How do evolutionists explain the paranormal?

[EASports]

Assault? Don't look at me. You stated that the paranormal was like explaining frosty the snowman. Well, as a Christian I happen to believe in supernatural phenomena and the paranormal as true or possibilities. So if you call my beliefs a fairly tale such as frosty the snowman, then don't be surprised if I call into question your beliefs...

Not the point. Perhaps my remark was a little cold, but it was part of a contribution to the current discussion. Surely you didn't expect to start a thread about the paranormal and not have it's existence questioned... If your response to having your beliefs called into question is to go into defense mode, then you need to reevaluate your discussion techniques.

This is so laughable it's not even funny (or is that like an oxymoron?). Objective experiment? Pray tell how you've proven inter-special transitions via an objective experiment. Please don't give me theories and the like. What I am looking for are the exact chemical/biological pathways by which you can demonstrate one species has become 2 distinct ones. Now don't go misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that hasn't happened. I'm just a little (ok, a lot) skeptical as to the proof.

Did you understand my statement? What is so funny about an objective experiment to determine the existence of PARANORMAL activity? Certainly 'mind readers' should be able to perform under close observation... I didn't say anything about an evolution experiment.


So I should restate my position: paranormal activity should be able to be consistently and reliably demonstrated if it is real. Do you disagree?

[Gman]

Not the point. Perhaps my remark was a little cold, but it was part of a contribution to the current discussion. Surely you didn't expect to start a thread about the paranormal and not have it's existence questioned...

Um... No. The contribution to the current discussion is open, however, you have chosen to compare anyone who believes in paranormal phenomena the same as believing in a fairly tale such as frosty the snowman.. This is not constructive, it's offensive...

If your response to having your beliefs called into question is to go into defense mode, then you need to reevaluate your discussion techniques.

Oh? So I need to reevaluate my discussion techniques after you compared my beliefs to frosty the snowman? Perhaps you should review our discussion guidelines here..

[EASports]

Never mind. Clearly you're not interested in actually discussing the paranormal and were just looking for people to agree with you.

Peace.

[IgoFan]

Yes, I've heard of the cold readings before.... I really don't think they have much of an explanation for it (the paranormal). I have witnessed things by psychics that I believe in no way could have been explained via a cold reading or naturally...

I don't know what you mean by "naturally", but the scam artist has several age-old resources other than cold reading to fool the naive.

By naive, I don't mean stupid. An intelligent person is often the easiest person to fool, because of their reliance on the infallibility of their own intelligence and/or their ignorance of methods of deception.

But if you've witnessed phychic things that "in no way could have been explained via [normal means]", then good for you, because you're in an exclusive club.

[...] Well, as a Christian I happen to believe in supernatural phenomena and the paranormal as true or possibilities. [...]

Maybe the discussion confusion here is a conflation of terminology. To me, supernatural refers to the scientifically untestable, e.g., transubstantiation, resurrection, souls, angels. I would never claim to have better evidence than you on such items.

But to me, paranormal is scientifically testable, at least in principle. You didn't say exactly what those psychics did to impress you, but if they're like every psychic I've ever met, they explicitly or implicitly claim powers that are testable. For example, if they claim some ability to talk to the dead, then a simple test can add significant evidence as to whether the dead are talking back.

Almost all psychics are too smart to submit to scientific testing. Bad for business, you know.

[Gman]

Never mind. Clearly you're not interested in actually discussing the paranormal and were just looking for people to agree with you.

Peace.

Likewise... Clearly you can't take science and say that the spiritual world doesn't exist either...

[Gman]

I don't know what you mean by "naturally", but the scam artist has several age-old resources other than cold reading to fool the naive.

By naive, I don't mean stupid. An intelligent person is often the easiest person to fool, because of their reliance on the infallibility of their own intelligence and/or their ignorance of methods of deception.

Of course that is a possibility...

But if you've witnessed psychic things that "in no way could have been explained via [normal means]", then good for you, because you're in an exclusive club.

