8 ms·

The supernatural is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist, in the same way you cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun.

The supernatural is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist, in the same way you cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun. On the one hand you demand pure scientific evidence for evolution to explain EVERYTHING, but on the other you say that the supernatural has been ignored, without giving any scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up. I apologise for calling you a "creationist", as it seems you took that as a pejorative term. It seems to me you're suggesting that there is some combination of evolution and the supernatural that can be a perfect model for explaining the world, but you're going to have to give some falsifiable theories on the supernatural for that.

EGreg 7y ago
If existing theories are not enough to explain how macroevolution took place, then we know there is a gap. If we don't know how the constants of the universe are fine-tuned, you have a gap. A gap in explanation. Now you can just fill that gap with a multiverse theory and anthropic principle. You can make up stories all day long about how things could have happened with mere mutation and natural selection. But that's not scientific. All you're doing is doubling down on the idea that the only processes that we need to care about are like the things we've already discovered. Easily explainable, simple things. It's a preference for those kinds of things to fill in the explanatory gap. But either way, you have no good way to test your theories at the moment. You may have faith that ONE DAY these theories or some other natural theory will be proven. But that's not much different than a religious faith. Religious people prefer to believe that such complexity was not brought about by mere "chance" operation of the universe, but was planned. They prefer to see an uncaused, omniscient mind. You prefer to see simpler explanations. Dawkins admits it in his book. If you want falsifiable theories with predictions, that involve the supernatural, read Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance", which I referenced above. If you can show falsifiable theories of HOW macroevolution occurred, say the evolution of flight, make predictions, and do experiments than prove them, then by all means I will accept the conclusions. For example: allopatric speciation can explain various ring species which we can actually see today. But most speciation did not seem to follow any sort of physical barriers to restrict gene flow between interfertile populations. So to say wings simply evolved because (insert just-so-story here) is not going to do it for a rigorously scientifically minded person. That's the point. And that point is regardless of what the alternative theories say.

EGreg 7y ago

If existing theories are not enough to explain how macroevolution took place, then we know there is a gap. If we don't know how the constants of the universe are fine-tuned, you have a gap. A gap in explanation. Now you can just fill that gap with a multiverse theory and anthropic principle. You can make up stories all day long about how things could have happened with mere mutation and natural selection. But that's not scientific. All you're doing is doubling down on the idea that the only processes that we need to care about are like the things we've already discovered. Easily explainable, simple things. It's a preference for those kinds of things to fill in the explanatory gap. But either way, you have no good way to test your theories at the moment. You may have faith that ONE DAY these theories or some other natural theory will be proven. But that's not much different than a religious faith. Religious people prefer to believe that such complexity was not brought about by mere "chance" operation of the universe, but was planned. They prefer to see an uncaused, omniscient mind. You prefer to see simpler explanations. Dawkins admits it in his book. If you want falsifiable theories with predictions, that involve the supernatural, read Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance", which I referenced above. If you can show falsifiable theories of HOW macroevolution occurred, say the evolution of flight, make predictions, and do experiments than prove them, then by all means I will accept the conclusions. For example: allopatric speciation can explain various ring species which we can actually see today. But most speciation did not seem to follow any sort of physical barriers to restrict gene flow between interfertile populations. So to say wings simply evolved because (insert just-so-story here) is not going to do it for a rigorously scientifically minded person. That's the point. And that point is regardless of what the alternative theories say.