3 Academic Professors get Evolution Completely Wrong.

Your position in this post is utterly without evidence.  If you are referring to my Christian beliefs, they didn't kick in until my 30s whereas my "position" as stated in my post (and I'm not sure it can be called a position - more like a strong suspicion) is a result of personal thinking, finding evidence and asking questions that began to occur during my teens - long before I became a christian or developed any "spiritual" beliefs at all.  All through my life I have found myself at odds with the consensus in everything I have been into because of my constant questioning and asking in vain for proof of the consensus position on things.  I have been denied full membership of churches because I do not believe in hell - when I was a new-ager, I debated many things with people who refused to see truth because they had an emotional preference for "paranormal" explanations - I was kicked out of art college because I couldn't see the point of the arty tripe they were trying to brainwash me with etc, etc, etc.  I arrive at my beliefs and suspicions because of thinking, unlike evolutionists who in their eagerness to do away with an inconvenient God, happily join the dots of evidence with much speculation and wishful thinking and the internet skeptics among them, like yourself, cannot tell the difference between what science can prove and what people, who also happen to be scientists, speculate among themselves.  

Scimandan is proof of how objective I try to be.  Somebody who I respect very highly and enjoy his shows has some flaws, one of which I have pointed out only because he defeats his own position with his own argument in this particular case.

What science shows us is that material stuff behaves largely in the way material stuff can be expected to behave. What the history of science teaches us is that science can and very often does draw wrong conclusions about even the physical stuff it can analyse.  What an intelligent mind teaches us is that there is more to life than physical stuff.

Your position in this post is utterly without evidence. What an intelligent mind teaches us is that there is more to life than physical stuff.

I've heard these complaints and declarations many times and have never seen evidences that utterly refute and confirm.  Even if such evidences is found that would not change there is a classical world anymore than quantum mechanics refutes a classical world. From your replying I hit the mark.

 The only assumption I made is you start with a belief like many others and work backwards to find supporting evidence. What I never understand is the reason(s) persons reject evidence(s) when they say they are looking for the truth.

I've heard these complaints and declarations many times and have never seen evidences that utterly refute and confirm.  Even if such evidences is found that would not change there is a classical world anymore than quantum mechanics refutes a classical world. From your replying I hit the mark.

 The only assumption I made is you start with a belief like many others and work backwards to find supporting evidence. What I never understand is the reason(s) persons reject evidence(s) when they say they are looking for the truth.

Sorry, but I still don't understand what "demonstrated fact" you think Brian is dismissing.

Are you saying it's a demonstrated fact that there is no more to life than physical stuff?

I'm leaving this thread alone now.  When I started posting here, I tried to be as open, honest and friendly as possible but I was shot down with accusations for no reason at all.  I will certainly look into the presented evidence at a later date but just now I'm tired and I need some emotionally positive input.

What science shows us is that material stuff behaves largely in the way material stuff can be expected to behave.

I realize you've left the thread, but this fascinates me. Science actually shows us that material stuff behaves dramatically different from the way material would be expected to behave. It demonstrates very nicely that science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions (for anyone who is interested in breaking the "that's just your interpretation" symmetry).

I realize you've left the thread, but this fascinates me. Science actually shows us that material stuff behaves dramatically different from the way material would be expected to behave. It demonstrates very nicely that science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions (for anyone who is interested in breaking the "that's just your interpretation" symmetry).

Interesting statement.  What do you mean by "science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions"  I know science operates this way, but what about reality?  Is that not open to dispute?  I try not to make metaphysical presumptions if you haven't already noticed, (my christian faith is no presumption, believe me - but then it wasn't me who brought up the subject)  Is it not a presumption to imply that giving credence to anything outside of material reality is woo, which, let's face it, is the only reason you internet skeptics are here on Psience Quest.  You don't have any genuine interest in anything beyond maliciously trying (and failing miserably) to make us look stupid.  "Science works without it" is the only "argument" you have but then science doesn't generally take a serious interest in why people like me and others on this forum have the crazy experiences we have and there is a noticable absence of internet "skeptics" giving their "scientific"opinions in threads about people's personal experiences.  Why not try to explain some of those "scientifically" (That is, if you actually know anything about science) I would be more than happy for you to start with my own experiences in that forum.  Go on - feel free.  I like a good laugh!   BTW, why did  you post this after believing I had left the thread?  Did you not want me to defend myself?

EDIT:  I have started a thread here: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-d...experience

... and there is a noticable absence of internet "skeptics" giving their "scientific"opinions in threads about people's personal experiences.  Why not try to explain some of those "scientifically" (That is, if you actually know anything about science) I would be more than happy for you to start with my own experiences in that forum.  ...

Though you are making this invitation on your own behalf, and that is fine, I'm not sure that in general we should consider personal experiences a free-for-all where anything goes. From my perspective, honouring and respecting one another in that context takes precedence. Certainly among members of this forum I'd hope we can respect those who take a risk by sharing personal details.

Though you are making this invitation on your own behalf, and that is fine, I'm not sure that in general we should consider personal experiences a free-for-all where anything goes. From my perspective, honouring and respecting one another in that context takes precedence. Certainly among members of this forum I'd hope we can respect those who take a risk by sharing personal details.

I have started a thread specifically to keep the debunking limited to those who volunteer information.

