What we've done, or attempted to do, is show how science itself is dependent on that which cannot itself be subjected to scientific inquiry, such as the laws of logic.
We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B).
In effect, what we have accomplished is effectively the proving of God's existence by way of elimination, to wit, the absurdity/impossibility of the contrary. The next scientific fact or anecdote someone throws out will rest on the very a prioris that point to that conclusion. Actually, that applies not just to science but to all communication and meaning.
In proving God's existence we have destroyed the possibility of a key logical implication of Darwin's theory, were it true: that there is no need for God for life as we know it. In doing that we have not entirely disproved Darwinism, mind you, but have eliminated one of its primary appeals.
Your grasp of this topic is doubtful. The "laws of logic" are part of mathematics and therefore only valid if the axioms upon which the mathematics is based are valid. The axioms are arbitrary and the primary reason we use the ones we do is that they are incredibly effective at generating useful results. No one but the ignorant assume that there is some part of mathematics not subject to inquiry; there are axioms in mathematics which are in fact not accepted in all mathematical fields (e.g. the Axiom of Choice).
We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B).
*snicker*
Regardless of whether or not the "laws of logic" can be subject to inquiry, you clearly failed to apply said "laws" to your own argument. Or was this supposed to be an instructive exercise by showing how many logical flaws and fallacies can be fitted within the boundaries of a single sentence? I am not talking nitpicky semantics either, but basic structural reasoning flaws. People like you give reasonable creationists a bad name, with this weird handwavy "logic".
You will have to excuse me if I find you a poor speaker for the cause, but that was a transparently ridiculous argument.
"What we've done, or attempted to do, is show how science itself is dependent on that which cannot itself be subjected to scientific inquiry, such as the laws of logic."
Yes, methodological naturalism is the philosophical framework of science. It's very easy to understand - it ensures falsifiable explanations. What's your contention?
"We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B)."
What transcendental truths? God, et cetra? Those are philosophical propositions that aren't testable. Raising them as falsifications of evolution is meaningless.
"In effect, what we have accomplished is effectively the proving of God's existence by way of elimination, to wit, the absurdity/impossibility of the contrary. The next scientific fact or anecdote someone throws out will rest on the very a prioris that point to that conclusion. Actually, that applies not just to science but to all communication and meaning."
How did you give evidence for God? I don't see it anywhere. Also, dichotomies do not exist in science - elimination and negative arguments against a theory does not validate another *unless* positive evidence is provided for said theory.
"In proving God's existence we have destroyed the possibility of a key logical implication of Darwin's theory, were it true: that there is no need for God for life as we know it. In doing that we have not entirely disproved Darwinism, mind you, but have eliminated one of its primary appeals."
You haven't given evidence for God. Please raise such a contention. And, mind you, they should be falsifiable contentions because to raise philosophical contentions over a non-falsifiable subject is meaningless.
"We" did? You and your tapeworm both have delusions of adequacy.