Sunday, March 20, 2011

Steve Clarke: Naturalism Can’t Be Sure

In his paper Naturalism, Science and the Supernatural, philosopher Steve Clarke argues that naturalism has a problem. Naturalism, Clarke points out, defers to science. And while fringe movements such as intelligent design appeal to the supernatural, mainstream accepted science does not. There are no contemporary examples, Clarke makes clear, of an explanation that appeals to the supernatural which is the best scientific explanation of some natural phenomenon. But such appeals have been made (and accepted) in the past, and there is no guarantee they won’t be in the future as well. Therefore naturalism, by deferring to science, cannot conclude against the supernatural. It is an interesting paper which raises, and misses, some important points.

Is science complete?

First, Clarke’s assurance that there is no contemporary explanation that appeals to the supernatural which is the best scientific explanation of some natural phenomenon, is rather obvious and practically a truism. Of course appeals to the supernatural don’t work for natural phenomenon. Natural phenomenon, by definition, are described by natural laws. Any appeal to the supernatural, by definition, will fail on Occam’s razor.

So yes, science has appealed to the supernatural in centuries past, but only because the phenomena in question was deemed to be supernatural. For example, it seemed to Newton that the best explanation for the origin of the solar system was that the creator placed the planets in their particular orbits. Likewise, it seemed to Paley that the best explanation for the origin of biological complexity was a designer. The origin of the solar system and biological complexity were deemed to be supernatural events.

This raises the thorny question of how one determines whether a phenomenon is natural. For instance, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural.

But how do we determine whether a phenomenon is natural? If genuine science is to be restricted to natural phenomena, then how do we demarcate this genuine science from the pseudo science? It has been almost 30 years since Larry Laudan showed the severity of the demarcation problem which evolutionists continue erroneously to use as justification for their unlikely thesis.

Clarke’s criticism of naturalism too soft

Clarke’s thesis that naturalism’s deference to science renders it vulnerable to a possible, future appeal to the supernatural in the sciences is too conservative. Evolutionists motivate and justify evolution with several claims about the supernatural. Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina. Such metaphysical truth claims are by no means limited to outspoken evangelists such as Dawkins. From seventeenth century tracts to today’s textbooks, evolution entails claims about the supernatural.

The fact that some of these evolutionists are atheists does not relieve them of their truth claims about the supernatural. They know god doesn’t exist, but they know a lot about him if he did exist. Such contradictions, or complexities to be more generous, in the naturalist’s position does not ease their predicament.

Clarke’s thesis that naturalism’s deference to science renders it vulnerable to the supernatural is not just a theoretical problem. That deference to science means that naturalism already today must acknowledge a commitment to metaphysical claims about the supernatural. How can they know such truths?

90 comments:

  1. "... the demarcation problem which evolutionists continue erroneously to use as justification for their unlikely thesis."

    It is not quite clear to me what you mean. If this does not exceed the scope of the post it would be nice if you could elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hunter:

    It has been almost 30 years since Larry Laudan showed the severity of the demarcation problem which evolutionists continue erroneously to use as justification for their unlikely thesis.

    Laudan's “Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern" was a philosopher's criticism of the philosophical reasoning endorsed by Judge William R. Overton in the Arkansas Creationism trial (McLean v Arkansas).
    Laudan's article, which can be found in its entirety at:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf

    includes the following statement (my emphasis):

    "Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina. Such metaphysical truth claims are by no means limited to outspoken evangelists such as Dawkins. From seventeenth century tracts to today’s textbooks, evolution entails claims about the supernatural.

    This is one of Hunter's mantras in which he pretends not to recognize the difference between the popular writings of some advocates (and textbooks) and the primary scientific literature. Hunter knows that such claims are not made in the primary literature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: But how do we determine whether a phenomenon is natural?

    The distinction between natural and supernatural is not well-defined, though it can be a useful heuristic.

    Sign on door: Absolutely no demons allowed in the science lab.

    A methodological definition of science avoids the demarcation problem between natural and supernatural. Any claim that posits an extraneous entity or force or one that does not have clear empirical entailments is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Positing fairies to explain an anomaly is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Demon-possession does not have clear empirical entailments and is extraneous in the light of modern germ theory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since it appears relevant here and disappearing on the original thread, I'll repost here instead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH: This evidence [Fusion of #2 chromosome] is no different than any other homologous chromosomes. It is another example of how evolutionary thinking is harming science.

    Here we have a more explicit claim that a boundary exists and that the act of exceeding it supposedly harms science.

    Theories represent underlying explanations of phenomena. Part of the biological complexity that evolutionary theory explains includes the observation that human beings have 23 pairs chromosomes, while great apes have 24. In other words, biological complexity represents concrete differences between species.

    If Cornelius is a realist, he would consider both the complexity itself and the cause of this complexity ontologically independent of and external to his beliefs, concepts, etc. While our current explanations may only be an approximation, they still point to something that actually exists, in reality. The accuracy of our explanations increase with every new observation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. -- continued --

    However, Cornelius asserts that the fusion of the #2 chromosome in human beings, which is a new observation, along with a number of other observations, including the number of chromosomes in great apes, cannot strongly indicate that one explanation for the different number of chromosomes as more accurate than any other. Namely, the explanation of common decent.

    If we take his claim seriously, in that it really is no different, the cause must be, for some reason he has yet to substantiate, beyond human reasoning and problem solving. Essentially, he's conditionally throwing out realism while denying the significance of chromosome #2 as a new observation among many existing observations. This is a variant of solipsism in that he's placed the boundary where realism fails at the biological complexity we observe, rather than placing it as his mind/soul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. CH: Is science complete?

