Sunday, April 10, 2011

Evolutionists: Skepticism is a Science Stopper

It began practically as soon as Origin of Species was published. In the second half of the nineteenth century and even more so in the twentieth century, questioning evolution was cast as anti science. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. If evolution is an obvious and undeniable scientific fact, then is not skepticism tantamount to an attack on science itself? But once again, evolution’s criticism is more of a reflection of evolution itself.

Not long after Darwin introduced evolution to the world his friend and advocate Thomas H. Huxley declared that:

I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s.

Aside from Darwinism there was no legitimate scientific position. The die was cast and later apologists would return to this formulation. Later in the century University of California professor Joseph Le Conte wrote that to doubt purely natural causation is to “doubt the validity of reason.” It was, in effect, a marginalization of skepticism.

Such marginalization has become common today. Richard Lewontin writes that “To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” Douglas Futuyma writes that the challenge to evolution touches us all, for “in short, all the sciences are under attack.” Sean Carroll (the geneticist) writes:

It is absolutely astonishing and often infuriating that some take it so far as to deny the immense foundation of evidence and to slander all the human achievement that foundation represents.

These are but a few examples of evolutionist’s assault on any and all skepticism. Not surprisingly this template has spread far and wide. Journalists rarely allow skepticism of evolution to reflect genuine scientific issues. Chris Matthews, for instance, has explained that such skeptics “don’t accept the scientific method.”

In fact this sentiment is now a principle of our constitutional jurisprudence. In the remarkable Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District legal decision, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones reasoned that if an explanation is not based on natural causes then it simply is not science. Indeed, Jones ruled that “attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a ‘science stopper.’”

Where is the science stopper?

According to evolutionists, skepticism is anti science. But why is this so? In fact it is evolution that, in spite of the empirical evidence, claims life just happened to arise in a puddle somewhere, and then that it proliferated into millions of different species with their fantastic designs. Not surprisingly evolutionists cannot explain exactly how this occurred. All they have is vague speculations and even those consistently are found to be at odds with the evidence. And yet, in spite of all this evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Does this sound much like science?

To make matters worse, evolutionists blackball anyone expressing dissent from their dogma. Evolutionists literally maintain lists of names, in order to ensure that there are no promising young scientists who advance in the sciences while harboring doubt about the dogma. Such a scientist must not be given a passing grade or good letter of recommendation or acceptance into graduate school or doctorate degree or post doctorate appointment or faculty interview or tenure or funding. Whatever level such a scientist is at, evolutionists will make every attempt to terminate their career and smear their good name. All this for skepticism of evolution’s unscientific claims. Does this sound much like science?

Worse yet evolutionists, while rigidly mandating strictly naturalistic explanations, maintain completeness and realism. Explanations must be strictly naturalistic, no topic is off limits, and the evolutionary explanations are assumed to represent, at least approximately, reality. But of course this set of assumptions means that all of reality must be naturalistic. How can evolutionists know this to be true? Does this sound much like science?

Even worse, this evolutionary dogma has produced an environment where naturalism itself is now unfalsifiable. Both their philosophy, as well as their imposed social and funding constraints, has resulted in a closed system in which evolutionists reject, out of hand, legitimate intellectual inquiry. Does this sound much like science?

Finally, evolutionists resort to the ultimate protectionist device. They point the finger at skepticism, branding it as anti science. While promoting their theologically-motivated idea that is contradictory to the empirical evidence, they insist their unfalsifiable idea is an undeniable fact, they blackball skepticism and they enforce a non scientific philosophy—all of this while hypocritically castigating any skepticism as a science stopper. Religion drives science and it matters.

39 comments:

  1. Just out of curiosity, who funds evolutionary research?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!

    Do you want some cheese with that whine CH?

    You're free to be as skeptical as you want. But if you want anyone in the scientific community to share your skepticism, you need to provide them some reason to doubt the current paradigm. Your religiously driven sniveling just won't do it.

    You and any other Creationists are free to write up your detailed critiques supported with evidence and submit them to any of a hundred professional journals for review and publication. What's stopping you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH writes: Where is the science stopper?

    We've already pointed out where. Nor does this post even attempt to address the issue.