When you use the word "psychic" it conjures up many things... To the Christian it could be a bunch of malarkey, but it could also be linked to the occult or the spiritual such as revelations too.

Perhaps you are in an exclusive club too if you think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus think that the supernatural doesn't exist.. A very small club...

Maybe the discussion confusion here is a conflation of terminology. To me, supernatural refers to the scientifically untestable, e.g., transubstantiation, resurrection, souls, angels. I would never claim to have better evidence than you on such items.

Nothing (whether natural or spiritual) is ever said to be purely scientifically explainable... And your point is?

But to me, paranormal is scientifically testable, at least in principle. You didn't say exactly what those psychics did to impress you, but if they're like every psychic I've ever met, they explicitly or implicitly claim powers that are testable. For example, if they claim some ability to talk to the dead, then a simple test can add significant evidence as to whether the dead are talking back.

Almost all psychics are too smart to submit to scientific testing. Bad for business, you know.

I wouldn't make that type of judgment... That it is scientifically testable no more than I can say that the origin of life has been scientifically proven in a lab either or that we are simply biological mechanisms without the spiritual... We just simply don't know...

[EASports]

OK I can't help it, and the discussion seems to have turned back toward the initial topic.

That it is scientifically testable no more than I can say that the origin of life has been scientifically proven in a lab either or that we are simply biological mechanisms without the spiritual...

I think the point that IgoFan and myself are trying to make is being muddled up somewhere.

I agree it would be very difficult to devise an experiment to test the theory of evolution, which is probably a big reason why it is such a hotly debated topic.

On the other hand, for most varieties of paranormal events, it should be a simple matter to construct a test which would verify these occurrences in a controlled manner.

Psychic abilities should be among the easiest to confirm. The good old pick a number between one and one hundred seems appropriate. Or talking to the dead, as IgoFan mentioned, could be easily tested by having the reader pull up some important, personal information without relying on emotional (visual or audible) cues from the participant. Of course if this isn't "how it works", then there are limitless other possible tests.

Controlled testing might not be able to prove the existence or non-existence of paranormal activity to 100% certainty (as you implied, no test can), but it should be able to prove one way or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

On another note; sorry to have offended you, Gman. I was merely trying to reiterate the fact that paranormal events have not been shown to exist (in a controlled and consistent manner). In my opinion, this should be a higher priority than their explanation.

[Gman]

I agree it would be very difficult to devise an experiment to test the theory of evolution, which is probably a big reason why it is such a hotly debated topic.

Yup... I know.

On the other hand, for most varieties of paranormal events, it should be a simple matter to construct a test which would verify these occurrences in a controlled manner.

Psychic abilities should be among the easiest to confirm. The good old pick a number between one and one hundred seems appropriate. Or talking to the dead, as IgoFan mentioned, could be easily tested by having the reader pull up some important, personal information without relying on emotional (visual or audible) cues from the participant. Of course if this isn't "how it works", then there are limitless other possible tests.

Controlled testing might not be able to prove the existence or non-existence of paranormal activity to 100% certainty (as you implied, no test can), but it should be able to prove one way or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again I would say it is guesswork for both groups scientifically... We can't take science and prove that we have all the facts that there isn't a spiritual world either...

About Christian revelation, or knowing the (true) future... It comes only from God. Therefore God sets the rules when true revelation is given. Not man... So you couldn't throw me into a lab and say do this experiment without the need of God's consent, knowledge or communication. It's out of my hands.. Then there is the occult, but I don't know how that would work since we are told not to dabble in it.. Is that realm true? Biblically speaking yes. Scientifically I would say we don't know. It's a mystery...

On another note; sorry to have offended you, Gman. I was merely trying to reiterate the fact that paranormal events have not been shown to exist (in a controlled and consistent manner). In my opinion, this should be a higher priority than their explanation.

Yes... It's a knife that cuts both ways.. No one has the complete truth scientifically... If so I would like to talk to them.