Interesting statement.  What do you mean by "science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions"  I know science operates this way, but what about reality?  Is that not open to dispute?  I try not to make metaphysical presumptions if you haven't already noticed, (my christian faith is no presumption, believe me - but then it wasn't me who brought up the subject)  Is it not a presumption to imply that giving credence to anything outside of material reality is woo, which, let's face it, is the only reason you internet skeptics are here on Psience Quest.  You don't have any genuine interest in anything beyond maliciously trying (and failing miserably) to make us look stupid.  "Science works without it" is the only "argument" you have but then science doesn't generally take a serious interest in why people like me and others on this forum have the crazy experiences we have and there is a noticable absence of internet "skeptics" giving their "scientific"opinions in threads about people's personal experiences.  Why not try to explain some of those "scientifically" (That is, if you actually know anything about science) I would be more than happy for you to start with my own experiences in that forum.  Go on - feel free.  I like a good laugh!   BTW, why did  you post this after believing I had left the thread?  Did you not want me to defend myself?

EDIT:  I have started a thread here: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-d...experience

I had no idea or concern which religious faith you adhere to. Nor is this about woo beliefs. It's not even about the genettic research done. It never was. What this thread is about is how individuals ignore facts that don't fit their particular metaphysics. For an extreme example so it's clear what I mean consider Flat Earthers. There are many demonstrable facts that the Earth is not yet they refuse to acknowledge those facts because of their favorite metaphysic says otherwise according to them. You have done the same.

Interesting statement.  What do you mean by "science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions"  I know science operates this way, but what about reality?  Is that not open to dispute?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. My statement was meant to be of interest to those people who ask, "what does evidence (in the scientific sense) show us about the nature of reality?", rather than those who ask whether the evidence supports a specific perception of the nature of reality. I realize that we all have a variety of perspectives, so my statement wouldn't be of interest to everyone.

Is it not a presumption to imply that giving credence to anything outside of material reality is woo, which, let's face it, is the only reason you internet skeptics are here on Psience Quest.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. That has nothing to do with why I'm here. I'm here because I an interested in and experience odd things. And because of my background in science, evidence-based medicine, biostatistics and research methods, I approach these experiences as a scientist, and look at ways to investigate what they can tell us about the nature of reality.

BTW, why did  you post this after believing I had left the thread?  Did you not want me to defend myself?

Because, as I said, I am fascinated by methodological naturalism and how it allows us to find out about nature of reality without the necessity of making presumptions a priori. It was only meant to be of interest to those of a similar bent, and wasn't specifically directed at you (other than, I didn't think your statement was a good description of what science has discovered about matter).

Linda

Interesting statement.  What do you mean by "science essentially operates in the absence of metaphysical presumptions"  

I've been avoiding posting for a couple of months and the reason for that is probably summed up in this thread and that statement being typical of the pointlessness of debate here. Taken at face value, that statement negates just about all of the debate that has taken place here because most of the argument here is challenging precisely those metaphysical presumptions. Honestly, I read something like that and think: what's the point?

Just to add some meat to the bare bones of a response (though it will, no doubt, be ignored or hand-waved away), here are a few examples of what frustrates me about that statement. A thread was started here some time ago about the Galileo Commission which is an attempt by some scholars, philosophers and scientists to move beyond those very assumptions/presumptions. Here is a summary of that argument from their web page.

Summary of Argument


Galileo Commission Report

• No human intellectual activity, including science, can escape the fact that it has to make assumptions that cannot be proven using its own methodology (i.e. absolute presuppositions).
  
• The prevalent underlying assumptions, or world model, of the majority of modern scientists are narrowly naturalist in metaphysics, materialist in ontology and reductionist-empiricist in methodology.
  
• This results in the belief that consciousness is nothing but a consequence of complex arrangement of matter, or an emergent phenomenon of brain activity.
  
• This belief is neither proven, nor warranted.
  

In fact, there are well documented empirical phenomena that contradict this belief. Among them are ... [it goes on to list many of the subjects and evidence we discuss here]

We here might take issue with some of the findings of the Galileo Commission Report (and those concerns are expressed in the above-linked thread) but I would have thought that the above summary could be agreed upon by most of us. Skeptics, on the other hand, might argue that the above argument comes from the "usual suspects" - spiritually inclined people who don't do science. I'd recommend anyone who believes that to check out the many advisors who include working scientists and at least one Nobel Prize (physics) winner. Nevertheless, the same point about materialist assumptions has been made by somewhat less spiritually-inclined commentators. Here, John Horgan (an atheist) writes about the ideas of Thomas Nagel (another atheist), both confirming the point about materialist assumptions.

Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Some scholars, notably philosopher Thomas Nagel, are so unimpressed with science that they are challenging its fundamental assumptions. In his new book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, Nagel contends that current scientific theories and methods can't account for the emergence of life in general and one bipedal, big-brained species in particular. To solve these problems, Nagel asserts, science needs "a major conceptual revolution," as radical as those precipitated by heliocentrism, evolution and relativity.

Finally, I'll add a quote from an article on The Secular Web - definitely NOT spiritually inclined - arguing that naturalism (including Methodological Naturalism) excludes the supernatural a priori.

Methodological naturalism does exclude the supernatural as an explanatory principle because it is unknowable by means of scientific inquiry, whereas philosophical naturalism, both by definition and because of the methodological and epistemological inaccessibility of the supernatural, excludes the latter from its ontological scheme. Even though there are some variations among naturalists, the following statements by Sidney Hook are not likely to be contested:

"Scientific method is the refinement of the canons of rationality and intelligibility exhibited by the techniques of behavior and habits of inference involved in the arts and crafts of men; ... the systematization of what is involved in the scientific method of inquiry is what we mean by [methodological] naturalism, and the characteristic doctrines of [philosophical] naturalism like the denial of disembodied spirits generalize the cumulative evidence won by the use of this method..."