    Again, it's unclear why you're complaining about being excluded when implications of your own claims form the underlying reason for the exclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's really astonishing that ANY 'theory' can be questioned except common ancestry evolution. It needs to be protected from skeptics and critics because the good Lord knows it can't stand on its own merits. Before one can 'see' the alleged evidence for it, one has to BELIEVE it's true.

    If that's science, then R.I.P science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hunter quoted Huxley:

    "I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s."

    and commented:

    Aside from Darwinism there was no legitimate scientific position.

    Setting aside your sarcastic dismissal, do you know of any legitimate scientific alternative that Huxley failed to consider at that time in history?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even worse, this evolutionary dogma has produced an environment where naturalism itself is now unfalsifiable.

    That's an interesting claim. How would one go about falsifying methodological naturalism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Both their philosophy, as well as their imposed social and funding constraints, has resulted in a closed system in which evolutionists reject, out of hand, legitimate intellectual inquiry. Does this sound much like science?

    That might be true. It depends upon what you mean by legitimate intellectual inquiry. Whatever you mean, it should not only sound like science, but use the scientific method. You can't fight science with theology, as hard as you may try.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pedant:

    ===
    You can't fight science with theology, as hard as you may try.
    ===

    It's good to see one evolutionist coming around, but talk is cheap.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hunter:

    It's good to see one evolutionist coming around, but talk is cheap.

    And your alternative to methodological naturalism was?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pedant:

    ===
    And your alternative to methodological naturalism was?
    ===

    My alternatives would be unacceptable to you because they do not enforce your theological assumptions. You can't have MN, completeness and realism without the usual unstated metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CH: You can't have MN, completeness and realism without the usual unstated metaphysics.

    You can't have the "supernatural" without the unstated claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. Which, by the way, you have yet to substantiate or even conform of deny.

    Furthermore, your supposed "concern" over completeness seems quite hypocritical given you have yet to disclose where divine revelation (communication from a supernal being) fits in the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction.

    And there's the fact that you still haven't provided an example of a scientific fact and the criteria used to determine it meets said criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My alternatives would be unacceptable to you because they do not enforce your theological assumptions.

    In other words, "I'm not telling. I will continue to be coy so that I can appear to remain above the fray."

    Well, it is your blog after all!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Norm Olsen said...

    My alternatives would be unacceptable to you because they do not enforce your theological assumptions.

    In other words, "I'm not telling. I will continue to be coy so that I can appear to remain above the fray."

    Well, it is your blog after all!


    Better for Cornelius to keep quiet and be thought a disingenuous fraud than answer and remove all doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hunter: My alternatives would be unacceptable to you because they do not enforce your theological assumptions. You can't have MN, completeness and realism without the usual unstated metaphysics.

    Why do you care about us? Put your money where your mouth is and rely on your presumed alternative methodology to do dome research. If that methodology is successful other scientists will follow.

    All hat, no cattle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Norm Olsen:

    ===
    In other words, "I'm not telling. I will continue to be coy so that I can appear to remain above the fray."
    ===

    I'm not telling? Joking right? How many times do I have to say I'm an empiricist?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pedant:

    "Hunter quoted Huxley:

    "I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s."

    Hunter commented:

    "Aside from Darwinism there was no legitimate scientific position."
    ---

    Pedant:

    "Setting aside your sarcastic dismissal, do you know of any legitimate scientific alternative that Huxley failed to consider at that time in history?"
    ===

    What's even more fascinating is that of all historical legimate scientists, why is Charles Darwin the ONLY one who has need of BullDogs and PitBulls to defend him at every turn ???

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott:

    ===
    You can't have the "supernatural" without the unstated claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.
    ===

    I thought you were arguing that humans can reason about the supernatural. Did I get that wrong?

    ===
    Furthermore, your supposed "concern" over completeness seems quite hypocritical ...
    ===

    My concern is not with completeness. My concern is with evolutionist's denial of their metaphysics which underwrites their assumption of completeness, realism and method (MN). Do I need to repeat, yet again, that there is nothing wrong with assuming completeness, in itself?

