Consider the Probabilities (Creation vs Evolution)

Websites ^ | 9/6/2013 | Dennis Richter

[DennisR]

ConsiderTheProbabilities.com is an attempt to objectively, honestly, and logically discuss the much-debated subject of creation versus evolution.

[Texas Songwriter]

Thank you for your response. It was truthful and honest. I appreciate that.

Warranted true belief is the definition of KNOWLEDGE. We have beliefs which may not be warranted (guaranteed) or true (they may be false, but we may hold those beliefs). The reason I ask the question is because evolutionist and theists alike make assertions which cannot be epistemically explicated. I have no doubt that they belief what they say, but when I ask why they believe their assertion, they are without explaination. I find the metaphysical naturalist (of which evolutionists are numbered among that crowd) take liberties which philosophy and inductive reasoning which cannot be supported.

I may say, "It is raining in Moscow, Russia". I have no objective evidence to prove the statement, but I believe it. The statement (belief) is not warranted, but I still believe it is raining there,.....and it might be true that it is raining there, but I cannot guarantee the statement.

That is what I mean by warranted true belief.

As you know, paleontology, anthropology, orogenic geological upheavals are studied as historical abductive sciences. These require a forensic scientific approach. Anatomy, chemistry, physics are largely adductive sciences and are studied mostly by direct examination, one of the many methodological scientific techniques.

Thank you for your response. Perhaps we all can learn something from each other.

[John Valentine]

Certainly not ih humans, you dolt. That was your absurd notion that I was trying to rid you of.

[John Valentine]

Btw, 69 was your post. You might mean 71, read it again.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

We have beliefs which may not be warranted (guaranteed)...

What about beliefs for which we've judged the evidence to be persuasive? Are they warranted? Who decides how much evidence rises to the level of "proof"?

As you know, paleontology, anthropology, orogenic geological upheavals are studied as historical abductive sciences. These require a forensic scientific approach.

Yes, they're not really subject to laboratory verification. But I don't think that makes them not real science.

[Texas Songwriter]

What about beliefs for which we've judged the evidencd go be persuasive? Are they warranted? Who decides how much evidencd rises to the level of "proof"?

Those are good questions. Do I, as theist, determine why and what you believe is true? How do we come to an agreement about debating the subject? James Sire conducts a seminar at colleges with students asking just this question. Do we arrive at truth based on psychological reasons, or religious reasons, or sociological reasons. Your dad said, so it must be so. But, my dad said something else, so that makes my view the valid arbiter of truth. If I said that to you, you would reject it out of hand. So what can we agree on how to approach this subject. Philosophical reasons gives us consistency, coherence, completeness, and therefore the best approach to explain all evidence. So the questions I put to you were proffered to expose the inadequate justification for beliefs, and once the way is cleared for the seeker of truth to find adequate justification for a belief. Many beliefs held by people are not supported by evidence, so the people who hold those beliefs hold subjective beliefs. In order to find truth we must give up subjective beliefs and this opens the door to acquire objective truth, and these beliefs are best discovered by logic, reason, science, and rational thought.

This leads us to the question, "What is truth?", "Can truth be known?"

One must be on guard to guard against presuppositions which they will not give up. I will not go into all of the statements by evolutionists who declared to the world they have an a priori commitment to naturalism because they cannot allow a theistic magesterium to have a voice regarding what is science. These emminations from noted scientists are ubiquitous. But you can see what they are really saying is, "We begin by excluding these possibilities, ....now we an have a discussion."

Who decides what is warranted truth

We, neither you nor I determine what is truth. Truth is discovered, irrespective of what your and my subjective preferences are. This brings us back to presuppositionalism. We all have presupposition beliefs, but that is not necessarily the truth. Truth can be known by observation (inductions), reason, logic, rational thought. There are other ways of knowing truth, but not methods which both theist and atheist would agree to. Remember here I am speaking of METHODS of discovering the truth, not truth itself. Truth does not change. It is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge of it. It is transcultural, unchanging. Finally all truths are absolute truth.

[BroJoeK]

Texes Songwriter: "I will not go into all of the statements by evolutionists who declared to the world they have an a priori commitment to naturalism because they cannot allow a theistic magesterium to have a voice regarding what is science.
These emminations from noted scientists are ubiquitous.
But you can see what they are really saying is, "We begin by excluding these possibilities, ....now we an have a discussion.""