[IgoFan]

But if you've witnessed psychic things that "in no way could have been explained via [normal means]", then good for you, because you're in an exclusive club.

When you use the word "psychic" it conjures up many things... To the Christian it could be a bunch of malarkey, but it could also be linked to the occult or the spiritual such as revelations too.

Help narrow the discussion. Give specific examples that you consider psychic/paranormal.

The type of thing that the psychic told you might be a testable example, but I need to know what the psychic was claiming to do (or generally does) for you or clients.

Perhaps you are in an exclusive club too if you think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus think that the supernatural doesn't exist.. A very small club...

Now you're just making stuff up. Your statement is in direct conflict with my characterization of supernatural and corresponding examples.

Maybe the discussion confusion here is a conflation of terminology. To me, supernatural refers to the scientifically untestable, e.g., transubstantiation, resurrection, souls, angels. I would never claim to have better evidence than you on such items.

Nothing (whether natural or spiritual) is ever said to be purely scientifically explainable... And your point is?

But to me, paranormal is scientifically testable, at least in principle. You didn't say exactly what those psychics did to impress you, but if they're like every psychic I've ever met, they explicitly or implicitly claim powers that are testable. For example, if they claim some ability to talk to the dead, then a simple test can add significant evidence as to whether the dead are talking back.

Almost all psychics are too smart to submit to scientific testing. Bad for business, you know.

I wouldn't make that type of judgment... That it is scientifically testable no more than I can say that the origin of life has been scientifically proven in a lab either or that we are simply biological mechanisms without the spiritual... We just simply don't know...

Are you saying that it's not possible to scientifically test people who claim to get responses from the dead?

If not, then again, give me specific examples of what you think is psychic/paranormal.

And to anticipate a repeated misconception from your posts, science does not prove anything about the natural world, and says nothing about the supernatural world. The scientific method does not give all the answers, but look around you if have any doubts about its effectiveness.

[Gman]

Help narrow the discussion. Give specific examples that you consider psychic/paranormal.

We are debating what paranormal means? Let's look it up in the dictionary then…

par⋅a⋅nor⋅mal

"of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranormal

The type of thing that the psychic told you might be a testable example, but I need to know what the psychic was claiming to do (or generally does) for you or clients.

I have never talked to a psychic... My belief about psychics is that it can be fake or occultist works. However, I have witnessed supernatural phenomena. And that is something held between me and God which comes in the form of answered prayer.

Now you're just making stuff up. Your statement is in direct conflict with my characterization of supernatural and corresponding examples.

Making stuff up? You don't think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus believe in the supernatural? I don't have time to go into all the beliefs but you are wrong. If you don't believe me simply google it..

Are you saying that it's not possible to scientifically test people who claim to get responses from the dead?

If not, then again, give me specific examples of what you think is psychic/paranormal.

Ok, then give me specific examples that the paranormal/supernatural doesn't exist... Where is your scientific proof? I stated scientifically we don't always know..

And to anticipate a repeated misconception from your posts, science does not prove anything about the natural world, and says nothing about the supernatural world. The scientific method does not give all the answers, but look around you if have any doubts about its effectiveness.

Are we talking about raw science or Darwinian evolution here? The point of all this is that Darwinism isn't empirical science. It is rationalism with a capital "R", a belief system...

So answer me this... Have you given all your authority to science?

[EASports]

Ok, then give me specific examples that the paranormal/supernatural doesn't exist... Where is your scientific proof? I stated scientifically we don't always know..

It can't work that way. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim:

Just curious how do the evolutionists or naturalism (without the spiritual) explain the paranormal or people with psychic abilities... Coincidence? Lucky guess?

Here you have made the implicit claim that paranormal phenomena exist, leaving you with the burden of proof.

Specific examples of the paranormal's non-existence come in the form of failure to stand up to scrutiny. The scientific way to "disprove" something (with all proper caveats on the meaning of disprove), is to demonstrate a repeated failure in tests, measurements, experiments, what have you.

