Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

Hmmm. What if we don't agree with Chesterton, and don't think that his point of view is a "fact." Just repeating the quote won't help. We come upon the key issue again: many people don't believe that what you call "proper knowledge" of the nature of the universe is attainable, nor that some outside source and cause of the universe is what justifies and upholds it. In this case, the inductive evidence that things happen with regularity is sufficient - the question of whether there is some metaphysical necessity for that is not particularly important.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky, ----"The accusation that the biological establishment ruthlessly suppresses dissenting opinion is political complaint not a scientific criticism. It is belied by the example of how the theory of punctuated equilibria won acceptance and the continuing vigorous debates between the various contending factions within evolution." No it isn't belied by factions "within" evolution. If it were to be belied, it would be belied by folks "without" evolution. ----"As for an rational and ordered Universe, it is not an assumption, it is an observation. We do not assume things fall to the ground unless something holds them up, we know it - as much as we know anything - because that is what we see all around us. It has happened all our lives and at least as far back as recorded history goes. If the Universe were not rational and ordered not only would science not be possible but neither would the Universe. That order calls for explanation. Methodological naturalism assumes there is an explanation but makes no assumption about it beyond that such an explanation exists." "Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales. The man of science says, "Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall"; but he says it calmly, as if the one idea really led up to the other...But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As IDEAS, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the "Laws of Nature." When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a "law," for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, "law," "necessity," "order," "tendency," and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, "charm," "spell," "enchantment." They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about "a law" that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist. He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations. He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together." ~G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy. It doesn't matter one whit that these weird repetitions continue to occur. We do not know that they exist in any way as a necessity. It is an assumption that the universe is rational, for if it were anything less than an assumption, it would be a proper knowledge of these weird repetitions. But we don't have proper knowledge. We should be able to demonstrate proper knowledge of it in the way we can with laws of reason and logic. But we cannot. We assume it. I'm going to continue quoting Chesterton until this fact sinks-in.Clive Hayden_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-San: Order and organisation are significantly different. From The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1984 [the first technical design theory book], ch 8:
"a periodic structure has order. An aperiodic structure has complexity." . . . . "Nucleic acids and protein are aperiodic polymers, and this aperiodicity is what makes them able to carry much more information." . . . . "only certain sequences of amino acids in polypeptides and bases along polynucleotide chains correspond to useful biological functions." . . . . [Citing Orgel, 1973:] Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.6 [Source: L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.]
They then gave an example: >>1. [Class 1:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, or a crystal . . . . 2. [Class 2:] A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers (polypeptides). 3. [Class 3:] A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein.>> Hurricanes, columnar jointed basalt, etc are orderly and are driven by various constraints, energy flow throughs and boundary conditions, they do not store the kind of high information functionally specific, dynamically inert, logical switch-/ decision node- bearing aperiodicity that functional sequence complexity requires. Maybe, my notes here will be helpful (from Appendix 3, my always linked). GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

SB@291 ThnxUpright BiPed_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, Not to delay a pleasant end to the thread, but your confusion of order, purpose and evolutionary process is atypical of your usual careful thinking. You said you gave two quotes but only gave one, repeated. Hexagonal cracks in the mud are orderly, as are snowflakes. Energy minimization effects often are. These effects are not governed by the evolutionary process of your quotation of Simpson. Order is a static description, 1-entropy. No purpose involved. I'm happy to let the thread die on a difference of definitions also. I accept that there are multiple definitions to a word. None of them is privileged.Nakashima_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Ergo, this thread is now over. See you all later...Allen_MacNeill_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