    Speaking of completeness, as a professing Christian, where do you put revelation in the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction?

    Again, if if you think the question is not relevant, then please indicate why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As Zachriel mentioned, the distinction between the supernatural and natural is not well defined.

    However, this does not prevent us from unpacking the supernatural to determine what underlying claims it makes on phenomena deemed to fit the definition.

    In fact, I'd suggest the implications that supernatural claims bring, if true in reality, represent the crux of the issue, as illustrated above.

    In claiming any phenomena is supernatural, one implicitly claims an explanation for said phenomena is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.

    Of course, if this is NOT the be the case, then what particular feature or proprietary prevents us from drawing scientific conclusions about supernatural phenomena, but does not have the same effect in the case of natural phenomena?

    In other words, in the absence of some other feature of property, claims that any phenomena is supernatural appear arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CH: Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina. Such metaphysical truth claims are by no means limited to outspoken evangelists such as Dawkins.

    However, what you consider "metaphysical" conclusions are by no means limited to what anyone speaks of in public. This would include a conclusion that perfectly good God wouldn't directly pull on objects according to their mass because, in doing so, he would be directly causing death and distraction.

    Since gravitationally theory explains falling apples and orbiting planets though a natural force, this excludes God as a direct cause. But, this isn't a problem for most theists as they think God created this natural force as a secondary cause. This agreement makes presenting the above conclusion in public unnecessary.

    However, this does not mean such conclusions do not exist.

    Would you deny the implications of God's direct involvement would have a significant impact on gravitational theory? Would you extend your claim that we cannot know if a perfect designer would directly push and pull people to their deaths as part of the cause of phenomena we attribute to gravity?

    If not, why can you appeal to mystery in the case of God designing eyes with blind spots, backward retinas, etc., but not on the case of God directly pushing and pulling people to there deaths?

    Again, when we take your claims of metaphysical bias seriously, in that they should be applied to all theories, they appear arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pedant:

    ===
    Hunter knows that such claims are not made in the primary literature.
    ===

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969.abstract

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius,

    The paper by John Avise, to which you link, is a colloquium paper. It lists the following keywords: creationism, evolutionary genetics, intelligent design, religion, theodicy.

    This is clearly not a paper describing original scientific research. Which is what Pedant meant by "primary literature."

    Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see that Oleg beat me to it on the Avise paper.

    Surely Hunter knew the difference between this kind of review (or any review of the literature) and a primary paper reporting new data before he submitted his riposte.

    Whom does he think he's kidding?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pedant:

    ===
    Surely Hunter knew the difference between this kind of review (or any review of the literature) and a primary paper reporting new data before he submitted his riposte.

    Whom does he think he's kidding?
    ===

    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/64

    with commentary here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/eugene-koonin-pot-calls-kettle-black.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cornelius,

    Koonin's article is a comment.

    Back to the drawing board.

    P.S. Doesn't Biola have subscriptions to primary literature?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oleg,
    "P.S. Doesn't Biola have subscriptions to primary literature? "

    Yep. King James, Latin Vulgate, Great, Bishop's, and even those with lower ISI Impact Factors like the Apocrypha..

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Pedant:

    ===
    Surely Hunter knew the difference between this kind of review (or any review of the literature) and a primary paper reporting new data before he submitted his riposte.

    Whom does he think he's kidding?
    ===

    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/64

    with commentary here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/eugene-koonin-pot-calls-kettle-black.html


    Cornelius, you're really floundering. The Koonin paper has absolutely nothing to do with your original claim that Pedant was addressing. You claimed that there are "God wouldn't do it that way" papers in the primary literature, remember?

    I'll add my voice to the scientifically knowledgeable crowd watching you stumble and bumble: who do you think you're kidding?

    ReplyDelete
  20. CH: Is science complete?

    Scott: Speaking of completeness, as a professing Christian, where do you put revelation in the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction?

    Again, if if you think the question is not relevant, then please indicate why.

    CH: [No Response]

    Cornelius,

    Unlike your argument of metaphysics, there is nothing to unpack. As a professing Christian, you explicitly accept revelation as a means of gaining knowledge.

    As such, it's unclear what you possibly hope to gain by refusing the answer the question. In fact, it would represent a concrete example of refusing disclose details of an underlying assumption we clearly know you hold.

    Based on this precedent, it's unclear why should we take your claims of neutrality even remotely seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  21. oleg

    ===
    Koonin's article is a comment.
    ===


    Please see these two posts:


    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/abusing-science.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott:

    ===
    As a professing Christian, you explicitly accept revelation as a means of gaining knowledge.
    ===

    So do evolutionists. The issue is not accepting revelation, everyone accepts it. The issue is how to interpret it. Take the DNA code for example. Evolutionists interpret the code as powerful, compelling evidence for secondary causation. That interpretation is theologically laden, whereas an empirical approach enjoys no such certainty. Yes there is a code, it is complex, is implemented by profound molecular machinery, and contradicts evolutionary expectations. So from an empirical approach it is yet more evidence against evolution. And furthermore, the evolutionist's theological argument that the ~universal homology of the code mandates an evolutionary origin is not binding for an empiricist. It is not that this theological argument is necessarily wrong. It could be correct. But the rationalist's theological premises are not necessarily true for an empiricist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. CH wrote: Please see these two posts:

    Non sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  24. oleg:

    So to recap, the professor asks about the primary literature, and its role in the evolutionary literature, in particular how the primary literature treats evolution's non scientific, theological claims.