It's like the old mythical 'ether' that was supposedly everywhere in space, giving light waves a medium in which to propagate. Scientists believed with all of their hearts that the ether existed, they believed it to be absolutely necessary. However, after numerous failed attempts to measure or detect the ether, scientists had to rework the theory. They found that there was actually nothing out in space, just vacuum. The point is that the ether does not exist, and that was shown by it's repeated failure to be confirmed in scientific tests.

Quick question, Gman. By your posts are you implying that we would be unable to confirm or deny the legitimacy of psychics through controlled testing?

[IgoFan]

Help narrow the discussion. Give specific examples that you consider psychic/paranormal.

We are debating what paranormal means? Let's look it up in the dictionary then… [...]

Does the forum software have a bug that is mistakenly posting replies to other topics? You seem to be replying to someone else's posts.

I was trying to understand what you meant by psychic, because you made a non-natural claim about psychics. A general dictionary definition doesn't help narrow the discussion.

I have never talked to a psychic... My belief about psychics is that it can be fake or occultist works.

You threw me off when you said early on: I have witnessed things by psychics that I believe in no way could have been explained via a cold reading or naturally...

I'm encouraged that you're backing off that claim in making the new vacuous claim that [paraphrasing] psychics may or may not be fake.

However, I have witnessed supernatural phenomena. And that is something held between me and God which comes in the form of answered prayer.

And supernatural belief, e.g., an answered prayer, can be perfectly fine.

But if you were to say something like, "pancreatic cancer patients have an overall survival rate of 5% after 5 years, but whenever I pray for a targeted sub-group, that sub-group's survival rate climbs to 50%," then you've just made a scientifically testable claim.

So we set up a controlled, randomized, double-blind experiment to test your claim. If your sub-group's survival rate is 50%, then (soon to be former) atheists all over the world will start knocking over old ladies to get to the front row of church on Sunday.

If instead your sub-group's survival rate in 5%, then science would still have come nowhere near disproving the efficacy of prayer. However, science would have provided evidence that believers should take seriously when making claims about the efficacy of prayer.

Scientific evidence has shown that you will probably misinterpret what I just said, so I'm replying mainly for all the other readers.

Making stuff up? You don't think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus believe in the supernatural? I don't have time to go into all the beliefs but you are wrong. If you don't believe me simply google it..

Could someone else please tell Gman that he's misunderstanding what I wrote.

Ok, then give me specific examples that the paranormal/supernatural doesn't exist... Where is your scientific proof? I stated scientifically we don't always know..

Do you see the irony of again asking for scientific proof when my previous post not only explicitly anticipated that you would do just that, but also explained that science does not prove? Hey, wait a minute! Maybe I'm psychic!

Science does not address the supernatural (IMO, the untestable).

Science does not show (gasp, prove) that the paranormal (IMO, the testable) does not exist. Science provides evidence for or against a hypothesis.

A famous paranormal example was that of a smart 11 (yes, 11) year old girl, who tested Theraputic Touch (TT) practitioners with a protocol that she herself devised. TT claims to beneficially manipulate a person's energy field via the practitioner's hands, but the hands only hover above and do not touch the patient. How coooool would that be! But the girl created a simple effective test, in which a cardboard partition prevented the TT practitioner from seeing whether the hands were actually over a patient's body. The girl published her results in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association!

Anyone want to take a guess whether the TT practitioners could detect the presence or non-presence of a human body's "energy fields" better than random guessing?

And anyone want to take a guess on whether TT practioners were fazed one iota by the complete utter failure of their technique to even detect the presence of a patient, much less improve their health?

Anyone?

Bueller?

And to anticipate a repeated misconception from your posts, science does not prove anything about the natural world, and says nothing about the supernatural world. The scientific method does not give all the answers, but look around you if have any doubts about its effectiveness.

Are we talking about raw science or Darwinian evolution here?

I can see why you were confused, in this topic I've only mentioned science and never mentioned Darwin or evolution. Did an evolutionist pick on you as a child?