    ===
    And there's the fact that you still haven't provided an example of a scientific fact and the criteria used to determine it meets said criteria.
    ===

    Funny how that works. Evolutionists claim their theory is a fact, and now I'm on the hook to define it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pedant:

    "That's an interesting claim. How would one go about falsifying methodological naturalism?"
    ===

    It's called legimately using the "Scientific Method" to provide an honest explanation by which others may also replicate and arrive at the same conclusions. Calling something an experiment which needs interpretation by a mystic Soothsayer of imaginary things the average normal Human DOES NOT OBSERVE is NOT "Scientific Method". It's ecclesiastical!
    ---

    Pedant:

    "And your alternative to methodological naturalism was?"
    ===

    Actually using legitimate "Scientific Method" experiments minus theological interpretations. Example, Lenski's E-coli experiment which is nothing more than reading tea leaves, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oleg:

    "Why do you care about us?"
    ===

    Off hand I'd say he cares more about honest scientific research and exposing the fraud. Now remember, you came here to his blog, not the other way around."

    "Put your money where your mouth is . . . "
    ===

    Back at you.
    ===

    Oleg:

    "All hat, no cattle."
    ===

    All drawing board and no inventions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hunter:

    My alternatives would be unacceptable to you because they do not enforce your theological assumptions.

    Just one alternative to methodological naturalism, without enforcing what you imagine my theological assumptions to be, would be enough.

    What are those theological assumptions? Be specific.

    You can't have MN, completeness and realism without the usual unstated metaphysics.

    Please, Sir, may I have methodological naturalism without completeness and/or realism? Neat methodological naturalism. That's all I've ever wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eocene:

    It's called legimately using the "Scientific Method" to provide an honest explanation by which others may also replicate and arrive at the same conclusions. Calling something an experiment which needs interpretation by a mystic Soothsayer of imaginary things the average normal Human DOES NOT OBSERVE is NOT "Scientific Method". It's ecclesiastical!

    What a lunatic like you considers "Scientific Method" is totally irrelevant, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Do you think the "average normal Human" (that's Human with a capital H) can observe elementary particles in the gigabytes of numbers produced by a particle accelerator? Actually, I don't care what you think, but the answer is no. >99.99% of the Humans cannot observe a quark in the data. Yet brainwashed idiots like you typically have no problem accepting that a quark has been observed. Only evolution gets criticized because it doesn't fit your fairy tale of Adam & Eve & the Talking Snake.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Troy:

    "What a lunatic like you considers "Scientific Method" is totally irrelevant, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
    ===

    Thank you for providing proof that the "Scientific Method" is considered rubbish by yourself and other self-promoting geniuses. What's your favourite passage from the Darwin Bible "Origin of the Species" Reverend ???
    ---

    Troy:

    "Do you think the "average normal Human" (that's Human with a capital H) can observe elementary particles in the gigabytes of numbers produced by a particle accelerator? Actually, I don't care what you think, but the answer is no. >99.99% of the Humans cannot observe a quark in the data. Yet brainwashed idiots like you typically have no problem accepting that a quark has been observed. Only evolution gets criticized because it doesn't fit your fairy tale of Adam & Eve & the Talking Snake."
    ===

    No, what the average rational logical thinking person wants is proof that blind undirected unguided forces of nothing more than chemicals and physics with "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED" accomplish brilliantly complex mechanisms without lying about it or showing us proof by shoving your favourite animated cartoon at the cinema down our throats. Hatred is a lousy foundation for belief Troy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pedant:

    "What are those theological assumptions? Be specific."

    "Please, Sir, may I have methodological naturalism without completeness and/or realism? Neat methodological naturalism. That's all I've ever wanted."
    ===

    Yeah isn't it ashame Cornelius doesn't ever quote true sources of literature found ONLY at TalkOrigins.org, TalkRational.org, Atheist-Forums.com, RichardDawkins.net, scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, sandwalk.blogspot.com, etc, etc, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Funny how that works. Evolutionists claim their theory is a fact, and now I'm on the hook to define it.


    Another flat out lie. No one has claimed the theory of evolution is a fact.

    In actuality, we've spent the last two years pointing out the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory which explains the observations. We've asked you repeatedly for your definitions of 'fact' and 'theory', and to explain the difference between the two, but you won't answer.