    I could have typed out a long response about how journal papers rarely argue for the fact of evolution, but rather implicitly assume evolution. Therefore the metaphysics is more subtle.

    For instance, when a research paper presents results that a particular phylogeny is more likely than another (based on molecular sequence alignments), those results are based on the unspoken assumption that similarity implies an evolutionary relationship. This takes you deep into evolutionary metaphysics going back centuries.

    In some instances journal papers to explicitly argue for the fact of evolution, and in such papers the metaphysics is a bit more obvious. But such papers are not common. Journal papers are much more about deep dives into the data, while taking evolution as a given.

    If you don't understand these basic distinctions between research papers, survey papers, and the different levels of popular literature (some more technical, some dumbed down), then you have little chance of figuring out what is going on.

    But since I have already blogged on this very topic, I pasted in a couple of links, addressing this very question the professor posed. And what is his response? Here it is:

    ===
    CH wrote: Please see these two posts:

    Non sequitur.
    ===

    That's it. With a wave of the hand. The professor asks a naive question, you provide the answer, and he simply dismisses it out of hand. This is evolutionary thinking in action.

    ReplyDelete
  25. For instance, when a research paper presents results that a particular phylogeny is more likely than another (based on molecular sequence alignments), those results are based on the unspoken assumption that similarity implies an evolutionary relationship.

    Dr Hunter, biological researchers assume evolution either implicitly or explicitly as a working hypothesis. And a fruitful hypothesis it has been: absent a theory of evolution, what would have motivated the study of phylogenies in such detail?

    So to recap, the professor asks about the primary literature, and its role in the evolutionary literature, in particular how the primary literature treats evolution's non scientific, theological claims.

    All propositions about the world are hypothesis-laden. That does not make them theology-laden, unless you want to claim that all hypotheses and theories about the world are theological. From your historical studies, you have seen that until the 17th century in Christian Europe, practically all scientific theories were colored by theology, and even Newton thought he was gaining insight into the mind of God. Science since then has become increasingly secularized, as have its theories, and scientists have delegated speculations about how God’s mind might work to theologians. This is as true for chemists as it is for biologists (whose subject is the study of complex chemical systems).

    Until you find scientists offering supernatural entities as explanations of the data in the primary biology literature, your thesis is unsupported.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cornelius Hunter said...

    I could have typed out a long response about how journal papers rarely argue for the fact of evolution, but rather implicitly assume evolution. Therefore the metaphysics is more subtle.

    For instance, when a research paper presents results that a particular phylogeny is more likely than another (based on molecular sequence alignments), those results are based on the unspoken assumption that similarity implies an evolutionary relationship. This takes you deep into evolutionary metaphysics going back centuries.

    In some instances journal papers to explicitly argue for the fact of evolution, and in such papers the metaphysics is a bit more obvious. But such papers are not common. Journal papers are much more about deep dives into the data, while taking evolution as a given.


    Yeah Cornelius, isn't it lucky for you that current science relies upon the solid foundation of 150+ years of previous work? Then you can keep making your stupid demand that every new science paper look at each piece of evidence in a vacuum and 'reinvent the wheel' instead of building on previous research.

    If you don't understand these basic distinctions between research papers, survey papers, and the different levels of popular literature (some more technical, some dumbed down), then you have little chance of figuring out what is going on.

    LOL! Project much there CH? You're the one who through dishonesty or ignorance (or both) has continually confused popular press blurbs with the mainstream scientific literature. You don't even understand the difference between a fact and a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pedant:

    ===
    Dr Hunter, biological researchers assume evolution either implicitly or explicitly as a working hypothesis. And a fruitful hypothesis it has been: absent a theory of evolution, what would have motivated the study of phylogenies in such detail?
    ===

    And phylogenies are so fruitful because why? Oh, that's right, they explain how evolution occurred. More circular reasoning.


    ===
    All propositions about the world are hypothesis-laden. That does not make them theology-laden,
    ===

    Who said it did?


    ===
    From your historical studies, you have seen that until the 17th century in Christian Europe, practically all scientific theories were colored by theology, and even Newton thought he was gaining insight into the mind of God. Science since then has become increasingly secularized, as have its theories, and scientists have delegated speculations about how God’s mind might work to theologians. This is as true for chemists as it is for biologists (whose subject is the study of complex chemical systems).
    ===

    This is what evolutionists have to believe about themselves. When they say "science" and "chemists" they are correct. But none of this holds for themselves. They want to be considered empirical science, right after making their religious claims.


    ===
    Until you find scientists offering supernatural entities as explanations of the data in the primary biology literature, your thesis is unsupported.
    ===

    This is a wonderful Catch-22. Here is how it works. Evolutionists insist evolution is a fact as a consequence of their religious beliefs, in spite of the fact the theory has monumental empirical problems. Evolutionists make their religious and philosophical claims whereever they prove evolution is a fact (eg, in textbooks, articles, books, etc).

    Of course because they believe evolution is a fact, it becomes a given for them. Most of the evolutionary literature takes it for granted. Of course this includes the research papers. The majority (not all, but most) of these evolutionary papers deal with interpreting the data in terms of evolution rather than rehearsing their proofs for evolution. By the same token, these papers do prove evolution. They merely interpret the data in terms of evolution (again, there are exceptions). In fact, these papers routinely take data which do not fit evolution very well, and nonetheless cast the data into the evolutionary framework without a second thought. Never do they say, "gee, these results don't support evolution very well, perhaps evolution isn't true." They simply say "well, it turns out evolution works in a much more complicated way than we thought."

    Now here's the Catch-22. When you point out that evolution is a religious theory, the evolutionists disagree because there aren't usually explicit religious claims in those research papers.