OK, another comment for the other readers:

Science has nothing called Darwinism or Darwinian evolution. The term is simply evolution. Biologists regard Darwin's Origin of Species as far less of a complete and accurate description of evolution, than physicists regard Newton with respect to gravity.

How would everyone here like to be called neo-Catholics? And then, after you patiently, repeatedly, and accurately, explain why that term is flat out wrong, you continue to be called neo-Catholics and asked to defend the latest thing Pope Benedict says?

No need for anyone to reply on this point; if I start seeing just the term evolution show up in posts, I'll know someone was listening.

The point of all this is that Darwinism isn't empirical science. It is rationalism with a capital "R", a belief system...

Until this very reply, I haven't mention evolution once in this topic. BTW, I can go with you to confront that evolutionist who picked on you as a child.

So answer me this... Have you given all your authority to science?

Of course not. What a silly question. For example, morality is also outside the scope of science. And I certainly don't look to science for guidance on how to restrain myself when responding to your replies.

Science is not an authority, but a process for not fooling oneself about the natural world. Look into it. The wonders you will find could strengthen your faith in ways you cannot imagine.

[Gman]

Does the forum software have a bug that is mistakenly posting replies to other topics? You seem to be replying to someone else's posts.

I was trying to understand what you meant by psychic, because you made a non-natural claim about psychics. A general dictionary definition doesn't help narrow the discussion.

The only bug that exists is in your understanding.. You are not reading my posts… I have told you many times what I meant by the word psychic.

You threw me off when you said early on: I have witnessed things by psychics that I believe in no way could have been explained via a cold reading or naturally...

I'm encouraged that you're backing off that claim in making the new vacuous claim that [paraphrasing] psychics may or may not be fake.

No… You are twisting my words… This is also what I said from the very beginning I said, “Not to say that psychics or their abilities are all true, but sometimes I think it is a little bit more than coincidental or a lucky guess.. If anything it's unexplainable hinging in the supernatural....

I then answered back that the supernatural phenomena I have experienced come in the form of answered prayer. Psychics? I said could be the occult or fake.. Some have been fake, others I have witnessed are what I believe are occult practices. How do I know they are occult practices and not something else? Because nothing I've seen or heard could explain it... My claim is that science cannot fully explain it either, much less disprove the occult as well...

And supernatural belief, e.g., an answered prayer, can be perfectly fine.

But if you were to say something like, "pancreatic cancer patients have an overall survival rate of 5% after 5 years, but whenever I pray for a targeted sub-group, that sub-group's survival rate climbs to 50%," then you've just made a scientifically testable claim.

So we set up a controlled, randomized, double-blind experiment to test your claim. If your sub-group's survival rate is 50%, then (soon to be former) atheists all over the world will start knocking over old ladies to get to the front row of church on Sunday.

If instead your sub-group's survival rate in 5%, then science would still have come nowhere near disproving the efficacy of prayer. However, science would have provided evidence that believers should take seriously when making claims about the efficacy of prayer.

Scientific evidence has shown that you will probably misinterpret what I just said, so I'm replying mainly for all the other readers.

Nice try… But I have never made such a claim… What exactly did I say about paranormal/supernatural experiences?

Could someone else please tell Gman that he's misunderstanding what I wrote.

Sure, you said I was in an exclusive club.. I then said, if you reject the supernatural, then perhaps your club is even more exclusive…

Do you see the irony of again asking for scientific proof when my previous post not only explicitly anticipated that you would do just that, but also explained that science does not prove? Hey, wait a minute! Maybe I'm psychic!

Science does not address the supernatural (IMO, the untestable).

Science does not show (gasp, prove) that the paranormal (IMO, the testable) does not exist. Science provides evidence for or against a hypothesis.

A famous paranormal example was that of a smart 11 (yes, 11) year old girl, who tested Theraputic Touch (TT) practitioners with a protocol that she herself devised. TT claims to beneficially manipulate a person's energy field via the practitioner's hands, but the hands only hover above and do not touch the patient. How coooool would that be! But the girl created a simple effective test, in which a cardboard partition prevented the TT practitioner from seeing whether the hands were actually over a patient's body. The girl published her results in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association!