    Since you're just mailing it in these days, when are we going to get the "too much moon dust" argument? Or the "if we came from monkeys why are their still monkeys" one? Or go for the gold and accuse evolutionists of having barbecued kitten for lunch at least once a week.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scott: You can't have the "supernatural" without the unstated claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    CH: I thought you were arguing that humans can reason about the supernatural. Did I get that wrong?

    While the term "supernatural" is vague and poorly defined, this doesn't prevent us from pointing out a claim that phenomena X supposedly caused by the supernatural represents an implied claim that phenomena X represents a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    In other words, you're assuming the "problem" the supernatural presents to MN is our inability to exclude it as a cause for particular phenomena. But this depends on the assumption that phenomena with a supernatural cause is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. Otherwise, all you have are possibilities that a cause might meet a vague definition without any clear implications.

    However, you have yet to substantiate this or even admit that such implications are implied.

    CH: My concern is not with completeness. My concern is with evolutionist's denial of their metaphysics which underwrites their assumption of completeness, realism and method (MN). Do I need to repeat, yet again, that there is nothing wrong with assuming completeness, in itself?

    And before the possibility of a supernatural cause can pose a problem to completeness, one needs to substantiate the implications of supernatural causation that would result in incompleteness.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In other words, It's unclear how the fact that we cannot be 100% certain the cause for phenomena X could meet some vague definition with no apparent concrete implications represents a problem for MN.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott:

    ===
    In other words, you're assuming the "problem" the supernatural presents to MN is our inability to exclude it as a cause for particular phenomena.
    ===

    No, I'm not assuming that. It is the evolutionist who is assuming he can have MN, completeness and realism all rolled into one tidy ball.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/question-for-joe-felsenstein-and.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/question-for-barbara-forrest.html

    What if a creationist said he was going to assume a young earth, he was going to apply that to all phenomena, and his results will describe reality? Sure there are details he's going to have to iron out, but that's just good science at work.


    ===
    But this depends on the assumption that phenomena with a supernatural cause is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.
    ===

    No, I'm not assuming that. I do think it would be at least a little tricky, but evolutionists and creationists want to do that, and more power to them.


    ===
    And before the possibility of a supernatural cause can pose a problem to completeness, one needs to substantiate the implications of supernatural causation that would result in incompleteness.
    ===

    No, the possibility of a supernatural cause poses a problem for completeness (even without knowledge of how that causation works), when the completeness is coupled with MN and realism. Remember, when we say "completeness" what we mean is the presumption that I have a *guarantee* that I can accurately describe all phenomena. Couple that with MN and realism, and it is obvious that metaphysics are at work, just as in the creationist example above.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hunter: Remember, when we say "completeness" what we mean is the presumption that I have a *guarantee* that I can accurately describe all phenomena. Couple that with MN and realism, and it is obvious that metaphysics are at work, just as in the creationist example above.

    Cornelius, your claims are getting bizzarre by the moment. What scientific theory claims to "*guarantee* that [it] can accurately describe all phenomena?" Which scientist makes such claims? It's mind-boggling.

    ReplyDelete
  29. oleg:

    Uh, sorry, typing too fast. Let me try that again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott:

    ===
    And before the possibility of a supernatural cause can pose a problem to completeness, one needs to substantiate the implications of supernatural causation that would result in incompleteness.
    ===

    No, the possibility of a supernatural cause poses a problem for completeness (even without knowledge of how that causation works), when the completeness is coupled with MN and realism. IOW, I may not understand if there is supernatural causation, or how it would work. But that doesn't mean I can exclude it while simultenously claiming realism and completeness.

    It would be like a creationist excluding naturalistic explanations, even if he doesn't understand how they might work, and then claiming realism and completeness. Evolutionists are deep into metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Scott: In other words, you're assuming the "problem" the supernatural presents to MN is our inability to exclude it as a cause for particular phenomena.

    CH: No, I'm not assuming that. It is the evolutionist who is assuming he can have MN, completeness and realism all rolled into one tidy ball.

    Cornelius,

    You're not exactly disagreeing with me. Apparently, you're not entirely comfortable with implications of your own argument, as you're trying to distance yourself from it while assert it at the same time.

    From the original post you referenced…

    Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic.

    But why is this? Our inability to rule out the supernatural as a cause for anything is only problematic if naturalism cannot explain the phenomena in question. What prevents this from happening in the case of the phenomena with a supernatural cause?

    If it was obvious, then there wouldn't be any problem distinguishing between the natural and the supernatural. There would be no need to appeal to a possibility of supernatural causation.

    CH: What if a creationist said he was going to assume a young earth, he was going to apply that to all phenomena, and his results will describe reality? Sure there are details he's going to have to iron out, but that's just good science at work.

    In doing so, he'd have to deny that human reasoning and problem solving indicate an old earth is the best explanation for the observations we observe. He'd have more than a few issues it iron out as an old earth is a deep and hard to vary explanation based on observations across multiple fields. This denial would occur by invoking the supernatural as a cause to undermine the current explanation.

    Scott: But this depends on the assumption that phenomena with a supernatural cause is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.

    CH: No, I'm not assuming that. I do think it would be at least a little tricky, but evolutionists and creationists want to do that, and more power to them.

    You're equivocating between having faith or holding beliefs about a particular state of affairs being true in reality and presenting an explanation for phenomena using human reasoning and problem solving, which is the underlying process behind science.

    Again, if our ability to rule out supernatural causation with 100% certainty is problem for science, there must be some underlying implication regarding phenomena with supernatural causes which serves as the foundation of this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  32. CH: No, the possibility of a supernatural cause poses a problem for completeness (even without knowledge of how that causation works), when the completeness is coupled with MN and realism.

    Because….? Realism indicates that genuinely new observations always give us new pieces of the puzzle. This appears to be something you deny in the case of phenomena with a supernatural cause. Again, it seems you're trying to distance yourself from this implication.

    Again, I'm suggesting your metaphysics argument is a variant of solipsism. You've just drawn the boundary at the biological complexity we observe, rather than the mind or brain. Or perhaps there is no such thing as a scientific truth. We can't tell as you refuse to give an example of one along with the criteria as to why it meets the definition.

    CH: Remember, when we say "completeness" what we mean is the presumption that I have a *guarantee* that I can accurately describe all phenomena.

    So, what prevents such a description from occurring in the cause of phenomena with a supernatural cause? Merely saying that phenomena is not-natural doesn't cut it as the definition of the "supernatural" is vague and poorly defined.

    In the absence of a clear definition, you need some concrete implications of supernatural causation. One of which appears to be a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. Otherwise, what prevents such a description from occurring?

    For example, what if I said completeness was a problem for MN and realism because it could not exclude extremely advanced technological causes. Of course, I haven't made a clear distinction between extremely advanced technological causes and natural causes. Nor have I indicated what prevents the description of phenomena that has a technological cause.

    I could claim that some phenomena created by an arbitrary level of technological complexity could not be explained by human reasoning and problem solving. But this would be a form of equivocation.

    For example, phenomena created by a Kurzweilian singularly, which could take required millions of human years to understand unassisted, DOESN'T represent a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass, in principle. It's a problem of resources and time.

    Again, realism says new observations always give us new pieces of the puzzle, even if it would take us a near infinite amount of time to figure exactly where they go without assistance, such a process is still possible.

    But this supposedly isn't the case with the supernatural. It's not a problem of resources and time. Phenomena caused by the supernatural IS beyond human reasoning and problem solving, in principal. NO amount of observations or time can explain them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Scott:

    ===
    Cornelius,

    You're not exactly disagreeing with me.
    ===

    I hope so, but I don't recognize many of your characterizations of my points.


    ===
    Apparently, you're not entirely comfortable with implications of your own argument, as you're trying to distance yourself from it while assert it at the same time.
    ===

    As in this example.


    ===
    From the original post you referenced…

    Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic.

    But why is this? Our inability to rule out the supernatural as a cause for anything is only problematic if naturalism cannot explain the phenomena in question. What prevents this from happening in the case of the phenomena with a supernatural cause?
    ===

    Agreed. I need to add a word or two to explain that when I say "a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic" I mean that it doesn't completely follow natural law. I of course agree with you that supernatural causation can be according to law.


    ===
    CH: What if a creationist said he was going to assume a young earth, he was going to apply that to all phenomena, and his results will describe reality? Sure there are details he's going to have to iron out, but that's just good science at work.

    In doing so, he'd have to deny that human reasoning and problem solving indicate an old earth is the best explanation for the observations we observe.
    ===

    Yes, just as evolutionists deny the obvious design in the world. Even Dawkins admits the world *appears* to be designed. Evolutionists argue that appearance is an illusion.


    ===
    Scott: But this depends on the assumption that phenomena with a supernatural cause is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.

    CH: No, I'm not assuming that. I do think it would be at least a little tricky, but evolutionists and creationists want to do that, and more power to them.

    You're equivocating between having faith or holding beliefs about a particular state of affairs being true in reality and presenting an explanation for phenomena using human reasoning and problem solving, which is the underlying process behind science.
    ===

    No, I'm not equivocating between these. Of course human reasoning and problem solving, is the underlying process behind science. But when your reasoning entails premises X, Y and Z shouldn't you admit to that, rather than deny it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Scott:

    ===
    Again, I'm suggesting your metaphysics argument is a variant of solipsism. You've just drawn the boundary at the biological complexity we observe, rather than the mind or brain. Or perhaps there is no such thing as a scientific truth. We can't tell as you refuse to give an example of one along with the criteria as to why it meets the definition.
    ===

    I have no problem saying it is *true* that the earth is round rather than flat. But I don't normally think about just exactly how does an idea qualify as such a scientific truth, versus an idea with less certainty. In practice, it doesn't seem to be much of a dilemma.


    ===
    For example, what if I said completeness was a problem for MN and realism because it could not exclude extremely advanced technological causes. Of course, I haven't made a clear distinction between extremely advanced technological causes and natural causes. Nor have I indicated what prevents the description of phenomena that has a technological cause.
    ===

    But you have no such burden. First, there is nothing that prevents such a description. This is part of the problem. MN can explain anything given sufficient creativity of explanation. But realism then labels the explanation (all explanations from MN) as real: true or approximately true descriptions of reality. And with completeness there is no limit to this activity. But how can we know that all phenomena are, in reality, naturalistic? By "naturalistic" I mean they are in accord with natural law. Remember, MN can and will describe phenomena according the natural law, even if the description is lousy and unlikely. Just because is *able* to provide such descriptions is not a guarantee that the phenomena really is in accord with law.

    Think of it this way. When the science begins, we don't understand the phenomenon. It might be in accord with law, it might not be. You cannot know, one way or the other, prior to the science. But MN, completeness and realism, coupled together, say we *do* know beforehand. If it were just MN and completeness, then our position would be that some of our explanations may not be true explanations of reality. They are merely useful fictions. But with realism, we are claiming they are true explanations of reality. We cannot know this to be true before the science begins.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hunter: Uh, sorry, typing too fast. Let me try that again.

    By all means, Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  36. CH: . I need to add a word or two to explain that when I say "a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic" I mean that it doesn't completely follow natural law. I of course agree with you that supernatural causation can be according to law.

    That any particular phenomena doesn't follow natural law is the vague definition I'm referring to. In the absence of a clear definition, It has no teeth without some sort of implication regarding phenomena with a supernatural cause, in practice.

    CH: Yes, just as evolutionists deny the obvious design in the world. Even Dawkins admits the world *appears* to be designed. Evolutionists argue that appearance is an illusion.

    Translated: The appearance of design cannot be explained by human reasoning and problem solving.

    CH: But when your reasoning entails premises X, Y and Z shouldn't you admit to that, rather than deny it?

    Again, I'm suggesting your metaphysics argument is a variant of solipsism. We cannot use human reasoning and problem solving to point out bad arguments, including the religious claims of others, because they represent a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    CH: I have no problem saying it is *true* that the earth is round rather than flat.

    Saying it's true that the earth is round, rather than flat doesn't require making a myriad of assumptions?

    CH: But I don't normally think about just exactly how does an idea qualify as such a scientific truth, versus an idea with less certainty.

    It's unclear how we can have a discussion if evolution is a scientific fact without such a criteria. Nor is it clear what the content of this blog represents if not "thinking about how an idea qualifies a scientific truth"

    And we're still waiting to hear how divine revelation fits into the transitional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction. What sort of truth does it represent?