    So evolutionists insist evolution is a fact based on their religious ideas. They tell the judges, news reporters, policy makers, etc., that evolution is a fact. And when you say this claim that evolution is a fact is a religious claim, they rebuke you with an appeal to the research papers. While they freely go about making their religious claims, they insist that in order to show their claims are religious you must find them in the research papers. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  28. CH,
    "[long, bitter rant]"

    so you're admitting that there are no peer-reviewed primary literature papers making claims about what god would or would not do? because that was the question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. CH,
    "And phylogenies are so fruitful because why? Oh, that's right, they explain how evolution occurred. More circular reasoning."

    Oh, i don't know, examining phylogenies only revealed the existence of an entire third domain of life (the Archaea) completely unknown to us previously. and helped locate pinpoint the origin of AIDS. I guess such metaphysical research isn't of interest to you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cornelius, according to you the science of evolutionary biology is really a religion.

    Can you please tell us which of these other sciences whose studies support the Theory of Evolution are also a religion?

    Biochemistry
    Geochemistry
    Organic chemistry
    Radiochemistry
    Physics
    Biophysics
    Geophysics
    Anatomy
    Astrobiology
    Bioinformatics
    Biophysics
    Biotechnology
    Botany
    Cell biology
    Chronobiology
    Conservation biology
    Embryology
    Geology
    Gerontology
    Epidemiology
    Ecology
    Paleobiology
    Genetics
    Population genetics
    Microbiology
    Molecular biology
    Morphology
    Physiology
    Immunology
    Kinesiology
    Neuroscience
    Histology
    Systematics
    Cladistics
    Phylogeny
    Taxonomy
    Virology
    Zoology
    Arachnology
    Entomology
    Ethology
    Helminthology
    Herpetology
    Ichthyology
    Malacology
    Mammalogy
    Nematology
    Ornithology

    Are they all religions to you? Or just some of them. How do you tell?

    ReplyDelete
  31. nano:

    ===
    CH,
    "[long, bitter rant]"

    so you're admitting that there are no peer-reviewed primary literature papers making claims about what god would or would not do? because that was the question.
    ===

    No, there are, there just aren't very many because the research papers typically do not attempt to show evolution to be a fact, rather they take it as a given. Of course I already said that, and I've blogged on this in the past.

    Imagine if a creationist made the preposterous claim (which you are making) that creationism has no particular theological or philosophical committment. You object, pointing to all the religious writings of creationists. He then explains to you that that is all irrelevant because their papers don't contain such religious claims.

    But of course creationists don't throw out such silly canards because unlike evolutionists they acknowledge their committments.

    ReplyDelete
  32. CH,
    "No, there are, there just aren't very many because the research papers typically do not attempt to show evolution to be a fact, rather they take it as a given."

    so where are they? please provide links, as requested by Pedant, Oleg, etc. several times.

    "Imagine if a creationist made the preposterous claim (which you are making) that creationism has no particular theological or philosophical committment. You object, pointing to all the religious writings of creationists. He then explains to you that that is all irrelevant because their papers don't contain such religious claims."

    But their papers do make such religious claims, all the time.

    e.g. "Kleptoplasty provides one more line of evidence that supports the single, intelligent Creator God of the Bible."

    http://creation.com/photosynthetic-sea-slugs

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Imagine if a creationist made the preposterous claim (which you are making) that creationism has no particular theological or philosophical committment. You object, pointing to all the religious writings of creationists. He then explains to you that that is all irrelevant because their papers don't contain such religious claims.


    Which papers would those be CH? AFAIK Creationists haven't published a single paper with evidence for special creation in the primary scientific literature.

    But of course creationists don't throw out such silly canards because unlike evolutionists they acknowledge their committments.

    Except Cornelius Hunter, who is way too craven to admit his religious agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  34. CH,
    "But of course creationists don't throw out such silly canards because unlike evolutionists they acknowledge their committments. "
    by commitments you mean methodological naturalism, like every other science?

    ReplyDelete
  35. oleg:

    ===
    CH wrote: And phylogenies are so fruitful because why? Oh, that's right, they explain how evolution occurred. More circular reasoning.

    What you call "circular reasoning" is the standard scientific approach. You formulate a hypothesis and then test its predictions.
    ===

    No, I did not refer to hypothesis formulation and testing as circular.


    ===
    If you don't understand these basic distinctions between research papers, survey papers, and the different levels of popular literature (some more technical, some dumbed down), then you have little chance of figuring out what is going on.

    This is laughable, Cornelius. You are lecturing me on the distinctions between reviews and research articles, and yet when asked for examples of theology injected into primary research literature you link to a review of the creationism. Pot, kettle, all that.
    ===

    No, I linked to John Avise's paper which makes some of the common religious arguments for evolution. If you believe X would not have been designed or created, then you're going to conclude it must have evolved. It is not a review of creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  36. nano:

    ===
    "But of course creationists don't throw out such silly canards because unlike evolutionists they acknowledge their committments. "

    by commitments you mean methodological naturalism, like every other science?
    ===

    No, I was referring to the various theological mandates for evolution that prove evolution is a fact. I've blogged on this. You can look here, though this is only the tip of the iceberg:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969.abstract

    ReplyDelete
  37. nano:

    ===
    But their papers do make such religious claims, all the time.

    e.g. "Kleptoplasty provides one more line of evidence that supports the single, intelligent Creator God of the Bible."

    http://creation.com/photosynthetic-sea-slugs
    ===

    Consider these two different approaches:

    1. X must be true, and therefore science must conform to X.

    2. I discovered Y, and look, Y supports my metaphysics.

    Which of these approaches is metaphysical?