---Hazel: "So back to the main point: people of all philosophical and religious perspectives accept MN as a well-established guideline for doing science because it has worked." Not if you define it the way that is adherents want to enforce it: "investigating nature as if nature is all there is." That definition has been used many times by many evolutionary scientists. To define it accuractely is to immediately realize that it has not always been so, especially during the middle ages and thereafter until at least the neo-Darwinism era. That is why folks on this thread are now changing the definition to something softer, something that even ID would qualify for. Since you don't acknowledge that point, we are, as they say, stuck on defintions.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Whoa - what a mess is 298. Let me try again.
If something is ordered, it is ordered for a purpose.
Nope, not necessarily, but we have argued this enough, I think. For the purposes of this discussion, it is in fact true that virtually everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - believes that the material world is orderly and that through empirical investigation we can learn things about the material world that everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - accepts as true (in the sense that word is used in science.) So back to the main point: people of all philosophical and religious perspectives accept MN as a well-established guideline for doing science because it has worked. However, if someone wants to offer a non-material explanation that can in fact be tested in reference to empirical observations, let them do it. Complaining that there is a rule against doing so is not persuasive, because if such a testable hypothesis were actually offered and confirmed then people’s minds would change. Conversely, the reason that hypotheses that want to explain the material by the non-material are not adopted is because they are not convincing because they can’t be tested, not because of some rule. Focussing on the purported existence of some rigid rule is a distraction from the fact that hypotheses that fall outside the scope of MN fail to be useful - they are neither testable nor lead to further productive investigation.hazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

If something is ordered, it is ordered for a purpose.
Nope, not necessarily, but we have argued this enough, I think. For the purposes of this discussion, it is in fact true that virtually everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - believes that the material world is orderly and that through empirical investigation we can learn things about the material world that everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - accepts as true (in the sense that word is used in science.) So back to the main point: people of all philosophical and religious perspectives accept MN as a well-established guideline for doing science because it has worked. However, if someone wants to offer a non-material e
If something is ordered, it is ordered for a purpose.
Nope, not necessarily, but we have argued this enough, I think. For the purposes of this discussion, it is in fact true that virtually everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - believes that the material world is orderly and that through empirical investigation we can learn things about the material world that everyone - theist, materialist, whatever - accepts as true (in the sense that word is used in science.) So back to the main point: people of all philosophical and religious perspectives accept MN as a well-established guideline for doing science because it has worked. However, if someone wants to offer a non-material explanation that can in fact be tested in reference to empirical observations, let them do it. Complaining that there is a rule against doing so is not persuasive, because if such a testable hypothesis were actually offered and confirmed then people’s minds would change. Conversely, the reason that hypotheses that want to explain the material by the non-material are not adopted is because they are not convincing because they can’t be tested, not because of some rule. Focussing on the purported existence of some rigid rule is a distraction from the fact that hypotheses that fall outside the scope of MN fail to useful - they are neither testable nor lead to further productive investigation.xplanation that can in fact be tested in reference to empiricalhazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

----"Like Alan, I would like to see examples. Who denies that the universe is ordered? You say this is true of “many” - can you name someone and give a quote?" If something is ordered, it is ordered for a purpose. I have never met a Darwinist who thinks that there is purpose in the universe. Notice that Alan, thoughtfully and judiciously, used the word "consistent" and carefully avoided the word "order," knowing that order implies purpose and design. If something is ordered it is ordered to something or for the sake of something. In terms of quotes, here are a couple: George Gaylord Simpson: "Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind." In his earlier work, Ken Miller used the same quote, but then, in his latest book, he reversed his position, saying that man’s arrival was inevitable, carrying on as if he had not changed his position at all.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 283
That is exactly right. Although Darwinists and monists enforce methodological naturalism as a tool for disenfranchisement, they do not practice it in any real sense. They [quietly] assume just as the early scientists did that the universe is a rational place with ordered laws. They don’t start, nor could they possibly start, with a clean slate. Of course, they plant artificial barriers to the research by refusing to follow where the evidence leads, but that is another matter.
The accusation that the biological establishment ruthlessly suppresses dissenting opinion is political complaint not a scientific criticism. It is belied by the example of how the theory of punctuated equilibria won acceptance and the continuing vigorous debates between the various contending factions within evolution. Is there also any necessity to point out yet again that proponents of Intelligent Design are publishing books and magazine articles, running websites, appearing on radio and TV shows and have even established their own research and advocacy body in the Discovery Institute? That does not suggest oppression. As for an rational and ordered Universe, it is not an assumption, it is an observation. We do not assume things fall to the ground unless something holds them up, we know it - as much as we know anything - because that is what we see all around us. It has happened all our lives and at least as far back as recorded history goes. If the Universe were not rational and ordered not only would science not be possible but neither would the Universe. That order calls for explanation. Methodological naturalism assumes there is an explanation but makes no assumption about it beyond that such an explanation exists. As for barriers to research, they seem to exist within the ID community not outside it. There seems to be a curious reluctance to even propose specific research projects let alone commit resources to carry them through. It seems to be not so much that they are prevented from following the evidence wherever it might lead as that the are hesitant about walking down that road.Seversky_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

to Stephen:
In other words, everyone acts as if the universe was rationally ordered even though many deny that fact with their words or their public proclamations. Their actions do not match their stated beliefs or, more precisely, their non beliefs.
Like Alan, I would like to see examples. Who denies that the universe is ordered? You say this is true of “many” - can you name someone and give a quote?hazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