This seems to be the meat of your lengthy argument, and so let me ask you a simple question:

Why is it difficult or impossible for allegedly brilliant minds such as your own to comprehend a simple concept: by long historical and traditional definition, the word "science" is short for "natural science", meaning: natural explanations for natural processes?

In the Middle Ages, at the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, there were two great recognized branches of science: theology and philosophy, of which theology was the "Queen of Sciences".
Theology studied God through the Bible while philosophy studied the natural world through our senses.
Over time, Philosophy also came to include such subjects as ethics, aesthetics & metaphysics, while "natural philosophy", ahem, evolved into "natural sciences", which are today called just "science".

So, from the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (well, actually Aristotle) "philosophy" = "natural philosophy" = "natural science" = "science", while theology, teleology or metaphysics deals with the supernatural realm.

And in the beginning, theology filled whole libraries with its books, while natural-science barely existed -- think of ancient alchemy, with its closely guarded secrets, etc.

Today the reverse is true -- natural-science fills many libraries and huge super-computers with its works, while theology is an esoteric subject seriously studied by no more learned minds today than, say, in Aquinas' time.

And that is the root cause reason why scientists today cannot, will not, indeed must not allow non-natural explanations for natural processes.
In short: as soon as you say "God did it", then it's no longer natural-science, it's theology, or teleology or metaphysics, etc.

That doesn't mean science is right and theology wrong, only that a theological explanation is outside the natural-science "lane", and so science can say nothing about it.

And it would only take you a moment's serious thought to realize that in no way shape or form do you want science telling you what is or is not a Work of God.
That's your job, guided by your religion and its pastors.
You yourself have to decide if what you see comes from God, or from some allegedly "random" natural process.

Science is not going to do your job for you, and science refuses to become your religion.
But I still don't see the difficulty.
Regardless of how "random" natural-science says some process is, can there be anything we see that does not ultimately come from God?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Those are interesting subjects, but they’re not ones I’m prepared to get into here. I’m not convinced we can know, or are anywhere close to knowing, the absolute truth about any aspect of how the universe works, including of course evolution. I’m also suspicious of claims that a belief is supported by “logic” or “rational thought”—in most cases, it seems to me that whatever someone already believes seems logical to them, so they say it’s “logical.” (I’m not saying you’re doing this, by the way.) These concerns are why I limited myself to talking about “persuasive evidence” earlier.

[Texas Songwriter]

Why is it difficult or impossible for allegedly brillian minds such as your own to comprehend a simple concept: by long historical definition, the word "science" is short for "natural science", meaning: natural explanations for natural processes?

First, I do not allege, nor have I ever alleged, nor will I allege I am a brilliant mind. Let us put that to rest at the start. So, we ask why do we use terms like science or scientific? Well, those terms connote a facet of life which is ration, modern, good, and logical, and if something is not scientific it is old fashion and not something a fully actualized person will believe. There is an honorific connotation to the term as defined by popular culture. Mostly we try to eliminate ambiguity and clarify meaning to be able to discuss matters relating to scientific study and findings. But, what is the proper definition of science? is itself a philosophical question about science that assumes a vantage point above science. It is not a question of science. O'Dwyer, in "College Physics" says science is that which seeks to understand the world of reality in terms of basic general principles, involving observation, intuition, debate, and reformation">

Keeton, in Biological Science says, "Science is concerned with the material universe seeking to discover facts about it and to fit those facts into conceptual schemes, called theories or laws, that will clarifuy the relations among them. Science must therefore begin with observations of objects or events in the physical universe."

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary: "Knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method.Knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomenonBut none of these definitions are adequate. The first and second are offered by scientists and illustrate that scientists today, in contrast to their counterparts in earlier generations. Dwyer offers a circular reasoning, a tautology, to define science. Keeton offers a definition using science where the word philosophy could be substituted.

So your definition, "science" is short for "natural science", meaning: natural explanation for natural processes. I do not believe you mean to say that science is a 'natural explanation'. More specifically, I think you were invoking naturalism as a philosophical explanation for natural science. {If other, please correct me}.

......while philosophy studied the natural world through our senses.

As you know, the term philosophy literally translates "love of wisdom". The term philosophy has come to be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life's most important questions in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom abouty these matters. Philosophy helps people form a rationally justified, true worldview.

