Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

You’ve just argued for your axiom. You’re seeking to justify something by use of an argument. I can evalute whether what you have to say is meaningful or not – or whether it is true or not. All of this is done without use of physical science.

You claimed that the discussion could be limited to what physical science alone could evaluate. As I said, this is an obvious contradiction.

Again, you’re giving a defense for the use of these axioms.

This is why you cannot use science to evaluate what science is. This is why your claim that we could limit the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate is false.
You continue to offer justifications and arguments which cannot be evaluated scientifically.

Now you direct me to “ask any scientist”. Yet another absurdity. I go ask “any scientist” and get an opinion and thus you prove your point (supposedly) and justify the axioms you’re defending and explaining. This, you claim, is how to limit the discussion to “physical science alone”. You’re claiming, apparently, that a single data point, a single opinion from any scientist is empirical data accessible to physical science.
I can tell you to ask any believing Catholic if God exists. Using your “scientific” method, that truth would then demonstrated clearly.

We evaluate whether definitions are accurate, useful, consistent, clear, broad or narrow. You’re claiming that physical science alone can make these determinations.

Again, another philosophical claim that destroys your notion that the discussion can be limited to physical science alone. Beyond that, it appears that you’re claiming that we have to accept the idea that the extra-mental world is real on blind faith alone. Apparently, we can’t evaluate that claim at all since it is axiomatic. So, as it happens, scientism reduces to dogmatism. Nothing outside of science can be evaluated and therefore the initial premises that lead to science have to be accepted without critical thought – blindly, as any fundamentalist does with a sacred text.
You mention “to some substantial extent” – thus providing a non-scientific measure. This kind of irrationality will continue through everything you have to say until you admit that you’re wrong. The discussion cannot be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate. You need to realize that and change your worldview. Or else, as I said, you can simply assert that your position is irrational.

There we go again, one must evaluate the semantics. Here’s a direct contradiction to what you claimed. Unless I’ve misunderstood. You could, perhaps, take the word into a lab. Find its physical dimensions. Then find the physical connection from that word, wherever it exists in space, and discover its physical connection to “meaning”. You could then find the physical dimensions and properties of “meaning” also. Then you can measure that against other words that you’ve captured in nature somewhere and observe their physical dimensions. That’s how physical science can find the correct definitions.

Prove that using physical science alone – as with the scientific method. If you can’t then you need to admit that you’re wrong.

You made a definite claim against a very distinct proposition. Now you’re changing it.

I’ll accept that you’ve been proven wrong but that you either can’t admit it or can’t recognize it.

Again – another non-scientific claim which is either an axiom or not.
If an axiom, then according to you “it can’t be untrue” – and it cannot be evaluated.
If not an axiom, then according to you, it can be evaluated using physical science alone.

So, even the act of choosing whether your claims are axiomatic cannot be done using physical science alone. Your entire mental framework has been reduced to that which physical science alone can evaluate. Then you build that world on non-empirical philosophical premises which cannot be evaluated, apparently, and must be accepted on blind faith.

You’ve tried to deny the validity of philosophical principles, when you’ve actually shown the superiority of philosophy. Your claim that the discussion can be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate is denied by your blind-faith trust in metaphysical axioms. You can’t explain yourself without reference to non-empirical assumptions. You argue and defend your views by citing definitions of words, and then you ask me to get the opinion of “any scientist” in order validate the supposed truth of your definitions.

So, you can insist that you’re right and accept that your position is irrational. Or you can admit that you are wrong and accept that this discussion cannot be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate.

It strikes me that the nature of philosophy is often misunderstood. It’s refreshing to see science pulled off its pedestal and put in its rightful place.

In this thread we are primarily concerned with:

1. Metaphysics - the nature of existence
2. Epistemology - the nature of knowledge
3. Ethics - the nature of morality

In each case the default position is (or should be) ignorance!

Neither philosophers nor scientists have privileged insight into any of these questions but specialists in philosophy have a clearer picture of the issues whereas scientists tend to overrate the significance of their particular field (thereby putting science on a pedestal to which it has no rightful claim)…

 

[greylorn]

I understand this to be claim like this: “Yes, there are inches, but you can’t just add a whole bunches of inches and get a mile!”. Variation is variation, and change is incremental, and lots of incremental changes can and do result in large scale changes when summed. Just as an example of compelling and accessible evidence of shared ancestry and species divergence between chimps and humans from that common ancestor, consider the orthologous ERVs we share – same locus. See here for example.

TS,

To begin I studied the abstract under the link you provided, and do not see where it impinges upon the argument. You may be mistaking me for a typical Creationist. I assume that we share genes and built-in retroviruses with chimps because we evolved from them, exactly as you appear to believe.

My quibble is not about the reality of evolution, but the mechanisms for it. I believe that there are several, and that one of them, random mutations, is insufficient by itself to cause species change.

I am also fond of a concept which I call Intelligent Engineering, the possibility that large numbers of conscious, intelligent beings participated in various stages of the evolutionary process, much like scientists, engineers, machinists, programmers, and assemblers work in concert to build a moon rocket, except without anything that you would recognize as bodies. (I know that you will not approve of this concept, especially in the absence of supporting arguments, but I offer it in the interest of agenda disclosure.)

I wish to have a more honest argument with you on this than you’ve offered so far. My claim is not at all as you’ve misrepresented it. My post was perfectly clear. I wrote,
GL:

There is no evidence that the Darwinian explanation for species change, random mutations, can actually induce species change. (Variations within species, yes; new species, nope.)

You neglected to offer evidence, instead reverting to a typical Darwinist tertiary argument that has nothing to do with the point. Is not evidence the most essential component of honest science? It is evidence, and only evidence that keeps science from falling into the mudholes of religion, where authority rules, and philosophy, where the authorities claim that logic rules.

Let’s you and I have a straight-up argument. But I warn you that if you do undertake such an argument, you will find yourself seriously questioning your current opinions.

Let me stress that I am not proposing that evolution is wrong. That would be absurd. The history of evolution is the evidence.

However I do propose that neither Darwin’s theories nor their modern kludges competently explain this evidence, particularly the development of genuinely new species. They explain variations within species wonderfully, as survival adaptations developed by the random mutations of genes.

(Darwin incorrectly presented finch variations as if they represented new finch species, to bolster his horrid explanation of species change.)

However, getting from one viable species to a new species requires that another of Darwin’s fundamental principles be obeyed-- survival. The intermediate forms must survive if they are to progress. Moreover, they must survive in statistically significant numbers over many generations to provide a population base large enough to accommodate the next mutational step.

The problem of how viable species change might be implemented becomes troublesome when multiple changes must occur simultaneously to bridge the inter-species gap.

It is clever to imagine a fish’s fins transforming into rudimentary feet that allow it to climb onto land, but when he does so, he’s going to have a tough time breathing air with those suddenly useless gills.

And if he manages to crawl back into water before dying of asphyxiation, what happens when some predator shows up and he needs to swim out of danger, but the feet that got him briefly onto land do not work as well as the fins they replaced? Instead of becoming the precursor of a new species, he becomes lunch.

There are thousands of such examples, none of which are well addressed by any form of Darwinism. Lamarkian evolution would do a better job of dealing with such issues, but it has other problems and was dismissed.

However, as my book points out, there is actual scientific evidence favoring Lamarkian evolution. Yet, none for Darwinism, and that is my point.

I’m not proposing for a second that God intervened in the creation of new species. I’ve concluded that current theology’s version of creation is badly flawed. I’m inviting you to get past your atheistic programming and recognize the equally real flaws in the Darwinist model of creation.

Then we can take an honest look at figuring out what really did happen, and how these marvelous machines that we use to communicate manifested from the muck of the earth.

Just take my statement for what it said: There is no evidence that random mutations cause species change. If you do not believe this, get onto the internet and check out the fruit fly experiments which attempted unsuccessfully to develop such evidence. Hapless fruit flies have been bombarded with enough radiation to transform them into dragonflies, yet they only managed to mutate into deformed fruit flies with duplicate parts.

All I propose is that you acknowledge the absence of evidence, not for the reality of evolution, but for the belief that random genetic changes made it happen.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The most adequate explanation of reality recognises the power of the mind.
2. Materialism rejects the power of the mind.
3. Materialism derives the mind from matter.
4. Materialism presupposes atomism.
5. Atomism claims persons are composed solely of atomic particles.
6. Atomism is a fragmentation of reality.
7. Atomism is restricted to analysis and excludes synthesis.
8. Atomism is restricted to the past and lacks a comprehensive view of reality.
9. Atomism substitutes causes for reasons.
10. Atomism deprives reality of value, purpose and meaning.
11. Atomism and materialism are self-refuting.

1. Reasoning is necessarily purposeful.
2. Reasoning is necessarily independent.
3. Reasoning is essential for personal fulfilment.
4. Reasoning is the most valuable and significant feature of human existence.
5. Reasoning cannot be derived from purposeless processes.
6. Reasoning reveals the limitations of sense perception.
7. Reasoning reveals the absurdity of materialism.
8. Reasoning presupposes the existence of intangible facts and principles.
9. Reasoning presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.
10. Reasoning presupposes Design.

 

[greylorn]

gl:

There is no evidence that random molecular events could have produced a viable living, self-reproductive cell.

I agree. But no one supposes that “random molecular events” have done this. Biology is physics, and is complex interaction of chance and law.

I’m going to ask you for a ruthlessly honest discussion, because you strike me as capable of it. Kindly put aside your natural human need to support your beliefs, for a moment, and consider your statement in the context of mine.

I said that “there is no evidence that random molecular events could have produced a viable living, self-reproductive cell.”

You agreed, then tempered your agreement with the statement that, “…no one supposes that “random molecular events” have done this.”

I’m tempted to ask, if random events did not do this, what did, but you kind of pre-empted that riposte with this strange claim: "*Biology is physics, and is complex interaction of **chance **and law. *

I’ve taken the liberty of accentuating your word, “chance.” Are not “random events” and chance pretty much the same thing? Why are you agreeing with me, but pretending to disagree?

I agree with you, and with myself, completely. I’d not brought up the requirement that biological molecules adhere to laws of physics, and I agree with you absolutely that they must do so.

I do not believe in supernatural biochemical bonding, but inasmuch as I have seen evidence of telekinesis and have once performed a telekinetic action myself, inadvertently, IMO there is evidence that minds, in some form, can move matter.

It seems a possible theoretical conjecture that if a number of conscious, intelligent, physical but non-material entities actually existed, they could assemble the right molecules into microbiologically useful configurations. (This is exactly what abiogenesis researchers are attempting to do, and more power to them. If they succeed, they will prove only that it is possible for intelligent beings to construct biological life from raw molecules.)

These do – demonstrably, all over the place – create novel structures and new information in combination. For example, it’s not a random accident that hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at certain temperatures, pressures, proximity, etc. combined to form H20. The atoms to move about in random ways due to Brownian motion, but yet, water isn’t just likely in those contexts, it’s inevitable, completely predictable. This is the interaction of natural processes, processes that integrate stochastic behaviors and “severe prejudice” toward certain outcomes.

There is a definite chemical affinity between hydrogen and oxygen, such that any idiot can blow up an automobile battery by touching a match to a charging cell.

This affinity produces a simple, three-atom molecule-- water, which takes very little to create. In fact, given a mixture of pure hydrogen and oxygen, considerable proficiency is required to create anything other than water from it, at least at the first stage of reaction.

The opposite is true of organic molecules. For example, protein molecules are composed of amino acids, 22 of them in some cases. Each amino acid is a highly reactive molecule, more so even than oxygen and hydrogen. Put a bunch of AA’s together in a solution and they will combine, randomly, and non-constructively. Moreover, unlike water, they will combine inconsistently.

By that I mean that if you assemble a batch of, let’s say, the 7 amino acids necessary to make a specific peptide molecule and stir the pot, you will get very few of the desired peptide molecules. They will prove impossible to sort from the batch of other miscellaneous proteins.

The only way to synthesize even a small molecule is to assemble it, one amino acid at a time, building up an amino-acid protein chain. Because the acids are so reactive, each end of the growing protein must be chemically capped to prevent it from connecting to other growing proteins and making something else.

Then, before the next acid is added, one end of the growing protein must be chemically uncapped. These chemical bonds are so strong that the chemical solutions needed to release them are among the most violently toxic you can imagine. For example, TFA, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoroacetic_acid. Spill a drop of it on your wrist and watch it come out the other side, leaving whatever nerve endings it contacts turned full on, and putting the wrist owner in excruciating pain.

Surely, nature has found different methods for protein assembly without TFA and other toxic chemicals, but they remain mostly a mystery.

Yes, the same odds that hydrogen and oxygen atoms will form up as H20 as a result of Brownian motion. It’s not even a serious objection, if you are omitting the suite of dynamics and time factors involved that facilitate the formation of water molecules. To suppose that the human gene assembled, as is, in one lottery draw, from random sequencing, is to deny that water could form by just jiggling around together – no chemistry involved, no valence affinities, ionization potentials, etc.

Either the nature of Brownian motion has been extended and I’ve not caught up, or you are confusing it with the random molecular motion within gasses otherwise known as heat.

Brownian motion is a phenomenon observed under a microscope when small dust particles are immersed in a water solution. The dust particles are observed to move, randomly. Einstein was the one to explain this, showing via statistical analysis that the random motion of water molecules was enough to kick the dust around in the observed manner.

Brownian motion is not the mechanism for the manufacture of water, to the best of my knowledge, because it requires water.

And BTW, I have yet to learn of a competent explanation for the formation of water in deep space, and regard it a mystery. Because both oxygen and hydrogen are so reactive, they are likely to react with a larger molecule first, making them unavailable for the easy manufacture of water.

But that is another issue. Once again, water is a simple molecule, easily manufactured from two atoms. Put together, those two atoms will form water and nothing else, unless there is some excess oxygen, in which case there will be some hydrogen peroxide.

A protein is an entirely different matter. The small 600-acid proteins in the human body cannot be assembled by heat, Brownian motion, or stirring them together in a pot. They must be, and are, strung together one acid at a time. Then, in order to function properly, they are folded.

This exceedingly complex process cannot be intelligently compared to making water.

The human genome is considered to be the output of a billion year and more cumulative process, right?

Actually, no. Most DNA modifications leading to current biological forms began, according to the fossil record (the evidence) during the Cambrian era, beginning about 530 million years ago. Even Charlie acknowledged that this presented a problem for his theory. Wiki this. You’ll find it interesting to note that the most significant evolutionary changes occurred during a period of less than 100 million years.

Darwinists have not taken the trouble to perform the complex, extensive computations necessary to establish even something so simple as rate of evolution per species per year, because it would invalidate their theories.

I tried simple versions of such calculations on a few well documented species and found that the evolution rate was greater than the generation period, which seems to me not to work out too well.

To account for insects, random species change needs to produce a new bug species every two years. Evidence?

Well, if we throw out natural principles, and posit the genome or the water molecule as a random sequence, full stop, yes. But that’s not at all what science proposes to have happened, or happen all around us.
-TS

I have found it very difficult to find out exactly what evolutionary biology (which IMO is more religion than science) actually does claim to have happened. I find its proponents only waving their hands over the problem, positing vague schemes and possibilities even in the face of contrary evidence.

That is fine for their followers, just like a minister’s gospel interpretations. It is inadequate food for the critical mind.

 

[greylorn]

If an axiom can be “untrue”, then it is not an axiom.

Your demand is, with all due respect, absurd.

Axioms are elements of logic, not of science.

Moreover, the statement for which you demand proof comes out of the definition of what an axiom is. Have the courtesy and integrity to actually look it up, please.

 

[Touchstone]

You’ve just argued for your axiom. You’re seeking to justify something by use of an argument. I can evalute whether what you have to say is meaningful or not – or whether it is true or not. All of this is done without use of physical science.

You are confusing justification with necessity. An axiom has a reason for being invoked, but it’s not “argued for” as matter of justification. It’s invoked because its necessary, not in an justificational sense, but in the ontological sense; without it, the system that rests on it cannot get off the ground.

For example, in Euclidean geometry, the axiom known as the “parallel postulate” is not needed for the first 28 of Euclid’s elements. But the parallel postulate (or an equivalent like Playfair’s) is necessary for whole bunch of proofs beyond that. So it is adopted, axiomatically. Large amounts of time and effort over centuries have been devoted to “arguing for” the parallel postulate, to derive it such that it is not needed as an axiom (it was suspect because it’s not as intuitive as the other axioms), but all attempts failed. The parallel postulate isn’t “argued for”, it’s simply necessary for the proofs to be done.

You claimed that the discussion could be limited to what physical science alone could evaluate. As I said, this is an obvious contradiction.

Maybe you should just quote me on that, I don’t recognize it or remember that. If we are discussing knowledge, and what can be known, and what “known” means, then falsifiability is key feature that science brings to the table, and which restricts necessarily the kinds of propositions we can regard as “knowledge”, but that in no way means we have to limit our discussion, about anything.

Again, you’re giving a defense for the use of these axioms.

Uh, yes. Again, don’t get justification confused with necessity. Axioms are necessary, not arrived at via justified argumentation.

This is why you cannot use science to evaluate what science is. This is why your claim that we could limit the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate is false.
You continue to offer justifications and arguments which cannot be evaluated scientifically.

Well, if you are going to insist on one heuristic to apply in all cases, you have an infinite regress, and your epsitemology cannot get off the ground, cannot bootstrap itself. This is necessarily the case. I’m not endorsing any such infinite regress,but rather have anchored my epistemology in a metaphysical axiom, the axiom that holds that our senses are sufficiently veridical to enable construction of performative models of the extra-mental world. That’s not “science evaluating the grounds for science”. It’s not regressive at all. It’s dependent on a metaphysical axiom, an axiom that is invoked by necessity, to enable epistemology to get off the ground at all.

Now you direct me to “ask any scientist”. Yet another absurdity. I go ask “any scientist” and get an opinion and thus you prove your point (supposedly) and justify the axioms you’re defending and explaining.

Oy. Axioms, by definition, cannot be justified. If the are amenable to justification, they are not axioms. My reference to asking scientists was just by way of pointing out that what I’m saying is boringly conventional and well adopted in the practice of science, by scientists. If you just want to do some “spot research” to sample that, I believe you will find that what I say checks out, that’s all.

This, you claim, is how to limit the discussion to “physical science alone”. You’re claiming, apparently, that a single data point, a single opinion from any scientist is empirical data accessible to physical science.

See above, that wasn’t the point of the recommendation to ask a scientist at all. But your conversation with a scientist would provide a datum, or data, nevertheless. If you wanted to develop a model of what scientists believe and deploy in their practice of science, you’d be off to a start. You’d need a lot more data from more scientists to build a model that would hold up to testing and analysis, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, etc.

I can tell you to ask any believing Catholic if God exists. Using your “scientific” method, that truth would then demonstrated clearly.