StephenB, "I am guessing, though, that he meant something like this: It seems that, on the one hand, materialist Darwinism negates meaning or purpose in the universe but on the other hand, quietly conducts its business as if there was something meaningful and purposeful to discover." That sums it up nicely.Clive Hayden_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

I am guessing, though, that he meant something like this: It seems that, on the one hand, materialist Darwinism negates meaning or purpose in the universe but on the other hand, quietly conducts its business as if there was something meaningful and purposeful to discover.
That's what I thought he meant. I, for one, don't immediately make the connection between consistent properties and design. So if I make assumptions based on consistency, I don't feel the need to attribute that consistency to design. I have no need for that hypothesis. [/LaplaceAlan Fox_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

----Alan: "That is the working hypothesis, if you mean that it is assumed that the properties of the observed universe are consistent." While I agree with Charlie's point, I am not sure that I want to get into a long discussion defending it at the expense of abandoning my argument about MN, which I consider to be more important. Nor do I want to put words in Charlie's mouth since he may see it differently than I do. I am guessing, though, that he meant something like this: It seems that, on the one hand, materialist Darwinism negates meaning or purpose in the universe but on the other hand, quietly conducts its business as if there was something meaningful and purposeful to discover.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

The point is that the scientific process does not begin with an empirical observation; it begins with a world view assumption.
The assumption is made that the properties of, say, matter are consistent.
In other words, everyone acts as if the universe was rationally ordered...
That is the working hypothesis, if you mean that it is assumed that the properties of the observed universe are consistent.
...even though many deny that fact with their words or their public proclamations.
An example would clarify your meaning, I'm sure.
Their actions do not match their stated beliefs or, more precisely, their non beliefs.
In what way?Alan Fox_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped: You are on solid ground. You write: "I see it as describing a materialist that patently assumes their conclusion that there is nothing beyond a material cause." Sure, that's it. Charlie's point was just that materialists are not consistent. That's all. It's like the solipsist who says nothing exists but himself, but then looks both ways before crossing the street. We all understand materialism exactly as you do, so I don't think you should rethink anything.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

“Assuming that the properties of the observable universe are consistent has been useful scientifically so far. What are the alternatives?”
A universe that is not designed.
Ah! I think I am beginning to see. If there are consistent properties of matter, for example, someone must have specified them, or they would be random? Therefore design?Alan Fox_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Charlie writes,
By the way, science does not actually practice methodological naturalism but rather methodological theism as the scientist must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science. He is then relying upon the metaphysics of theism when doing science whether - he so justifies it or not
No, because theism (or design) is not the only possible explanation for why the universe exhibits "cause and effect, regularity and order," etc, and the subject of why the universe is such is a matter of metaphysics that is itself not addressable by science. This is not the place to revisit that metaphysical topic, I don't think. People of many various philosophical perspectives accept, based on experience, that the universe exhibits orderly properties: why the universe is that way is not part of science. People can disagree about why the universe is as it is and yet agree completely on the science itself.hazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

----Alan: "Assuming that the properties of the observable universe are consistent has been useful scientifically so far. What are the alternatives?" The point is that the scientific process does not begin with an empirical observation; it begins with a world view assumption. In other words, everyone acts as if the universe was rationally ordered even though many deny that fact with their words or their public proclamations. Their actions do not match their stated beliefs or, more precisely, their non beliefs.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Charlie, Stephen, you are making me rethink my use of the term metaphysical materialists - a term I picked up from Abel's work. I see it as describing a materialist that patently assumes their conclusion that there is nothing beyond a material cause. I would like to hone the description, but have no desire to argue over it. There are already plenty of side arguments to comfort the adversaries of ID - as can be seen repreatedly in the skirting responses given on any of these threads, or on any university campus, and throughout the media.Upright BiPed_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