Science endeavors cannot be carried out without philosophy. In order to 'do" science one must presuppose certain philosophical views. The scientist presupposes a great many things, such as mathematics, logic, metaphysical truths (such as there are other minds that exist), ethical judgements ( non provable in a materialist worldview, and science itself (the belief that scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by scientific method itself. It requires the immaterial conscious self and sentience to engage in scientific engagement, but mind /consciousness, according the the naturalist cannot prove by naturalism that mind and consciousness exists, if it remains faithful to metaphysical naturalism.

I have got to go back to work. I will check in tonight with you to see if you want to continue. Sorry I was so incomplete in my answer to you. Thank you.

[Texas Songwriter]

"I'm not convinced we can know, or are anywhere close to knowing, the absolute truth about any aspect of how the universe works, including of course evolution."

You are honest. That is always the best beginning point.

I'm suspicious of claims that a belief is supported by" logic" or "rational thought". If you take this to the next step, you would say< "I do not believe a belief is supported by logic or rational thought. If this is a fair reading, then you have no 'reason' (no rational reason) to believe anything. That leads to nihilism and despair. You of course do not believe what you wrote. You believe you wrote post # 107. You believe you are an individual mind and are conscious. You believe you are hungry when you want to eat. In other words there are many things you believe. If you study the laws of logic there are certain First Principles which become very clear to you. It will help you in science, popular culture, theism....virtually all human endeavors.

In regard to your last statement I will only say the ability to persuade is the self-apprehension of those presuppositions which we spoke of. All of us, scientist and theist alike, have presuppositions which we rely on. I would only say that if you are honest you will examine those presuppositions reasonably, logically, and by rational thought and may have to acquire other presuppositions and dispose of those which you convince yourself are flawed.

I have got to get back to work. I will look for you later this evening if you wish to continue. Thanks.

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "First, I do not allege, nor have I ever alleged, nor will I allege I am a brilliant mind.
Let us put that to rest at the start."

You write at the college level, or beyond, while most of us struggle to post cogent high school level English.
So, to communicate successfully here you will need, like Rush Limbaugh, to "tie half your brain behind your back, just to make it fair". ;-)
No, I'm not saying "dumb it down", but rather to keep your words short, and most of your sentences simple declaratives.

Texas Songwriter: "So, we ask why do we use terms like science or scientific?
Well, those terms connote a facet of life which is ration, modern, good, and logical, and if something is not scientific it is old fashion and not something a fully actualized person will believe.
There is an honorific connotation to the term as defined by popular culture."

Sure, but all that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is: why can't we solve scientific problems by saying, in effect, "God did it"?
The simple answer is: yes you can, but science itself, by definition of the word "science", cannot.
Science is and only is: natural explanations for natural processes.

Texas Songwriter: "Keeton, in Biological Science says, "Science is concerned with the material universe..."

For purposes of this discussion, words like "material", "natural", "physical", "corporal", "non-spiritual", etc., are all synonymous.
In ancient times you could add words like "mundane" and "vulgar" as well.
Those are all words which describe the limits of science.

Texas Songwriter: "Dwyer offers a circular reasoning, a tautology, to define science.
Keeton offers a definition using science where the word philosophy could be substituted."

Look, I know academics love this stuff, but these mental gymnastics are not very helpful in ordinary discussion.
Whether somebody imagines it a tautology or not, science is still the study of the natural (material, etc) universe, using defined principles to arrive at: natural explanations for natural processes.
Period, no real need for greater complexity.

Texas Songwriter: "I think you were invoking naturalism as a philosophical explanation for natural science. {If other, please correct me}."

FRiend, there is not one in a hundred, or one in a thousand people who can explain the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (also called metaphysical or ontological naturalism) but that distinction is the absolute key to understanding why anti-evolutionists are so utterly confused.

I can make it plain for you: "philosophical naturalism" is another term for atheism, pure and simple.
"Methodological naturalism" is a core principle of science, and translates simply as: natural explanations for natural processes.

Yes, some scientists are atheists = "philosophical naturalists", but many are not, including some of the greatest modern scientific minds -- Albert Einstein, Max Plank and Stephen Hawking (Here is a listing of Christian scientific thinkers through the ages).

But all scientists, to qualify as scientists, must accept "methodological naturalism", meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.
As soon as they begin speculating on the roles of the Supernatural in the material world, then they are outside of the scientific "lane" in into a more philosophical realm.

Texas Songwriter: "the belief that scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by scientific method itself."

That is one of the great red-herrings thrown out by the anti-science crowd.
In fact, science never claims anything it does is "truth", much less "Truth".
Every scientist knows that no theory is ever "proved", it is only "confirmed" by verifying its predictions.
That's how scientific hypotheses get promoted to the level of "theory".
But every theory must be subject to falsification tests which can disprove it.

In short: scientific theories cannot be proved by tests, but can be disproved.
If some tests confirm a hypothesis, it is tentatively accepted as theory, at least until some other significant test falsifies it.

Texas Songwriter: "mind /consciousness, according the the naturalist cannot prove by naturalism that mind and consciousness exists, if it remains faithful to metaphysical naturalism."

"Metaphysical naturalism" is synonymous with "philosophical naturalism" and "atheism".
Not all scientists are atheists. See above.

[DennisR]

Again, can you answer any of the questions posed at considertheprobabilties.com? If you cannot (and I do not believe you can or you probably would have answered by now)...game, set, match.

[DennisR]

OK, let’s try this again. You said”

“Or, the question could be honestly posed in an alternative way, like this: “A male and a female are required for sexual reproduction. What was the evolutionary stop just before sexual reproduction evolved?”

In this case, the answer would be ‘asexual reproduction’. However, let it be said, that there are species that can reproduce either way. It isn’t necessarily a one or the other situation.”

Although you think I did a “switcheroo,” I do not know of many people who would separate the first sentence in my post from the second. But apparently you do, so no problem.

Also, I had not intention of stating that the human race once reproduced asexually. That is a fanciful notion at best.

Oh - and nice ad hominem attack. That is usually what people resort to when they cannot answer honest, logical, reasonable questions such as those posed at considertheprobabilities.com.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You are honest. That is always the best beginning point.

My impression is that you're honestly trying to get at something significant, so I may as well respond accordingly.

If you take this to the next step, you would say< "I do not believe a belief is supported by logic or rational thought...

I don't mean beliefs are never supported by rational thought. Obviously, I think my beliefs are logical and rational. All I meant was that I see red flags when someone claims to be arguing logical deductions from first principles, because it's been my observation that people's first principles and deductions therefrom usually fall in line with what they want to believe anyway. (Again, not saying you're doing this.) If we were having a lengthier conversation, we could start by seeing if we could agree on any first principles and go from there.

I would only say that if you are honest you will examine those presuppositions reasonably, logically, and by rational thought and may have to acquire other presuppositions and dispose of those which you convince yourself are flawed.

I do not disagree with you.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Again, can you answer any of the questions posed at considertheprobabilties.com? If you cannot (and I do not believe you can or you probably would have answered by now)...game, set, match.

"Let's play a game. I'll make up a bunch of stupid rules that force you to meet nonsensical challenges. If you choose not to play, I win." Yeah, okay, congratulations.

[John Valentine]

That’s NOT all I said, is it?

So, once again you resort to dishonest flim-flammery in trying to make a point.

But then, that’s all you have, isn’t it?

[Texas Songwriter]

Thank you for your comments. In order to truncate this discussion I will not 'cut and paste'. I will refer to your concise breakdown of reference. For the most part I will not comment on Texas Songwriter1,2,3 or 4 except to say, that my feeling of the need to define 'science' was derived from your defining that term. I found your definition functional ,but simplistic and my wish was to explain that others, including men of letters, offered different from yours an each others definitions. Bu your definition is a working definition which I will try to adhere to, at least as a starting point..

Referencing Texas Songwriter #5, your protestations regarding the terms "naturalism", metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism, ontological naturalism. My reference to Ha Ha That.... it seems the post references interpretations of 'data' which, as i said to Ha Ha...., was adductive and therefore the author of the abstract made 'assumptions' not warranted in the writing. Philosophical disputes concerning naturalism ranges over many issues but at bottom it concerns the nature of philosophy itself. I believe those disputes lie at bedrock the philosophical cosmology of the the physicalist (naturalist-as you define it), the theist, the agnostic (weakly), the atheist, or the pantheist. In other words, 'what is one's cosmology'? I believe this is the animating feature of an even more fundamental question, "What motivates and warrants methodologic and oncologic naturalism?" Is naturalism (physicalism) , methodologic and/or ontic committed to the Standard Model (big bang), or some other cosmology? As a naturalist (phyicalist) the commitment to a reality is defined by whether or not something is extended into space (physical). The prominent construal of "material extended into space" invokes the empirical sciences. So, ontologically that is the stopping point for the physicalist. So the question arrises are there other realities which do not extend into space? Ontological naturalists who are materialists oppose ontological dualism (the view that there are 2 irreducible kinds of things that actually exist). This was my point to Ha Ha... and yourself. This seems to be the lynchpin of the disagreement. These are some of the presuppositions which I spoke of earlier, and these presuppositions are profoundly reflective conclusions by naturalists and dualists alike, as I said earlier. It seems inductively logical that both the dualist committed to the Standard Model or the theist need to address the metaphysical necessity of the cosmologies. Both physicalist and dualist agree, for the most part, on the Standard Model as the inciting event of physics. The question I put was the epistemological and ontological (cause) of the Standard Model. Without it, neither physicalist nor dualist can that cause. The exclusionary necessity of metaphysical naturalism of that First Cause screams out to be answered. Jaegwon Kim (physicalist) says the metaphysical naturalist MUST give an accounting for what caused the Big Bang, or abandon it. Dualist have been waiting for 100 years for their answer. The answer is not a 'definition, but an on tic explanation. These are the sources of the warrants which I asked for. Why does one believe what one believes?