Anyone want to take a guess whether the TT practitioners could detect the presence or non-presence of a human body's "energy fields" better than random guessing?

And anyone want to take a guess on whether TT practioners were fazed one iota by the complete utter failure of their technique to even detect the presence of a patient, much less improve their health?

Anyone?

Bueller?

I asked you for specific examples via science that the paranormal/supernatural doesn't exist.. You couldn't answer the question.. If you are saying that science is scientifically neutral in supernatural explanations, that's fine by me. But if you are saying that science DISPROVES the supernatural, then show me your evidence....

I can see why you were confused, in this topic I've only mentioned science and never mentioned Darwin or evolution. Did an evolutionist pick on you as a child?

OK, another comment for the other readers:

Science has nothing called Darwinism or Darwinian evolution. The term is simply evolution. Biologists regard Darwin's Origin of Species as far less of a complete and accurate description of evolution, than physicists regard Newton with respect to gravity.

How would everyone here like to be called neo-Catholics? And then, after you patiently, repeatedly, and accurately, explain why that term is flat out wrong, you continue to be called neo-Catholics and asked to defend the latest thing Pope Benedict says?

No need for anyone to reply on this point; if I start seeing just the term evolution show up in posts, I'll know someone was listening.

Baloney… Darwinian evolution has everything to do with science when you say that life as we know it can only be explained by natural means… Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life, then you are making a belief system out of science, the answer for everything, a religion.... You are giving your authority to science. Plain and simple...

Of course not. What a silly question. For example, morality is also outside the scope of science. And I certainly don't look to science for guidance on how to restrain myself when responding to your replies.

Science is not an authority, but a process for not fooling oneself about the natural world. Look into it. The wonders you will find could strengthen your faith in ways you cannot imagine.

Oh really? And how does one fool oneself about the natural world? Are you saying I'm a fool now?

[Gman]

It can't work that way. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim:

Likewise, where is your proof if you are making the claim that the natural world is separated from the spiritual?

Here you have made the implicit claim that paranormal phenomena exist, leaving you with the burden of proof.

No... It was in the form of a question... So answer my question. How do you explain the supernatural/paranormal or people with psychic abilities... Coincidence? Lucky guess?

Specific examples of the paranormal's non-existence come in the form of failure to stand up to scrutiny. The scientific way to "disprove" something (with all proper caveats on the meaning of disprove), is to demonstrate a repeated failure in tests, measurements, experiments, what have you.

Right, now show me where science has disproved the supernatural?

It's like the old mythical 'ether' that was supposedly everywhere in space, giving light waves a medium in which to propagate. Scientists believed with all of their hearts that the ether existed, they believed it to be absolutely necessary. However, after numerous failed attempts to measure or detect the ether, scientists had to rework the theory. They found that there was actually nothing out in space, just vacuum. The point is that the ether does not exist, and that was shown by it's repeated failure to be confirmed in scientific tests.

Quick question, Gman. By your posts are you implying that we would be unable to confirm or deny the legitimacy of psychics through controlled testing?

Confirming or denying is one thing, saying that it holds the ultimate answers to everything is another.... That is my point.

[B. W.]

Of course not. What a silly question. For example, morality is also outside the scope of science. And I certainly don't look to science for guidance on how to restrain myself when responding to your replies.

Science is not an authority, but a process for not fooling oneself about the natural world. Look into it. The wonders you will find could strengthen your faith in ways you cannot imagine.

IgoFan, You stated 'morality is also outside the scope of science.'

So therefore were the medical experiments performed in Auschwitz in the name of science moral or immoral?

Next, IgoFan, this Forum and website is called "Evidence for God from Science."

Question: was Isaac Newton daffy because he based his science on seeking evidences for God from the natural world — was he fooling himself?
-
-
-