    ReplyDelete
  38. CH,

    "No, I was referring to the various theological mandates for evolution that prove evolution is a fact"

    the only commitment in the evolutionary literature is to methodological naturalism. supernatural causation is ignored, as is evidenced by your complete impotence at finding a paper that makes reference to supernatural causation. maybe now you can find a primary scientific paper that states that evolution is a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pedant:

    ===
    Literature bluff called by the chorus.
    ===

    There's the Catch-22 in action.

    Imagine a hypothetical case of a creationist making the preposterous claim (which you are making) that creationism has no particular theological or philosophical committment. You object, pointing to all the religious writings of creationists. He then explains to you that that is all irrelevant because their papers don't contain such religious claims.

    ReplyDelete
  40. CH,
    "1. X must be true, and therefore science must conform to X."
    ah yes, a classic CH strawman. how about

    "naturalism is a good working assumption, so let's use that."

    I certainly agree with that statement

    ReplyDelete
  41. A false Hunterian dilemma?

    If you believe X would not have been designed or created, then you're going to conclude it must have evolved.

    By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?

    ReplyDelete
  42. CH,
    "There's the Catch-22 in action."

    so which is it, CH? Either there are examples of supernatural claims in the primary literature or there aren't. you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pedant:

    ===
    A false Hunterian dilemma?
    ===

    Why is it a false dilemma? Evolutionists argue biology would not have been designed or created. Where's the false dilemma?

    ===
    By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?
    ===

    Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Pedant:

    ===
    A false Hunterian dilemma?
    ===

    Why is it a false dilemma? Evolutionists argue biology would not have been designed or created. Where's the false dilemma?

    ===
    By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?
    ===

    Sure.


    What about option #3, that life came about by a currently unknown but still natural process other than evolution?

    How did you manage to rule that one out?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Imagine a hypothetical case of a creationist making the preposterous claim (which you are making)
    ...
    He then explains to you that that is all irrelevant because their papers don't contain such religious claims.


    Dear Doctor, when you have provided a primary scientific publication in biology that makes a theological claim, please cite it.

    It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  46. CH,
    "Why is it a false dilemma? Evolutionists argue biology would not have been designed or created."

    some do, but mostly the possibility is ignored, as it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hunter:

    ===
    By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?
    ===

    Sure.


    So, do you, Cornelius Hunter, relentless skeptic of evolutionary theory and critic of evolutionists, so conclude?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Pedant:

    ===
    So, do you, Cornelius Hunter, relentless skeptic of evolutionary theory and critic of evolutionists, so conclude?
    ===

    Ah, sorry, I don't follow your question. Can you rephrase?

    ReplyDelete
  49. nano:

    ===
    how about "naturalism is a good working assumption, so let's use that."
    ===

    No, evolution is not a good working model, that's the point. Evolution is the given not *because* of the science, but *in spite* of the science.

    That is, unless you mean that in the sense that the flat earth and geocentrism are "good working models." But of course evolutionists do not think that way.

    ReplyDelete
  50. CH,
    "No, evolution is not a good working model"

    that's funny, I didn't say anything about evolution. I said "naturalism is a good working assumption, so let's use that." are you saying that all naturalistic origin models are evolutionary in one way or another?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pedant:

    ===
    Dear Doctor, when you have provided a primary scientific publication in biology that makes a theological claim, please cite it.

    It's that simple.
    ===

    Can you explain that just a bit more? For instance, what difference would it make to you? It obviously matters not to you that evolutionists make religious claims, even in journal survey papers. It seems not to matter that they insist evolution is a fact, based on theological and philosophical premises, and in spite of monumental scientific problems. So forgive me for wondering here, but given what you have already swallowed, it is not clear to me that if you saw a research paper that makes a theological claim, it is not clear to me what difference that would make to you. Certainly evolutionists have dismissed research papers in the past that they found disagreeable.

    Also, I wonder how you would define "a theological claim." Does it pass your test if the research entails assumptions that cannot be falsified but "sound" scientific? Or does the paper need to cite a verse, or use the name of a deity? I'm sure you are aware that the history of thought, even at the primary research level, exists within a greater context that can play a role. For instance, research may contain seemingly minor, small assumptions that pass by unnoticed because everyone agrees on. There are intellectual traditions that can become baked in, and even researchers often stand on the shoulders of those who came before. So for you, what passes as "theological"?

    ReplyDelete
  52. nano:

    "are you saying that all naturalistic origin models are evolutionary in one way or another?"

    I wouldn't say that is necessarily the case, but it has been the case. Evolution is remarkably fluid and flexible, sustaining fundamental falsifications with various theory additions. Even common descent and selection may be forfeited. What may not be forfeited, and perhaps is the only component of the theoretical core, as Lakatos put it, is naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  53. CH,
    "What may not be forfeited, and perhaps is the only component of the theoretical core, as Lakatos put it, is naturalism. "

    replace "naturalism" with "methodological naturalism" and make the entire sentence in reference to science writ large, and that is a true statement.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Pedant: By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?
    ===

    Sure.


    What about option #3, that life came about by a currently unknown but still natural process other than evolution?

    How did you manage to rule that one out?


    I'd appreciate an answer to these questions, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. nano:

    ===
    replace "naturalism" with "methodological naturalism" and make the entire sentence in reference to science writ large, and that is a true statement.
    ===

    That would be a news flash to people who actually study the demarcation problem (as opposed to evolutionists such as yourself who simply assert truths for the rest of us to follow).

