NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

Discuss supernatural, creation, the origin of life,

There is an item of Naturalism (philosophy) on Wikipedia, see —
Naturalism - Wikipedia(philosophy)
It describes naturalism as following: naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that:
1. Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time;
2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance — mass-energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle can be explained and understood by science and philosophy;
4. The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real.
See - Schafersman, SD., 1996. Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science. Retrieved from Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyTo make things simpler, I rewrite what naturalism stands for:
1. Nature consists only of spatiotemporal physical substance — mass-energy;
2. Non-physical or quasi-physical substances, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emerging phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Nature operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.Now, let us focus on biology by making changes in the above statement:
- Replace nature with life, which is part of nature;
- According to Einstein's formula, mass and energy can transfer to each other, substitute spatiotemporal physical substance — mass-energy by matter;
- Summarize Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena as information.
Therefore, Darwinian-Naturalism can be described as —
1. Life consists only of matter;
2. Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Life operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.The first point that life consists only of matter is the fundamental premise of Darwinian-Naturalism. The second point explains that the information contained in life does not need to be considered, because information is either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account, so life consists only of matter. The third point that life operates by the laws of physics is a direct inference of the first point that life consists only of matter. This leads directly to the fourth point, that is, there is no supernatural power, no God.Obviously, the first point - life consists only of matter — is the premise or theoretical foundation of Darwinian-Naturalism. Its correctness determines the correctness of Darwinian-Naturalism.The question is that is it correct?

quote:

---

DN is not a fiction I invented. DN is a very authoritative reality. DN strictly controls science and education. Can one teach creationism in classrooms of public schools? Can one publish creationism papers on scientific journals?

---

Again we come back to methodological naturalism - or certainly a closely related point. What you are arguing against is not the idea that whatever you call creationism is false but the idea that it is not science.

None of which is relevant to the central point that you are labelling people as accepting DN even if they do not accept the supposed primary axiom of DN. Without any reason, it seems, other than to maintain your equation of DN with mainstream evolutionary theory.

That's a political issue, not a scientific one. You can't teach creationism in an American school because it's religion, not science. In Canada, we're not quite as explicit. You could probably teach creationism in a Canadian school but we don't because it's rubbish. There's no "science" demon stopping us.

This is a non sequitur. There is no connection between your claims about naturalism an there being no god. Obviously there could be a god that created the entire shebang. Of course not, it's not even a consideration; it's an irrelevance. A straw man. Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

In each of several legal cases creationism has been found to be religion, and may not be taught in public schools. Yes, if it meets the published standards of the journal and passes peer review.

Nope. You're a pretty slow learner.

No it isn't. The point that life (the universe and everything) consists only of matter (the Standard Model of Elementary Particles) is not the fundamental premise but is *a* premise based on observation. The only viable definition of information in any physical sense are the quantum numbers of the various standard model particles present in any specific physical object or system of objects.Dick and Jane going up the hill admiring the pretty colors on their bucket containing 5 red marbles and 3 blue marbles as told in your third grade reader is not information and is of no consequence to any model of the universe. Again, this is an observation, not any type of inference from some other source.It moves because a force was applied is an observation not some inference assumed based upon an object's material make up. While I agree with the conclusion that the supernatural is bumpkis hokum delusion, "Naturalism" ascribes to no such conclusion.For now supernatural/gods are ignored by "Naturalism" not because of some artificially conjectured philosophical restriction but because there is no evidentiary reason they be considered.So what you have left for a definition is that "Naturalism" is the result of the observation that life, the universe and everything is made of natural materials and acts in natural ways.Notice no need to mention anything else in that definition. So naturalism (Darwinian or any other kind) is the observation that life, the universe and everything is made of natural stuff moving and reacting in natural ways.Do you have any observations to the contrary?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

It's not a premise.
It's a tentatively held conclusion. This is true.
And if further information shows it's incorrect, Science will move along to "Super-Duper-Naturalism" that then explains all the available information.
Except, of course, Science is better at thinking up names than I am... This is also true.
Of course, this is also true for every Science fact that exists.
True for Gravity.
True for Conservation of Momentum.
True for Chemical Reactions.
True for Stellar Formation.Science is always questioning if any/all of it's "facts" are correct or not.This is the strength of Science, not a weakness.
If a previously-understood-as-true "fact" turns out to be incorrect: Science discovers this very quickly, identifies the issue, and the updates into a new "fact" that incorporates all the available information.Are you sure you understand Science at all?
These are the basic fundamentals of Science taught in high-school (although I do admit - most high-schoolers don't understand these concepts and think that Science creates "facts" - a naive, immature understanding of what Science is.)

Let me help you out. I usually greet new people with some posting tips, but I'm not posting from my usual computer and had to dig them up: Can be writtenLater, [msg=14] (ringo) raised the similar issue. I replied in [msg=18] to [msg=14] (ringo), but I should reply to both yours [msg=11] (RAZD) & [msg=14] (ringo).So you may find the tips on other formatting tips see Posting Tips and a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer helpful.Enjoy

Reply to Message 18: You still have it backwards.It's not an a priori belief.Science doesn't start with a belief, it starts with observations, then it develops theories to explain those observations, using known processes. To be science these theories must be testable, and that means we need to be able to discern cause and effect, and be able to repeat them. That limits us to natural processes.Not having any means known to test metaphysical or supernatural processes, we are left with testing what we can with natural processes. In other words we are limited to the natural world and natural processes because we don't have any known tools to consistently test metaphysical or supernatural processes, and it is only when/if such tools become available that testing can include metaphysical or supernatural processes.Again, it's not an a priori belief, it's a result of our limited ability to test the theories with natural processes.Enjoy

Sorry, Stile, I should reply you earlier.You call life consists only of matter a tentatively held conclusion.
JonF calls it a strong conclusion.
Tangle calls it The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise.
AZPaul3 calls it *a* premise based on observation.
This is the most important conclusion of DN. In addition, you can emphasize that this is a conclusion based on evidence.For me, I call it premise and I question its correctness. We will discuss the issue soon, which is the core in our discussion.At present, the most important thing is that we all recognize that life consists only of matter directly leads to only natural laws operate in biological processes.

I'll try it later on. Have a nice weekend.

Start from the end of my post 32: DN can be described as
1. Life consists only of matter;
2. Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Life operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.In fact, the second point is the key. If the second point is correct, that is, it does not need to account information in investigating biological processes, the first point Life consists only of matter holds, which directly leads to the third point Life operates by the laws of physics and the last point No supernatural power, no God. — 36(Tangle): the last point is for explaining the natural phenomena.But what is the reason for Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account? Please search online, can you find any explanation for this assertion? No. You can’t find it because there is no such reason, it’s wrong.No matter what we call Life consists only of matter as conclusion or premise, we all admit that Life consists only of matter directly leads to only natural laws operate in biological processes. So, I’m going to open a new topic tomorrow. You can still submit posts here, but I may not reply if they don’t contain new ideas or facts, or if they present topics that we’ll discuss later. If there are still some important issues I haven’t replied yet, I’m sorry. At the same time, I like to get your understanding.Thanks again to the Forum Administrators and all participants on this topic. And let’s go ahead together to continue our journey of pursuing truth.