It would reveal what those people believed. Same with asking scientists. The point of referring you to them was to confirm that those beliefs are part and parcel of the practice of science, no matter what we may think of their truth value. Same thing would apply to Catholics. I think a lot of them would believe the Pope is the “vicar of Christ”. Doesn’t matter what you or I think of the truthiness of that belief – it would be true to say that x percentage of Catholics report believing this (x being whatever the survey showed).

We evaluate whether definitions are accurate, useful, consistent, clear, broad or narrow. You’re claiming that physical science alone can make these determinations.

No, I’m making a broader point. If you don’t have a means of falsifying your models or propositions, it’s meaningless to regard those propositions or models as “knowledge” or “true” in any non-trivial way (a definition is a trivial truth). Scientific epistemology strongly supports this principle, so that epistemology commends itself, because knowledge in that framework can be distinguished from non-knowledge, semantically, and observationally.

Again, another philosophical claim that destroys your notion that the discussion can be limited to physical science alone. Beyond that, it appears that you’re claiming that we have to accept the idea that the extra-mental world is real on blind faith alone.

Well, sighted faith, perhaps. The commitment is very easy to demonstrate, and impossible to deny. You are hard-wired to accept this and cannot do otherwise. If you think so, I’ll refer to my long-standing instructions to tonyrey: take a cigarette lighter, and light it, and hold it so the flame is licking the palm of your hand. Report back how long you can do this, rejecting this claim.

I’m interested to hear how you fare in denying this claim, try as you might.

Uncontroversially, we all accept this axiom, and can’t fail to. We do vary in how thoroughly we apply it, though, and whether we abandon it in cases where it’s not physically impossible, or otherwise agonizing or lethal to do so – where our superstitions can be indulged.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

(con’t)

reggieM:

Apparently, we can’t evaluate that claim at all since it is axiomatic.

Yes, now you have it! Again, try the cigarette lighter experiment if your convictions on this waver.

So, as it happens, scientism reduces to dogmatism.

No, dogmatism is a whole different animal. Axioms obtain of necessity. Dogmata are unjustified and assailable as a political arrangement, as an exercise of authority. The propositions themselves are not necessary; if they were, you wouldn’t need your dogma!

Nothing outside of science can be evaluated and therefore the initial premises that lead to science have to be accepted without critical thought – blindly, as any fundamentalist does with a sacred text.

It is critical thought that illuminates the necessity of the axiom. And experience further demonstrates the practical necessity, the hardwiring of that commitment into our involuntary mental processes – again, try the cigarette lighter experiment for a vivid demonstration of this.

You mention “to some substantial extent” – thus providing a non-scientific measure.

It’s not a scientific model. It’s a metaphysical axiom, a proposition. We were making such good progress…

This kind of irrationality will continue through everything you have to say until you admit that you’re wrong. The discussion cannot be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate. You need to realize that and change your worldview. Or else, as I said, you can simply assert that your position is irrational.

We can discuss whatever we like. If we are going to invest the terms “knowledge”, “false” and “true” with semantic cargo, we should be clear about what those semantics are. For propositions/models we regard as (putative) knowledge, we need semantics for “non-knowledge” and “false” in order for “knowledge” and “true” to be meaningful.

The hazard for you is not what we can discuss. Rather, it’s providing semantic content for your epistemic terms. What, for example, distinguishes a “true” statement of knowledge from a “false” statement of knowledge? If there is no method, then we can continue to discuss that all we like, but “true” has become inert. If “true” is not contingent on anything outside of the mind, on any extra-mental (name removed by moderator)ut, your “true” is wholly subjective and solipsistic, detached from the extra-mental world.

We can discuss that, and do, ad nauseum. But it does get problematic to discuss the semantics of epistemology when there aren’t any. I was a Christian for a long time, so am well familiar with this problem from a Christian standpoint.

There we go again, one must evaluate the semantics. Here’s a direct contradiction to what you claimed. Unless I’ve misunderstood. You could, perhaps, take the word into a lab. Find its physical dimensions. Then find the physical connection from that word, wherever it exists in space, and discover its physical connection to “meaning”. You could then find the physical dimensions and properties of “meaning” also. Then you can measure that against other words that you’ve captured in nature somewhere and observe their physical dimensions. That’s how physical science can find the correct definitions.

No, science develops models. We use language, and integrate propostions and predicates into out models. But the “word” is not the target, but rather the concept the word(s) refer to, and beyond that, the referent of the concept in the extra-mental world – the feature of the world around us that is the subject of the concept, if any. To make models that produce natural knowledge, we must integrate propositions whose underlying concepts do have referents in the real world. If we use the word “heat” in our model, that term is only as knowledge bearing in our model as the concept the word refers to is grounded in a feature of the natural world, as mediated by our senses.

Prove that using physical science alone – as with the scientific method. If you can’t then you need to admit that you’re wrong.

Oy, it’s not a scientific proposition, or a model. It’s a tautology, a definition. What we refer to with the word “axiom” is a proposition that is necessarily true. It’s proven in EXACTLY the same sense as we prove the statement “all bachelors are unmarried”, or “living people are not dead”.

You made a definite claim against a very distinct proposition. Now you’re changing it.

I’ll accept that you’ve been proven wrong but that you either can’t admit it or can’t recognize it.

Let’s begin by looking at the quote of mine that you are thinking of as this claim. Can you provide it, please?

Again – another non-scientific claim which is either an axiom or not.
If an axiom, then according to you “it can’t be untrue” – and it cannot be evaluated.
If not an axiom, then according to you, it can be evaluated using physical science alone.

No, that doesn’t nearly exhaust all the options for propositions. “God, an immaterial being, created the world”, is not a necessary proposition. Neither is it a proposition that can be evaluated by science, or any objective criteria – “immaterial being” is not a concept we have experience with, not a concept with a referent in the extra-mental world. There are innumerable such propositions. Which is just fine, and is nothing more than to note that not all propositions qualify as knowledge propositions.

So, even the act of choosing whether your claims are axiomatic cannot be done using physical science alone. Your entire mental framework has been reduced to that which physical science alone can evaluate. Then you build that world on non-empirical philosophical premises which cannot be evaluated, apparently, and must be accepted on blind faith.

Covered above.

You’ve tried to deny the validity of philosophical principles, when you’ve actually shown the superiority of philosophy.

You must be confusing me with some else. To which statement(s) of mine are you referring?

Your claim that the discussion can be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate is denied by your blind-faith trust in metaphysical axioms.

Again, this limitation complaint must be a case of mistaken identity.

You can’t explain yourself without reference to non-empirical assumptions. You argue and defend your views by citing definitions of words, and then you ask me to get the opinion of “any scientist” in order validate the supposed truth of your definitions.

Words mean what we agree they mean. If you ask scientists, you will find a consensus in that circle on the meanings agreed to. That’s what establishes the utlity of the definitions I was referring to – they are meaningful by agreement, which is how any definition obtains its currency.

So, you can insist that you’re right and accept that your position is irrational. Or you can admit that you are wrong and accept that this discussion cannot be limited to what physical science alone can evaluate.

I think you have spent a lot of time shadow-boxing an opponent that isn’t there, naysaying claims that weren’t made! And very little time reacting to the claims and points I actually did raise.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I’m going to ask you for a ruthlessly honest discussion, because you strike me as capable of it. Kindly put aside your natural human need to support your beliefs, for a moment, and consider your statement in the context of mine.

OK! Putting my “ruthlessly honest” steampunk goggles on… one moment…

I said that “there is no evidence that random molecular events could have produced a viable living, self-reproductive cell.”

You agreed, then tempered your agreement with the statement that, “…no one supposes that “random molecular events” have done this.”

I’m tempted to ask, if random events did not do this, what did, but you kind of pre-empted that riposte with this strange claim: "*Biology is physics, and is complex interaction of **chance ***and law.

I’ve taken the liberty of accentuating your word, “chance.” Are not “random events” and chance pretty much the same thing? Why are you agreeing with me, but pretending to disagree?

I understood you to be denying that chance/randomness (I’m fine using either) could/would produce a human genome, as a matter or chance/randomness. I’m pretty confident I have that right, because you provided the math for your calculation of probability, which confirms a “chance” alone production.

My objection was not that chance was involved, but that chance was solely involved.

This example may illuminate my point. If I have 10 billion of two kinds of gaseous atoms in a container, free to move around, it’s astronomically improbable that all of one kind will randomly locate themselves on one side of the tank, and the other kind on the opposite side of the tank, no other dynamics availing.

But if you take a measure of oil, and a measure of water, and put them in a glass, that random motion (pedesis in liquids) is still in play, but the oil and water will separate in a short amount of time, with all the water on the bottom and the oil on the top, or the reverse, depending on the oil we are using.

What gives? How can such an ostensibly improbable thing happen? As you know, chance is at work in pedesis and elsewhere, but that is not the only dynamic, not nearly. The oil and water separate due to gravity, the difference in the relative mass of each. With that “chance + law” set of dynamics, what was otherwise astronomically improbable is become inevitable, predictable.

So too, with biological structures. Stochastic (name removed by moderator)uts obtain, but the laws of physics and chemistry at small scales and large, exert deterministic outcomes on those random (name removed by moderator)uts and produce complexity, structure, novel information, and patterns. Inevitably, naturally.

I agree with you, and with myself, completely. I’d not brought up the requirement that biological molecules adhere to laws of physics, and I agree with you absolutely that they must do so.

I do not believe in supernatural biochemical bonding, but inasmuch as I have seen evidence of telekinesis and have once performed a telekinetic action myself, inadvertently, IMO there is evidence that minds, in some form, can move matter.

OK, that is not at all my experience, at least in the sense I think you mean it. My mind moves matter in a mundane sense, of course – signals from my brain go through my arms to my fingers which move, and depress keys on my keyboard, in extraordinarily annoying ways, for example.

It seems a possible theoretical conjecture that if a number of conscious, intelligent, physical but non-material entities actually existed, they could assemble the right molecules into microbiologically useful configurations. (This is exactly what abiogenesis researchers are attempting to do, and more power to them. If they succeed, they will prove only that it is possible for intelligent beings to construct biological life from raw molecules.)

Yes, agreed. It’s a conjecture that is certainly problematic with respect to falsifiability, or verification, but that notwithstanding, it’s a possible could-be.

There is a definite chemical affinity between hydrogen and oxygen, such that any idiot can blow up an automobile battery by touching a match to a charging cell.

Heh. Yeah. I know you know this (although I was or am confused as to how this doesn’t prevent the citation of pure-chance probabilities for the assembly of DNA from you…), some of this I think is useful for others reading.

This affinity produces a simple, three-atom molecule-- water, which takes very little to create. In fact, given a mixture of pure hydrogen and oxygen, considerable proficiency is required to create anything other than water from it, at least at the first stage of reaction.

Right. My shorthand answer, then to your objection to natural generation of DNA is that DNA is just a very large example of both chance and the same stereochemical and other physical affinities that natural produce structure and complexity from raw resources (with lots of available energy).

The opposite is true of organic molecules. For example, protein molecules are composed of amino acids, 22 of them in some cases. Each amino acid is a highly reactive molecule, more so even than oxygen and hydrogen. Put a bunch of AA’s together in a solution and they will combine, randomly, and non-constructively. Moreover, unlike water, they will combine inconsistently.

In an aqueous context, yes. The required peptide bonds (L-amino acid linking) are at an energetic disadvantage in “watery contexts”, which is how we’ve typically conceived the process. But in non-aqueous configurations – IIRC, mineral surfaces are currently thought to be energetically more favorable than dried out pond surfaces and the like – provide more favorable reaction sites.

But, even the challenges here support the larger point; Physics, chemistry, and biology all are contingent on randomness at the lowest levels, but exert constraints and regularities on energy and matter, which produces a “natural process”, which is NOT a chance process, not solely a chance process. Even when the requirements are demanding, this is demonstration of “law” (or more precisely, the natural forces/regularities we refer to as "law) asserting itself in structuring, non-random ways.

By that I mean that if you assemble a batch of, let’s say, the 7 amino acids necessary to make a specific peptide molecule and stir the pot, you will get very few of the desired peptide molecules. They will prove impossible to sort from the batch of other miscellaneous proteins.

Right, see above.

The only way to synthesize even a small molecule is to assemble it, one amino acid at a time, building up an amino-acid protein chain. Because the acids are so reactive, each end of the growing protein must be chemically capped to prevent it from connecting to other growing proteins and making something else.

Then, before the next acid is added, one end of the growing protein must be chemically uncapped. These chemical bonds are so strong that the chemical solutions needed to release them are among the most violently toxic you can imagine. For example, TFA, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoroacetic_acid. Spill a drop of it on your wrist and watch it come out the other side, leaving whatever nerve endings it contacts turned full on, and putting the wrist owner in excruciating pain.