    Furthermore, the evolutionist's naive pronouncements about the philosophy of science simply lead to more (unanswered) questions about realism and completeness.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/question-for-joe-felsenstein-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  56. Cornelius, here's a big hint:

    When someone asks you to back up your claims with published scientific research, merely linking back to your own blog where you made the same unsupported claims previously doesn't answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The demarcation problem is a red herring, an exercise to keep philosophers busy while scientist do their job. In the reality of practicing science the distinction is made by applying the concrete methodology in the field.

    The irony is that this blog is to a large part the attempt to draw a line in the sand between god science and bad science without coming clean about the concrete criteria. And when pressed the line mysteriously vanishes under a thick fog of empty words.

    ReplyDelete
  58. CH,
    "That would be a news flash to people who actually study the demarcation problem (as opposed to evolutionists such as yourself who simply assert truths for the rest of us to follow)."

    so you disagree that all science follows methodological naturalism? bc that's all i was saying.

    "Furthermore, the evolutionist's naive pronouncements about the philosophy of science simply lead to more (unanswered) questions about realism and completeness."

    if methodological naturalism fails to answer a question, then we'll say "science can't solve this" and the answer will have to come from elsewhere. or else we'll just have to say we don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  59. CH: "That would be a news flash to people who actually study the demarcation problem (as opposed to evolutionists such as yourself who simply assert truths for the rest of us to follow)."

    This demarcation represents a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. It's a form of solipsism.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thorton:

    ===
    What about option #3, that life came about by a currently unknown but still natural process other than evolution?

    How did you manage to rule that one out?
    ===

    I did'nt rule it out.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Thorton:

    ===
    What about option #3, that life came about by a currently unknown but still natural process other than evolution?

    How did you manage to rule that one out?
    ===

    I did'nt rule it out.


    They why did you say this?

    Pedant: By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?
    ===

    Cornelius Hunter: Sure.


    It's really hard to follow when you directly contradict yourself every other post.

    ReplyDelete
  62. second opinion:

    ===
    The demarcation problem is a red herring, an exercise to keep philosophers busy while scientist do their job. In the reality of practicing science the distinction is made by applying the concrete methodology in the field.
    ===

    Spoken like a true evolutionist.


    ===
    The irony is that this blog is to a large part the attempt to draw a line in the sand between god science and bad science without coming clean about the concrete criteria.
    ===

    Really?

    ===
    And when pressed the line mysteriously vanishes under a thick fog of empty words.
    ===

    Perhaps it mysteriously vanishes in your view because it was never something intended in the first place. There seems to be a never-ending variety of wiggle strategies evolutionists use to justify their fact claim.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thorton:

    "It's really hard to follow when you directly contradict yourself every other post."

    Oh, sorry, I see what you mean. Go back and read the discussion with nano, where I said:

    ###
    "are you saying that all naturalistic origin models are evolutionary in one way or another?"

    I wouldn't say that is necessarily the case, but it has been the case. Evolution is remarkably fluid and flexible, sustaining fundamental falsifications with various theory additions. Even common descent and selection may be forfeited. What may not be forfeited, and perhaps is the only component of the theoretical core, as Lakatos put it, is naturalism.
    ###

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cornelius hunter said...

    Perhaps it mysteriously vanishes in your view because it was never something intended in the first place. There seems to be a never-ending variety of wiggle strategies evolutionists use to justify their fact claim.


    Oh, you mean like the 'Wedge Strategy' put forward by your fellow professional liars at the Discovery Institute. Or the dishonest equivocation between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. Or the childish 'neener neener neener your science is a religion!!' approach.

    Oh wait....

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Thorton:

    "It's really hard to follow when you directly contradict yourself every other post."

    Oh, sorry, I see what you mean. Go back and read the discussion with nano, where I said:


    Pathetic attempt at backpedaling noted.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Another great post, Dr Hunter.

    Where is it written that the truth is limited to ONLY the natural? Especially when nature cannot be the first cause of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  67. nano:

    ===
    "That would be a news flash to people who actually study the demarcation problem (as opposed to evolutionists such as yourself who simply assert truths for the rest of us to follow)."

    so you disagree that all science follows methodological naturalism? bc that's all i was saying.
    ===

    No, all science does not follow MN. Clarke addresses this in the paper discussed in the OP. here are two examples: 1: 17th and 18th c explanations that invoked God (Newton, Linnaeus, Paley, etc). 2: SETI.

    For SETI, evolutionists object, saying they believe the ETs evolved in the first place. Fine, but that's not relevant. The origin of the ETs plays no role in the SETI project. There is no appeal or restriction to natural law. The explanations are not limited to natural laws, and indeed they play *off* of natural laws. That is, the search is for signals that are *not* from the known natural laws that cause cosmic signals. In this case, the evolutionist's complaint is, in fact, philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Sure, evolutionists can always say they believe there are natural laws that explain the origin and evolution of life, intelligence, consciousness, etc, to the point of creating classical music or some other signal that is broadcast to the universe. But none of that is relevant to SETI. What is relevant to SETI is signals that are known to come from natural processes. It looks for signals that do *not* match those.



    ===
    "Furthermore, the evolutionist's naive pronouncements about the philosophy of science simply lead to more (unanswered) questions about realism and completeness."

    if methodological naturalism fails to answer a question, then we'll say "science can't solve this" and the answer will have to come from elsewhere. or else we'll just have to say we don't know.
    ===

    OK, good, I like that approach too. So you say let's forfeit the guarantee of completeness. It could be that we might run into problems that MN cannot solve. So MN doesn't provide you with cover. By that I simply mean, there may be times where we'll need to admit MN isn't working very well.

