Replies

No: if I claimed to be an authority, I would have spelled out just how I would have thought so. Which would be in and of itself argumentum ad verecundiam should I have actually stooped to doing so as you have falsely claimed.

However, you yourself have not only used argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem (repeatedly again in your last post: why do you insist on undermining yourself repeatedly by such?), Aunt Sally, but also argumentum verbosium where you post much but say little.

What you people call “historical sciences” (geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, bio-chemistry related to evolution, etc.) are all based important assumptions, including methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism …

Neither of those assumptions are required in order for science and the scientific method to analyze the material universe.

Olog-hai: "...if I claimed to be an authority, I would have spelled out just how I would have thought so."

Despite your repeated denials, you've continued to do just that: claiming authority to define just what is, or is not, "science".
Indeed that is the summation of your entire argument here: you claim that various aspects of evolution theory are not really "science" -- based on what authority?
Why based on your own, of course, sitting on high throne of Mount Olympus.

To rebut your majesty, I've cited US legal decisions supporting the scientific definition of "natural science" as determined by actual scientists.

Of course, you are free to disagree with any of that, but not, I think, to claim your own authority as valid justification.

Olog-hai: "However, you yourself have not only used argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem (repeatedly again in your last post: why do you insist on undermining yourself repeatedly by such?), Aunt Sally, but also argumentum verbosium where you post much but say little."

And here we see yet more pronouncements from the high throne on Mount Olympus!
Do you never grow tired of issuing such proclamations?
Do you not get dizzy from the heights and thin atmosphere?
Wouldn't you occasionally like to come down off your throne and join the human race?

Olog-hai referring to two scientific assumptions: "Neither of those assumptions are required in order for science and the scientific method to analyze the material universe."

Yet more pronouncement from Mount Olympus!
Of course they are required, indeed they help define just what the term "scientific analysis" means.

Yes, if you wish to go outside the boundaries of such assumptions, then you are totally free to do so.
But your results then will not be classified as "scientific".

And that's not just my opinion, it's a fact.