"Assuming that the properties of the observable universe are consistent has been useful scientifically so far. What are the alternatives?" A universe that is not designed.jerry_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

They [quietly] assume just as the early scientists did that the universe is a rational place with ordered laws.
Assuming that the properties of the observable universe are consistent has been useful scientifically so far. What are the alternatives?Alan Fox_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "I get to make points, too, Stephen. Why do you think you are the presumed leader of this discussion?" Yes, of course. Welcome to the party.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

----Charlie: "By the way, science does not actually practice methodological naturalism but rather methodological theism as the scientist must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science. He is then relying upon the metaphysics of theism when doing science whether - he so justifies it or not." That is exactly right. Although Darwinists and monists enforce methodological naturalism as a tool for disenfranchisement, they do not practice it in any real sense. They [quietly] assume just as the early scientists did that the universe is a rational place with ordered laws. They don't start, nor could they possibly start, with a clean slate. Of course, they plant artificial barriers to the research by refusing to follow where the evidence leads, but that is another matter. The relavent point is just as you say: To begin research with no metaphysical assumptions would be both irrational and impossible. On the other hand, to deny those metaphysical assumptions, as do the Darwinists on this blog, is also irrational. I have raised this issue many times, and with each new installment, they all claim that metaphysics has absolutely nothing to do with science. incredible.StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

But this cuts two ways, we can also argue macro-evolution has not been observed in the lab. The same two-edge swords can be applied to evolutionary psychology or any of the inferences made with the sketchiest of data.
The fact that the "junk DNA" meme persisted only demonstrates that strict methodological naturalism was not itself practiced in the field of evolutionary biology. Inferences were made without direct observable evidences. I don't fault the community, as they tried their best, but suffice to say, a lot of things are presumed with no direct evidence and accepted as fact.scordova_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

By the way, science does not actually practice methodological naturalism but rather methodological theism as the scientist must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science. He is then relying upon the metaphysics of theism when doing science whether - he so justifies it or not.
What is more, lest we lose our sense of proportion, we should bear in mind that science done on atheistic presuppositions will lead to the same results as science done on theistic presuppositions. For example, when trying to find out in practice how an organism functions, it matters little whether one assumes that it is actually designed, or only apparently designed. Here the assumption of either 'methodological naturalism' (sometimes called 'methodological atheism') or what we might term 'methodological theism' will lead to essentially the same results. This is so for the simple reason that the organism in question is being treated methodologically as if it had been designed in both cases.
John Lennox, God's Undertaker pp. 27-36
John [Lennox] and I agree that much of current biology (in so far as functional and teleological claims are still current) is in fact methodologically theistic. As the theistic paradigm develops, there is every reason to hope that it will be joined by scientists who are personally agnostic but who recognize good and successful science when they see it. Indeed, historians of science like Duhem and Whitehead have argued that the development of modern physical theory in the 14th through 18th centuries would have been impossible without the Christ-engendered conviction that the physical universe might prove to be intelligible to us.
Robert Koons http://www.origins.org/articles/koons_progressdebate.htmlCharlie_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

I get to make points, too, Stephen. Why do you think you are the presumed leader of this discussion?hazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

But MN (short cut for a much bigger idea) doesn't say that nature (that which science can study) is all there is. What it says is that the techniques of science are limited to studying certain kinds of things in a certain way. The theist believes there is more to the world than science can study and the materialist says there isn't, but that is a disagreement that science itself can't address. Short version: science isn't everything. Trying to make it everything both weakens the power of science within its domain and deflects us from addressing those issues that are beyond science in appropriate ways.hazel_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

---Hazel: "That fact that Faraday had a religious belief in unity motivated him to look for underlying similarities, but the actual science he did - the experiments he ran and the conclusions he reached HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS CONTENT!" ****Of course they didn't. But that is not what is at stake. Methodological naturalism forbids any conclusions or assumptions that may even hint at religious content. ----"One can be, and millions are, a theist and still practice methodological naturalism." Totally irrelavent. ----These are some points that you don’t seem to be paying attention to. It isn't you that is making the points, it is me. The point is that methodological naturalism, the doctrine that we must approach science AS IF NATURE IS ALL THERE IS, [wikipedia] was not practiced in the middle ages and post middle ages. What you need to pay attention to is the comment after*******StephenB_{April 30, 2009
April
04
Apr
30
30
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply