When to give up on naturalistic explanations?

[sandy_mcd]

But at the very heart of the matter, there is a leap that one has to make. You have this record (that is incomplete) and in a time scale that is inconceivable. Meanwhile, we are working with minuscule changes in ridiculously small amounts of time compared to the record. Just, at the end of the day, you just don't know for certain whether those minuscule changes can provide the needed impetus for the collective changes needed to create that record.

In the absence of believing in a deity, the record *must* be enough...but let's be honest and realize that this is a leap that must take place.

Scientists don't know very much about abiogenesis or early evolution. There is very little evidence from early times to study and this is a very complicated system. At what point should scientists give up and admit there is no naturalistic explanation?
Science has been very successful in explaining many phenomena. But "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results".

There are other major difficulties in modern science; e.g., is there really dark matter and if not, what explains the behavior of the universe? Should an ID'er replace attempts at a naturalistic explanation?

In the past there have been other major problems:
Age of earth as shown by Lord Kelvin's thermodynamic calculations was too low for geology and biology (fixed by discovery of radioactivity).
Continental edge and fossil and landform matching could not be explained by stationary continents (fixed by tectonic plate discovery).

So is the possibility of abiogenesis/evolution going to one day be demonstrated conclusively? Or should scientists give up and work on other problems?
More importantly, how should this decision be made?

[Stu]

It's not as simple as "either or" (yet).

Most of the arguments against a "naturalistic explanation" are focused toward Darwinian Gradualism.
However neo-Darwinism is not the be all and end all of naturalistic mechanisms to explain the unfolding of life.

That is one of the main objections raised by critics of neo-Darwinism -- a mechanism that is inept at creating complex highly integrated biological systems, is forever massaged and reworked to accommodate contradictory data.

I would say more open-minded naturalists like Gould recognised this and sought to explain life through alternate mechanisms like Punctuated Equilibrium.

If one really is committed to a naturalistic-only explanation, so be it, but just like spontaneous generation and geocentrism before it, old ideas give way to new.

I understand why Darwinism isn't just another scientific theory though, as (like it or not) it is more than that, it forms part of a wider worldview and ideology. But I would argue that for those scientists / persons not committed to a naturalistic worldview solely on "faith", that finding answers in other theories like Punctuated Equilibrium and The Public Goods Hypothesis would be an acceptable alternative to a theory that has proved to be incapable and a mechanism that has lead scientists to make inaccurate predictions over and over again.

You might wonder why I have such a strong opposition to Darwinism. I was just a regular joe before I started investigating myself. I thought it was a slam dunk theory. The way it's proponents held it up, it was as if there was no more research to be done, no more intermediates required, no more problems to solve.

When I actually started doing the research, I found this to be entirely untrue. I soon found out that for many scientists neo-Darwinism was more than just science, it was a worldview. Unbiased science had become a pipe-dream, and turned into a battle of ideologies. This angered me to a degree. I had trust in scientists, men in white coats who were simply after the truth, following the data wherever it might lead for the betterment of mankind and our understanding. That idea was shattered. It seems like in many areas in life one has to do the research for yourself.

[zoegirl]

Right, my only point is that at this moment any science abotu the origins and the past will have to rest upon leaps of faith...it *did* happen that way....but we can't be certain....

I'm not saying to give up on explanations...although I doutb we can ever know for certain. I'm one that wavers between Progressive creationism and TE...as long as God's sovereignty is still upheld, He can do it however He wanted.

[Gman]

So is the possibility of abiogenesis/evolution going to one day be demonstrated conclusively? Or should scientists give up and work on other problems?
More importantly, how should this decision be made?

Sandy,

The scientific method is raw science also called (methodological naturalism), however when you say Darwinian evolution (DE) did it or intelligent design (ID) did it, these statements are pretty much neutral to science. It’s really not going to hurt or change how science is done if we talk about ID or DE in the classrooms or other explanations. Maybe a different philosophical idea, but not how science is actually done. If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn’t you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed.

It really doesn’t matter... It's not a show stopper.