Surely, nature has found different methods for protein assembly without TFA and other toxic chemicals, but they remain mostly a mystery.

Yes, aware and fine with all of this. I’m perplexed now, as this seems to be quite a strong counter to your probability arguments for the human genome in your previous post! These are the very mechanics which render those kinds of calculations irrelevant, inapplicable. And – tipping my hat – I didn’t have to explain it to you, you laid it out for me.

Either the nature of Brownian motion has been extended and I’ve not caught up, or you are confusing it with the random molecular motion within gasses otherwise known as heat.

Brownian motion is a phenomenon observed under a microscope when small dust particles are immersed in a water solution. The dust particles are observed to move, randomly. Einstein was the one to explain this, showing via statistical analysis that the random motion of water molecules was enough to kick the dust around in the observed manner.

I looked back, and missed where you think I was mistaken in my reference, there. Maybe a quote you are thinking of.

Brownian motion is not the mechanism for the manufacture of water, to the best of my knowledge, because it requires water.

It doesn’t require water per se – dust particles doing their random walk in alcohol is the same dynamic, for example, but I take your point. In my water example, I’m thinking of chemical reactions that produce water – specifically, was thinking about an alcohol => ether reaction which produced water as a byproduct. The hydrogen and oxgen atoms are freed, and don’t combine “randomly”, but with chemical affinity (as you’ve allowed above, so I know this is not controversial now). Thinking about I guess I would say the kinetics that govern the movement of the freed H atoms are the “same that animate what we call ‘Brownian Motion’”, but come to think of it, I’m not sure if that dynamic is the same, or that freed H or O are “jiggling” the same way (can’t see how they aren’t, but it’s not something I’ve considered before).

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

And BTW, I have yet to learn of a competent explanation for the formation of water in deep space, and regard it a mystery. Because both oxygen and hydrogen are so reactive, they are likely to react with a larger molecule first, making them unavailable for the easy manufacture of water.

Well, I’m not able to give you good reasons to locate a reaction like I just described above – say ethanol => ethene + water, acid catalyzed – in deep space. But if you have ethanol (plausible? I know methanol clouds have been identified in space, but methanol is not dehydrative in the way that ethanol is) dehydration taking place, the manufacture is “pre-arranged” by the nature of reaction, no?

But that is another issue. Once again, water is a simple molecule, easily manufactured from two atoms. Put together, those two atoms will form water and nothing else, unless there is some excess oxygen, in which case there will be some hydrogen peroxide.

OK, well, we are to first base, then.

A protein is an entirely different matter. The small 600-acid proteins in the human body cannot be assembled by heat, Brownian motion, or stirring them together in a pot. They must be, and are, strung together one acid at a time. Then, in order to function properly, they are folded.

This exceedingly complex process cannot be intelligently compared to making water.

It’s certainly more complex and more “extreme” in the sense that the conditions for assembly are not nearly so ubiquitous as they are for water, but I suggest these are both differences in degree of complexity/configuration, but not in the “naturalness” of the affinities and rules of chemistry itself. That is to say, yes, it’s a much more exotic product, but such exotic products are no more and no less natural/chemical than water, so far as I can see.

Do I understand you then, in light of your knowledge of chemical synthesis to take a position of incredulity, where DNA (Or RNA, or more rudimentary polymers…) synthesis is considered?

Actually, no. Most DNA modifications leading to current biological forms began, according to the fossil record (the evidence) during the Cambrian era, beginning about 530 million years ago. Even Charlie acknowledged that this presented a problem for his theory. Wiki this. You’ll find it interesting to note that the most significant evolutionary changes occurred during a period of less than 100 million years.

Ahh, that’s a well worn, comfy-couch of a topic for me. I’ve been debating creationists (not saying your are own, can’t quite get a bead on your position yet) for a long time, so this is highly familiar territory. I’d be willing to stipulate that most of the action in that “explosion” is likely bounded by a period of 50 million years. But, while this is a complex topic of its own, it’s important to point out that evolutionary mechanics are incremental not gradualist in the sense that populations evolve and adapt at uniform rates, generation after generation. In sense that is true – genetic mutation rates in reproduction are basically constant, meaning heritable variations are produces at a predictable and consistent rate. But the rate at which variations are affected by the selective pressures of the environment, and thus become fixed in the population, varies wildly.

Horseshoe crabs, for example, are today basically unchanged compared to their ancestors from hundreds of millions of years ago. This is not a sign that heritable variation stopped, or changed at all, or is any different than the variable factors for other animals (whose populations may have adapted and changed dramatically in the same period); the horseshoe crab represents a “local maxima” of adaptations, a niche of high optimization for the environmental context it inhabits.

Evolution can, and observedly does, lurch forward in fits and starts in many cases. It’s still and always incremental, but changes in the environment, and more importantly, changes in adaptions of some species catalyze “great leaps forward” over comparatively small time periods, viewed, against, say, the relative stasis of the horseshoe crab over 500 million years.

If you gotta cram all that development and adaptation into 50 million years, no problem! That is really a stupendously long time – count the generations, for example, for any species you like.

Darwinists have not taken the trouble to perform the complex, extensive computations necessary to establish even something so simple as rate of evolution per species per year, because it would invalidate their theories.

Well, there’s been a whole lot of work done on “molecular clocks”, which addresses this question. As you state it, though, that “simple” rate is not simple at all; it may be a single number, but it’s a function of thorough knowledge of environmental parameters we can’t hope to accurately reconstruct. We’d have to have reliable population sizes, at a local level, for example, in order to derive this number. That’s a challenge that makes “complete fossil lineages” look like tiddly winks. Molecular clocks, which is promising avenue of investigation, but problematic in its own right, works something like the reverse; if we look at observed mutation and change rates that we can measure around us, then we might use that to infer and calculate environmental and population parameters back in time. As we watch the genomics change, and calibrating those rates against fossil markers, if available, we can estimate things like points of species divergence, population densities, etc.

I tried simple versions of such calculations on a few well documented species and found that the evolution rate was greater than the generation period, which seems to me not to work out too well.

Interesting. Maybe you could sketch out a back-of-the-napkin calculation that shows the problem you found, here?

To account for insects, random species change needs to produce a new bug species every two years. Evidence?

