

(I'm not going to cut and paste any more. It's to taxing on my 5.5 phone and I didn't pack my IBM Deep Blue for holiday. Take it as a given I will try to answer point by point in same sequence you raised the point)

I accept the laws of the universe are universal including chemistry.

My point is that while on earth chemist are conducting experiments A B C to create early earth conditions and life forms.

When earth itself was doing the experiments A B C the other planets out there were not duplicating earth. They were off doing D E X.

What about odds of process I have not conceived of? More things in heaven and earth blah blah.

And surely no researcher repeats a dud experiment. (That way lies madness).

Tweek the conditions, repeat, fail, tweek the conditions, repeat, fail, tweek the conditions, repeat, SUCCESS.

Look everybody I designed my experiments and produced life.

I AM THE DESIGNER

The job got done despite it being so complex.

 

That's about the best that can be said for what our creationist friend Peltzer has inferred.
He obviously has ignored all other situations and facts and then arrived at his predicted conclusion, that his "research" has invalidated abiogenisis, and hinted at ID, and the supernatural, without considering the Universe as a whole and the many times different aspects of Abiogenisis [the only scientific explanation for life] may have occurred in this big wide wonderful Cosmos/Universe.
That's what I call scientific! [tic mode on of course

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
Science is the study of "Natural Phenomena"
Creationism and Intelligent design belong in church and theology classes, not biology and human evolution/abiogenisis classes.

 

Nice one. See my final comment below.

Extremely low. So exceedingly low, just based on key issues presented in the very first hurdle, ID becomes the rational choice.

Because you say so? Prove it. But you can't. No natural abiogenesis advocate has ever preferred a viable contender. What is the dividing line between complex and 'not very complex'? And, I refer back to your own words in red above.

 

All your derisory 'god-botherer' and similar rhetoric is straight atheist, contradicting your Bingo!!! ref. in #89 (to correct a typo in #151). Have the guts to take a clear position as atheist. It may destroy any chameleon persona, but there are benefits to come down from the fence.

So carelessly apply vague, loose category associations, and you make me out to be 'a god botherer' (Whatever that term means in your confused head)? Based on what 'similar stances elsewhere'?

 

Environments can obviously be more or less hostile to certain pathways. But the pathway itself has to make sense regardless of any natural environment.

Can't help you there Michael.

Hmm...so I take it you are there opting for The Blind Watchmaker, despite approving of Peltzer's critique? Dawkins and Co will approve. And the great paddoboy's 'I like' says he does too!

 

And your own rhetoric is straight out creationist/god bothering nonsense.
I've stated my position and I stand by it, despite your usual confident, hypothetical suggesting otherwise.

No confusion at all: I'm making nothing more then suggestions based on this and past evidence of your threads and posts, that aligns with god bothering methodology:
If the cap fits wear it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Totally wrong. Abiogenisis [whatever type] is the only scientific reasoning for life. ID is a non scientific hypothetical, mythical cop out.

See previous reply.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And really, the search of proof re scientific theory is totally inapplicable : You should know that.

Science is the study of "Natural Phenomena" and Abiogensis is the only scientific possibility that explains life.
Creationism and Intelligent design belong in church and theology classes, not biology and human evolution/abiogenisis classes.