    CH: In practice, it doesn't seem to be much of a dilemma.

    With the exception of scientific theories that happen to conflict with what could be interpreted as core fundamental Christian theology.

    CH: First, there is nothing that prevents such a description. This is part of the problem. MN can explain anything given sufficient creativity of explanation.

    Again, you're not exactly disagreeing with my assessment of your position.

    One of these "nothings" which does not interfere with such a false description is human reasoning and problem solving. Another "Nothing" is realism, which tell us new observations always give us new pieces to the puzzle.

    CH: Remember, MN can and will describe phenomena according the natural law, even if the description is lousy and unlikely.

    Let me guess, evolution is just such an example?

    CH: Just because is *able* to provide such descriptions is not a guarantee that the phenomena really is in accord with law.

    We're back to where we started from. To say that anything does not conform to natural laws tell us what exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  37. ===
    CH: What if a creationist said he was going to assume a young earth, he was going to apply that to all phenomena, and his results will describe reality? Sure there are details he's going to have to iron out, but that's just good science at work.

    Scott: In doing so, he'd have to deny that human reasoning and problem solving indicate an old earth is the best explanation for the observations we observe.

    CH: Yes, just as evolutionists deny the obvious design in the world. Even Dawkins admits the world *appears* to be designed. Evolutionists argue that appearance is an illusion.

    Scott: Translated: The appearance of design cannot be explained by human reasoning and problem solving.
    ===

    This is an example of the pretzel logic of evolutionary thought. I point out the glaring internal contradiction with the evolutionary approach (ie, combining naturalism + realism + completeness). Using creationism as an example, it becomes immediately obvious. Evolutionists object to this approach (which is theirs) when they see it in creationism.

    Scott, the evolutionist, responds that the creationism analogy is flawed because the creationist would have to deny obvious evidence at hand.

    I point out that there is no such flaw with the analogy, because evolutionists do the same thinkg. They too deny the obvious evidence.

    To this, the evolutionist creates a straw man version of what I said.


    ===
    Again, I'm suggesting your metaphysics argument is a variant of solipsism. We cannot use human reasoning and problem solving to point out bad arguments, including the religious claims of others, because they represent a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.
    ===

    No, that would be you, not me. I'm pointing out the bad arguments, including the religious claims of others, using human reasoning, and you are denying my points.


    ===
    It's unclear how we can have a discussion if evolution is a scientific fact without such a criteria. Nor is it clear what the content of this blog represents if not "thinking about how an idea qualifies a scientific truth"
    ===

    We are nowhere close to such fine points. Imagine you are a flat-earther, claiming it is a scientific fact. I complain that your theory is not well supported by the evidence, and you launch into inquiry about just how it is I decide something does and does not qualify as a scientific fact. What are, after all, my criteria, you ask.

    I don't have all the nitty-gritty philosophical problems solved, but that doesn't mean we can't say something about the claim that the flat-earth, or evolution, is a scientific fact. You can't make idiotic claims and then pin the blame on those who reject your claims.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cornelius Hunter:

    "This is an example of the pretzel logic of evolutionary thought."
    ===

    This pretty much sums up your entire post to him. However his whole worldview MAYA(Illusion) is just that, "Pretzel Logic". Any hope of a meaningful in this real world and in this life conversation on serious matters with such an individual is becomes actually impossible. However it still goes back to the original reasons for present existance of Evolutionism itself in the first place. Resentment of Creator/Accountability and offense taken of long established moral values and principles. Most of his posts are no so much to convince you, me or anyone else as they are to sooth his own conscience.

    Romans 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

    15) "They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [a]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [b]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]"

    The thought above is that a healthy well trained conscience will poperly accuse a person. However it is clear the majority train it for the later. So it's not so much that he runs off the diatribes so much as to change you or win the debate so much as it is to justify in his own worldview. If you've noticed, lately Derick has taken pages out of the same script.

    Such further dialog invokes the rule of Matthew 7:6 when proceeding any further.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The scientific proof of a virgin birth is being taught as FACT in public schools:

    http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

    ReplyDelete