OK this raises concerns. If we just take a pop-science bit from a couple years ago, we can see how speciation can happen at dizzying rates. In the London Underground , a new species of mosquito has emerged:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

Now, how does this speciation happen? Is this the result of hyper-rapid and “smart” mutations? No, not hardly. Like most speciation paths, this one obtains just due to separating off a sub-population from another population. In order to create two species where there was just one, a very simple recipe: just split the population in two, and keep them segregated. Don’t change any rates of mutation, any mechanics for horizontal gene transfer, none of that. Just divide 'em and wait.

Which is what happened with the London Underground mosquito, as an example here. All across the planet, populations of insects (and all manner of other things) get “split off”, and these new, discreet populations breed amongst themselves, and due to genetic drift, eventually become breeding-incompatible with the population they split off from. Voila! A new species. This scenario is in play all over the place, and is a prolific engine of speciation (and not just for insects).

I have found it very difficult to find out exactly what evolutionary biology (which IMO is more religion than science) actually does claim to have happened. I find its proponents only waving their hands over the problem, positing vague schemes and possibilities even in the face of contrary evidence.

That is fine for their followers, just like a minister’s gospel interpretations. It is inadequate food for the critical mind.

I think maybe a lot of the concrete elements of the model, and the evidence that attends it and validates it may just not be known to you. This certainly doesn’t strike me as a rejection that is robustly familiar with the theory.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

1. Only persons are capable of reasoning.
2. Only persons have insight into the nature of reality.
3. Only persons can control themselves, their instincts and their environment.
4. Only persons can create art, music, science, philosophy and literature.
5. Only persons can destroy life on this planet.
6. Only persons are morally responsible for their actions and intentions.
7. Only persons are capable of unselfish love.
8. Only persons are capable of spiritual development.
9. Persons cannot be explained as sets of impersonal particles.
10. Personal existence is the highest form of existence in the universe.

 

[reggieM]

Your demand is, with all due respect, absurd.

Axioms are elements of logic, not of science.

The claim that Touchstone is defending is that the discussion can be limited to what science alone can evaluate. Here you prove that science cannot evaluate axioms, and that science cannot evaluate logic. Thus, Touchstone’s position is refuted.

Moreover, the statement for which you demand proof comes out of the definition of what an axiom is.

Do you think definitions of terms can be evaluated by physical science or not? If not, then Touchstone’s position is absurd – as I said.

 

[tonyrey]

The claim that Touchstone is defending is that the discussion can be limited to what science alone can evaluate. Here you prove that science cannot evaluate axioms, and that science cannot evaluate logic. Thus, Touchstone’s position is refuted.
Do you think definitions of terms can be evaluated by physical science or not? If not, then Touchstone’s position is absurd – as I said.

1. Science is based on the axiom that the universe is intelligible.
2. That axiom is meaningless without the further axiom that the human mind can interpret reality successfully.
3. Science cannot establish the truth of that axiom unless it defines the mind and reality.
4. Science cannot do so unless it justifies the axiom that all reality is physical.

 

[reggieM]

Maybe you should just quote me on that, I don’t recognize it or remember that.

Ok, here’s where the comment appeared:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9562710&postcount=265

I stated:
Limiting the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate is impossible and contradictory.

You replied:

Touchstone:

It’s neither,

So that’s where we disagree. I see your view as irrational, self-contradictory and obviously false.

Given you still might not recognize your words the term “neither” is a denial. You’re denying that it is “impossible”. This means that you’re affirming it is possible. As I said,
"ReggieM:

You claimed that the discussion could be

limited to what physical science alone could evaluate.

By denying that it is impossible, you claimed that it is possible. That’s what we mean by “could be limited”.

But then, as above, you replied:

Maybe you should just quote me on that, I don’t recognize it or remember that.

We have been arguing about this one point over a multitude of responses. I have repeated the exact point to you several times. Now you “don’t recognize or remember it.” Clearly, you could have denied it long ago, except that you tried to defend it. Now that you see it’s indefensible, you claim that you don’t remember.

Now let’s look at this:

I make no such claims that discussion should be thus limited. Discuss what you like.

Very clever indeed. You apparently “can’t remember”, but above, you remember it so well that you actually changed my statement. Now you’re saying: “… that discussion should be thus limited …”

My statement was clear and I’ve repeated it several times:

Limiting the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate is impossible and contradictory.

So, you’re using subtle manipulation to avoid the problem. You repeat it in this very reply:

… in no way means we have to

limit our discussion, about anything.

Very deceptive again. You tried “should be limited”, now you change to “have to limit”.
For some reason, you can’t quote the statement “can be limited”.

That says a lot about you and how you approach a discussion. Why not bend the truth and claim you don’t remember what you said after I repeated it to you several times? Why not change my statement to fit your arguments? Why not stretch the defense of your error over a flurry of irrelevant comments?

It was obvious to me that you had nowhere to go.

But as I see it, it’s good that you recognize your error – sort of. Since this error is a fundamental component of your worldview, I don’t expect you to be detached enough to really look at it. But I think you’re making progress – and that’s a very good thing.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Science is based on the axiom that the universe is intelligible.
2. That axiom is meaningless without the further axiom that the human mind can interpret reality successfully.
3. Science cannot establish the truth of that axiom unless it defines the mind and reality.
4. Science cannot do so unless it justifies the axiom that all reality is physical.

I should add that an axiom is defined as:

A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

 

[reggieM]

(con’t)
Let’s begin by looking at the quote of mine that you are thinking of as this claim. Can you provide it, please?

There’s a little blue arrow on the upper right of every quoted text. You can use that to trace comments back to their sources.
In any case, I provided your quote in the previous comment.

You must be confusing me with some else. To which statement(s) of mine are you referring?

As above. Suddenly, after a previous long post that focused on this one single issue, you decide that you don’t know what I’m referring to.

Again, this limitation complaint must be a case of mistaken identity.

You repeated twice that the discussion “should not be limited” – clearly having understood your original denial. You then made every effort do distance yourself from it by changing the wording.

I think you have spent a lot of time shadow-boxing an opponent that isn’t there, naysaying claims that weren’t made!

I have spent a lot of time over the past two days trying to get you to recognize the absurdity and contradiction of a single point. This appears as shadow-boxing because my opponent has been able to raise a flood of irrelevant comments while pretending not to understand that single point which I specified clearly. So, this opponent is not even a shadow – he has removed himself from the discussion by pretending that he never said what he said – even after trying to defend himself for the past two days!

Now, apparently, it’s too difficult for him to trace back the comments on this thread to actually remember what he said. So, I have to do his work for him. He is a shadowy figure indeed! Additionally, just earlier he said “he can’t remember” and now he says, positively that the claims “weren’t made”. Funny how the memory just became crystal clear all of a sudden!