    So my next question is: should we honestly tell the people about the goodness of our theories? Hopefully you say "yes." So then why don't we do this with evolution. Why, instead, do we insist it is a fact while using MN as cover? Why don't we simply tell the truth? The MN program, when applied to origins, has these successes and these failures, and we're still working the problem. Of course we think the failures will be resolved, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating the current status. Bottom line is: we have these successes and these failures with MN. Why not say this? Why the lie about it being a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Cornelius Hunter
    ===
    The irony is that this blog is to a large part the attempt to draw a line in the sand between god science and bad science without coming clean about the concrete criteria.
    ===

    Really?

    ===
    And when pressed the line mysteriously vanishes under a thick fog of empty words.
    ===

    Perhaps it mysteriously vanishes in your view because it was never something intended in the first place. There seems to be a never-ending variety of wiggle strategies evolutionists use to justify their fact claim.


    Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with) and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim). And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.

    But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  69. When someone asks you to back up your claims with published scientific research, merely linking back to your own blog where you made the same unsupported claims previously doesn't answer the question.

    I've noticed that creationists will often answer a direct question by claiming that they've already answered it. It's not their fault that you don't listen, or are unwilling to dig a little to find their original answer. The problem is that trying to find their original answer becomes a near infinite regress of posts saying "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post...

    It's turtles all the way down.

    I predict that CH will link to this post as "evidence" when he makes the exact same claim in a future post.

    ReplyDelete
  70. second opinion:

    ===
    Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with)
    ===

    Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?


    ===
    and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim).
    ===

    And which I don't say. It is amazing how evolutionists respond to their own words.


    ===
    And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.
    ===

    So to recap, evolutionists misrepresent science, insist on their metaphysical claims, claim evolution is a no brainer fact, and it is my fault for not pin-pointing evolution's likelihood.


    ===
    But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling.
    ===

    False predictions is a pretty good way. [www.DarwinsPredictions.com]

    ReplyDelete
  71. Having failed to provide a primary publication in the biological literature that invokes a theological/religious explanation for the data, Hunter plays the definition card:

    It seems not to matter that they insist evolution is a fact, based on theological and philosophical premises, and in spite of monumental scientific problems.
    ….
    So for you, what passes as "theological"?


    What you were claiming in your earlier sentence. The burden of explanation is on the person who makes the claim.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Cornelius Hunter: The origin of the ETs plays no role in the SETI project.

    That is incorrect. SETI is based on theories of how life may occur in the universe based on comparisons with life on Earth, in particular, Drake's Equation. Resolving the terms of the equation involves determining how life might originate and evolve on other planets.
    http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

    ReplyDelete
  73. When we unpack 'metaphysics', 'the supernatural', etc., we find the burden of Cornelius' underlying claim: the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.

    It's unclear how he knows this boundary exists at all, let alone that it exists where he claims it does.

    Without an explicit criteria, this appear to be arbitrary.

    Of course, I do not expect such a criteria to be forthcoming for reasons that are obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  74. CH: Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?

    If it were based on prophecy, then yes. But unlike prophecy, evolutionary predictions are not empirical mandates.

    If prophecy is not observed, it's false. This is because prophecy supposedly accounts for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors that might prevent the prediction from being observed. It does so by nature of being communication from a supernatural being.

    This is NOT the case with evolutionary predictions. HGT, the limited conditions at which remains fossilize, varying environmental conditions, etc. are just a few factors that can cause predictions to vary without the underlying explanation being false. Furthermore, we can observe these factors at work in the wild. Predictions of scientific theories cannot and do not account for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated yet parallel factors.

    This is why predictions of theories cannot be evaluated in isolation of the underlying explanation they are based on, while prophecy can.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Pedant:

    ===
    What you were claiming in your earlier sentence. The burden of explanation is on the person who makes the claim.
    ===

    I made no such claim, it was you who asked, remember? You asked for examples of theological content in research papers, and when asked what exactly you mean by theological content, and what difference such content would make for you, you fell silent.

    This reminds me of our previous discussion where you asked me about "genetic relatedness", a vague term which you would not define, even when asked.

    Indeed, I had already explained that within the evolution genre, the research papers do not argue for the fact of evolution, rather they assume it as a given. So their theological content is typically implicit, not explicit.

    Consider a hypothetical example of a creationist paper that concludes the Flood was X feet in depth. It all sounds scientific, as the conclusion is based on various geological data. But of course the underlying, unspoken assumption is that the Flood was world-wide. This hypothetical paper exists within a genre that makes explicit religious claims, such as the nature of the Flood in this hypothetical case. Within the genre, there is no need, nor is it appropriate, for a research paper to restate the fundamental assumptions of the genre. The paper's theological content is implicit, not explicit.

    This is how the evolution genre works. It is easy to find theological content in research papers, but you need to understand the context. If you knew nothing of the genre, and were not an expert in the life sciences, and you read a paper that concluded a particular type of photoreceptor cell must have evolved early in the history of life, based on various molecular data, then it would be difficult for you to understand the crucial role of theology in the paper. Of course the conclusion of the paper is unwarranted given the data, but that is not obvious if you are not an expert.

    If you want to understand the literature within a genre, then you need to be prepared to do some analysis of the literature and the genre.

    ReplyDelete
  76. ===
    Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with)
    ===

    Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?


    Rhetorics: A+ content: F
    Not that every single issue has been discussed a million, billion or trillion times before so it must be completely surprising that somebody would disagree with you.

    ===
    and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim).
    ===

    And which I don't say. It is amazing how evolutionists respond to their own words.