[Kurieuo]

For Christians God designed His creation to work in the way He designed it. Natural explanations are just working out how God structured and ordered things. So should we give up on understanding and appreciating how God designed or created things to work? Whether Christian, Atheist or Agnostic, I think it is the adventurous side of humanity that is always wanting to explore and understand the unknown.

[neo-x]

Good point, Kurieuo

[wrain62]

But at the very heart of the matter, there is a leap that one has to make. You have this record (that is incomplete) and in a time scale that is inconceivable. Meanwhile, we are working with minuscule changes in ridiculously small amounts of time compared to the record. Just, at the end of the day, you just don't know for certain whether those minuscule changes can provide the needed impetus for the collective changes needed to create that record.

In the absence of believing in a deity, the record *must* be enough...but let's be honest and realize that this is a leap that must take place.

Scientists don't know very much about abiogenesis or early evolution. There is very little evidence from early times to study and this is a very complicated system. At what point should scientists give up and admit there is no naturalistic explanation?
Science has been very successful in explaining many phenomena. But "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results".

There are other major difficulties in modern science; e.g., is there really dark matter and if not, what explains the behavior of the universe? Should an ID'er replace attempts at a naturalistic explanation?

In the past there have been other major problems:
Age of earth as shown by Lord Kelvin's thermodynamic calculations was too low for geology and biology (fixed by discovery of radioactivity).
Continental edge and fossil and landform matching could not be explained by stationary continents (fixed by tectonic plate discovery).

So is the possibility of abiogenesis/evolution going to one day be demonstrated conclusively? Or should scientists give up and work on other problems?
More importantly, how should this decision be made?

For Christians God designed His creation to work in the way He designed it. Natural explanations are just working out how God structured and ordered things. So should we give up on understanding and appreciating how God designed or created things to work? Whether Christian, Atheist or Agnostic, I think it is the adventurous side of humanity that is always wanting to explore and understand the unknown.

I have been thinking about what a Christian who does not believe in evolution would do if he found conclusive evidence in the probable existence of a life forming mechanism or if nobody is researching the subject if he would take up the banner of rigorously investigating. As Craig has said, his objections to evolution are scientific instead of theological and I think we should(absolutly) as Christians take it up when just for the sake of intellectual honesty. Our choosing not to research something out of an inclination to not want the conclusion is ultimately bad, but it is a convenient stance to take. Even if a case is made that the research effort would be considered wasted it is still a million dollar question. Although it can be said that it is better to rigorously find a solution than to not it also should not be forced because at the heart of the matter it is true curiosity that will search for the answer, which cannot be forced nor pretended. The question then boils down to should a Christian community or individual sponsor curiosity that may lead to a conflict in disposition and wasted effort? Well it should not be stopped in the very least but in my opinion it definitly should also be profoundly supported.

I can tell my opinion and it still may not affect anything so it is also fair to ask how should we decide to make the decision of seeking conclusions to naturalistic descriptions. I think that overall you cannot really stop the search. Science is a great gift, a big part of the gift of discovery, and we should not be ungrateful to recieve it.

[Gman]

A dogmatic belief is unhealthy. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don’t understand how but it’s going to do that. Well that isn’t science, that’s just a verbal place holder.

Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this prediction.

[sandy_mcd]

If one really is committed to a naturalistic-only explanation, so be it, but just like spontaneous generation and geocentrism before it, old ideas give way to new.

But I would argue that for those scientists / persons not committed to a naturalistic worldview solely on "faith", that finding answers in other theories like Punctuated Equilibrium and The Public Goods Hypothesis would be an acceptable alternative to a theory that has proved to be incapable and a mechanism that has lead scientists to make inaccurate predictions over and over again. I had trust in scientists, men in white coats who were simply after the truth, following the data wherever it might lead for the betterment of mankind and our understanding. That idea was shattered. It seems like in many areas in life one has to do the research for yourself.

Old ideas giving way to new is what happens in science all the time, see early models of the atom.
It sounds like you are saying there is a big difference between Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium. To me PE is just a minor modification of D. Instead of having evolution occur at a steady pace, the rate changes depending on changes in the environment or some other variable.
On technical stuff, i stilll tend to generally go with the experts rather than trust my judgment.