Now let’s hear how the word “neither” actually means “both” and “either”. Of course.
Let’s hear how “could be” actually means “should be” – hey we already heard that!

Nice job, Touchstone.

And very little time reacting to the claims and points I actually did raise.

If I can’t get you to even recognize your own simple denial of a statement – and how you’ve covered that up over the past days with irrelevant “claims and points” then my task is done. I want to see if it’s possible for you to recognize the truth when you see it – or will you simply deny and obscure it?

Clearly, you want me to “react” to your irrelevant comments. I know that game very well. It’s a smokescreen. Create some noise so you can run away and get lost in the bushes somewhere.

Do you have the courage and humility to admit when you’re completely wrong? Or should we carry out this absurd and boring argument for another several days?

That’s the fundamental problem for materialist-atheism. Can there be any real sincerity and rationality in atheism, or is it just a mask to cover some latent personal hostility that biases and blinds a person?

I gain better answers to this question as I observe how you approach problems. There’s a lot to discover and learn as I see you struggle with your own contradictions.

… And to CAF readers, no I’m not going to continue this absurd and boring argument for more days. For anyone who wants to look at it, the details are on display in all of their glory. Trying to get Touchstone to do more than he is, perhaps, capable of is not a good use of time.

So, I apologize for dragging this out with mundane repetitions of a single point in the hope that the person will be able to see and admit his error.

You can have the last word, Touchstone. If you want to respond with some sincerity, that would be great – I’ll appreciate it and respond in kind.

If you want to try to score some points and continue to twist your own words, there’s no need for that. I’ve seen what you’ve done already and it’s enough.

Thanks.

 

[reggieM]

Limiting the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate is impossible and contradictory.

Correction – the underlined term doesn’t indicate the problem.
The point is, nowhere does it say that the discussion “should be” or “have to be” limited. It’s a general statement:
– It is impossible to limit the discussion …
– The discussion cannot possibly be limited to …
– It is impossible and therefore, there is no way the discussion could be limited to what physical science alone can evalute.

Touchstone changed this as if I said it “should be” or that we “have to” limit.

As I mentioned previously, to deny (as Touchstone did) that it is impossible to limit the discussion to what physical science alone can evaluate means …

The discussion could be limited to what physical science alone can evalute.

When you deny that it is impossible, you affirm that it is possible.

Touchstone then changed that twice – instead of “could be” or “it is possible” – he denied the discussion “should be” or we “have to” limit it.

This is the kind of idiotic minutia we have to deal with when there’s so much hostility to work through.

 

[reggieM]

1. Science is based on the axiom that the universe is intelligible.
2. That axiom is meaningless without the further axiom that the human mind can interpret reality successfully.
3. Science cannot establish the truth of that axiom unless it defines the mind and reality.
4. Science cannot do so unless it justifies the axiom that all reality is physical.

True – and axioms are first principles which are necessarily true in order to proceed with the following structure of thought. But axioms can be evaluated, accepted, modified or rejected through a rational analysis.

Science cannot justify the axiom that all reality is physical. But that axiom can be evaluated and accepted or not based on how true it is.

 

[reggieM]

1. Science is based on the axiom that the universe is intelligible.

This is strong evidence for design.

1. That axiom is meaningless without the further axiom that the human mind can interpret reality successfully.

From the materialist view, the origin of the intellect is an unintelligent, non-rational accident. With that, the intellect has no end or purpose.
So, its origin is irrational and and it has no end or purpose. While it exists, however, the intellect seeks truth, meaning and purpose. This contradicts its origin and its end.

In the Catholic view, the origin of the intellect is Intelligence and Rationality. The intellect has an end and purpose – and that is to discover and embrace the truth.
So, it’s origin is rational and it has a consistent purpose. While the intellect exists, it seeks truth, meaning and purpose – fully consistent with it’s origin and end.

It’s easy to see which proposition is more reasonable.

1. Science cannot establish the truth of that axiom unless it defines the mind and reality.
2. Science cannot do so unless it justifies the axiom that all reality is physical.

If all reality was physical, there would be no need for a reference to non-physical sources.

 

[tonyrey]

True – and axioms are first principles which are necessarily true in order to proceed with the following structure of thought. But axioms can be evaluated, accepted, modified or rejected through a rational analysis.

Science cannot justify the axiom that all reality is physical. But that axiom can be evaluated and accepted or not based on how true it is.

We can’t pick and choose which axioms we are going to use - unless of course we wish to arrive at preconceived conclusions. There has to be a universal consensus of reasonable individuals - which scientists presumably accept. No scientist worth his salt would dogmatically declare that science can in principle** explain **everything - in stark contrast to the view that all scientific statements are provisional…

 

[tonyrey]

1. Science is based on the axiom that the universe is intelligible.

Of course it could be an accident! But then we have to consider whether out of all possible universes intelligible universes are more common than unintelligible universes.
The second group must be a negligible minority because there are so many factors necessary for intelligent beings to exist.

2. That axiom is meaningless without the further axiom that the human mind can interpret reality successfully.

From the materialist view, the origin of the intellect is an unintelligent, non-rational accident. With that, the intellect has no end or purpose.
So, its origin is irrational and and it has no end or purpose. While it exists, however, the intellect seeks truth, meaning and purpose. This contradicts its origin and its end.

Who said miracles are confined to religion?

In the Catholic view, the origin of the intellect is Intelligence and Rationality. The intellect has an end and purpose – and that is to discover and embrace the truth.
So, it’s origin is rational and it has a consistent purpose. While the intellect exists, it seeks truth, meaning and purpose – fully consistent with it’s origin and end.

It’s easy to see which proposition is more reasonable.

Even a dimwit can see that dust will never transform itself into a dustman! (An old English word for garbageman.)

3. Science cannot establish the truth of that axiom unless it defines the mind and reality.
4. Science cannot do so unless it justifies the axiom that all reality is physical.

If all reality was physical, there would be no need for a reference to non-physical sources.

I’m sorry but you are forgetting the vast majority of people on this planet have been deluded since the dawn of history. Only a few enlightened individuals like Lucretius could understand that atoms are the be-all-and-end-all of existence. They are so minute (the atoms not the individuals!) that sooner or later an immense number of permutations will produce the desired result. No rational person can ignore the astonishing power of the blind Goddess - whereas the power of reason is a freak byproduct that can be safely ignored and regarded with the contempt it deserves… along with all its conclusions…