    Sorry of course you don't say that. You say that “evolutionists” claim that common descent is a no brainer fact (see below). So apparently you consider it a non-no brainer fact.

    ===
    And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.
    ===

    So to recap, evolutionists misrepresent science, insist on their metaphysical claims, claim evolution is a no brainer fact, and it is my fault for not pin-pointing evolution's likelihood.


    In my opinion it is a silly and stultifying exercise to calculate “evolution's likelihood”. But since it seems to be your cup of tea I don't want to say anything about it.

    ===
    But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling.
    ===

    False predictions is a pretty good way.
    [www.DarwinsPredictions.com]


    I would be interested in the methodology by which you determined a prediction to be false in contrast to all the evolutionary biologists.

    ReplyDelete
  77. second opinion:

    ===
    I would be interested in the methodology by which you determined a prediction to be false in contrast to all the evolutionary biologists.
    ===

    Methodology? Contrast to evolutionists? No this is not in contrast to evolutionists. They *made* the predictions, according to evolution. My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions. Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Cornelius Hunter

    The problem is and we had this topic before that what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE or the ToE has subsequently been corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Cornelius:

    My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions.

    It seems to me your method is to scan the popular press for stuff about evolution, then select those pieces that most usefully distort the original findings, and then produce another rant on the religious assumptions of the "evolutionists". I can see how that can be fun for you.

    Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.

    No kidding. When you say "evolution", I assume you mean the theory of evolution (ToE). Are there any scientific theories apart from TeO that haven't met with unexpected data?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Well, let's recap.

    Hunter: Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina. Such metaphysical truth claims are by no means limited to outspoken evangelists such as Dawkins. From seventeenth century tracts to today’s textbooks, evolution entails claims about the supernatural.

    Pedant: Hunter knows that such claims are not made in the primary literature.

    Hunter: [Links a colloquium paper by John Avise, then a comment by Eugene Koonin.]

    Everyone: These are not examples of the primary research literature.

    Hunter: The paper's theological content is implicit, not explicit... It is easy to find theological content in research papers, but you need to understand the context.

    --------------------------------------

    Funny.

    ReplyDelete
  81. second opinion:

    ===
    what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE
    ===

    I didn't know that. Which one(s)?

    ReplyDelete
  82. troy:

    ===
    No kidding. When you say "evolution", I assume you mean the theory of evolution (ToE). Are there any scientific theories apart from TeO that haven't met with unexpected data?
    ===

    Sure, theories commonly meet with unexpected data. But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Cornelius:

    Sure, theories commonly meet with unexpected data. But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.

    I'm looking forward to your quantitative comparative analysis where you verify this claim! Can you give us a hint when to expect this?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Cornelius Hunter:

    ===
    what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE
    ===

    I didn't know that. Which one(s)?


    That there would be no convergence, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  85. CH: They *made* the predictions, according to evolution. My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions. Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.

    Based on empiricism alone, it's unclear how can you can determine which data is expected. This is because expectations are contextual, which would be something else that you could not afford as a naive emperisist.

    Imagine some alien species ran across out planet. They may predict we would carry personal digital entertainment devices, such as iPod and iPhones, if our technological ability had reached a particular point in their own historical progress.

    However, if they visited North Korea, they would find no such devices. At best, they would find analog tape devices, similar to walkman tape players that were state of the art in the late 70''s.

    Clearly, this is a violation of the prediction and represents unexpected data. Yet, iPods an iPhones are common these days. How can this be?

    In this case, the problem isn't a lack of technical advancement, but the fact that North Koran government is under heavy sanctions from other nations so they cannot import these devices. Furthermore, their economy is such that the inhabitants could not afford such devices even if they were available.

    Again, the prediction that we would be using portable entertainment devices does not account for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors that might prevent the prediction from being observed, such as unbalanced dictatorships such as those found in North Korea.

    Rather than falsify the theory, this particular violation reinforces the predication as it shows the contrast of the technological progression we have made.

    However if this were prophecy, rather than a prediction of a scientific theory, it should have accounted for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors by nature of being a communication from a supernatural being. If it was not actually observed, it would represent false prophecy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  87. CH:But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.

    This just in: Evolution is shouldn't be considered a scientific fact since Cornelius Hunter doesn't know of any theories that have more "falsified" predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  88. CH: Indeed, I had already explained that within the evolution genre, the research papers do not argue for the fact of evolution, rather they assume it as a given. So their theological content is typically implicit, not explicit.

    And, as I've already mentioned, research papers on gravitational theory do not make arguments that God wouldn't be the direct causes of the phenomena we attribute to gravity because this would result in him directly pushing and pulling people to their deaths.

    Are you suggesting that this implication would have no impact on your position on gravitational theory? Are you denying the lack of conflict between science (gravity is a natural force) and Christianity (gravity is a natural force crated by God as a secondary cause) would negate the need to present such arguments publicly in either a formal or informal manor?

    Again, just because someone does not publicly voice an opinion doesn't mean that they do hold a position.

    Just as you refusal to disclose your position of where divine revelation fits in the hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction doesn't mean you do not have an position on divine revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  89. second opinion:

    ===
    That there would be no convergence, for example.
    ===

    Well be careful. I don't say evolution predicts there would be no convergence. Read more carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Cornelius Hunter

    Well be careful. I don't say evolution predicts there would be no convergence. Read more carefully.

    I guess than you argue that there is to much convergence (for your taste). And this is what I’m interested in how you determined that it is to much. But if this is done by probability calculations I probably don’t want to know.

    ReplyDelete