With reference to your Texas Songwriter #6 you say 'science' never claims anything it does is truth. Well I agree,...science does not say anything.....scientists say things. These scientists have their presuppositions, as I have said, and those presuppositions color interpretations of facts and observations. That cannot be avoided. But, while profering those assertions the physicalist will not admit to the truth that there are metaphyscal truths which govern even their own decrees. Numbers, sets, any abstract entity, consiouness, mind,....( I could go on and on) are metaphysical entities which are irreducible in the physicalist wortldview, yet they refuse to acknowledge these truths, all the while being keepers of the truth and the only method to acquire the truth (strict). When asked to give an accounting (ontic) of these metaphysical truths they demure, refusing to even acknowledge these entities.

For the record, I am not antiscience. I have spent all of my college years, graduate school years, doctoral years and private practice in science. I love science. I love knowledge for knowledge-sake. You may consider some of my positions as red herrings, but I have spent a great many years considering these matters and do not consider them trivial. As one moves to ad hominem and pejoratives the discussion has decayed to the point of uselessness. I do not consider the very underpinnings of science by philosophy and First Principles to be trivial. I know it to be essential to the very acts of scientific inquiry. To deny those philosophical precepts is to exclude reason and logic and mind and consciousness. These are a few of requirements to 'do science'.

I will stop here. It is late, and I have a lot of work to do tomorrow. Thank you for your comments.

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "In order to truncate this discussion I will not 'cut and paste'."

Odd you say that, since I do detect a certain "cut and paste" quality to some of your remarks.

Texas Songwriter: "I found your definition functional ,but simplistic and my wish was to explain that others, including men of letters, offered different from yours an each others definitions.
Bu your definition is a working definition..."

In fact, none of your text-book definitions of "science" differed from mine in any significant way, except in being wordier expansions.
My bumper-sticker definition (natural explanations of natural processes) is simply intended to reduce the core issue to words anyone can understand.

Texas Songwriter: "Philosophical disputes concerning naturalism ranges over many issues but at bottom it concerns the nature of philosophy itself."

Which seems to be the core of your concern here, but which I would argue is irrelevant to the simple definition of science as: natural explanations for natural processes.

Texas Songwriter: "I believe those disputes lie at bedrock the philosophical cosmology of the the physicalist (naturalist-as you define it), the theist, the agnostic (weakly), the atheist, or the pantheist.
In other words, 'what is one's cosmology'?

From this point on I detect a certain "cut and paste" quality to your words, as if they were lifted, not from some college professor's thesis, but rather from a college Sophomore's frat-house term-paper library.

So I refer you, again, to St. Thomas Aquinas (†1274, see post #106 above), whose era viewed theology as the "Queen of Sciences" because it studied God based on the Bible, and who considered philosophy to be the study of the natural mundane world, based on evidence from our senses.
At that time, the two were considered to be in harmony, and the question was never addressed: what if evidence from one conflicts with the other.

But such evidence did begin to arise in the Renaissance, of which Galileo Galilei's is perhaps the best known example.
Still, as recently as our Founding Fathers' Age of Enlightenment, God was still considered the First Principle from which all other science followed.
In the 19th century that Principle began to be challenged, and in the 20th century it was all-to-often abandoned, with serious negative consequences...

Texas Songwriter: "I believe this is the animating feature of an even more fundamental question, "What motivates and warrants methodologic and oncologic naturalism?"
Is naturalism (physicalism) , methodologic and/or ontic committed to the Standard Model (big bang), or some other cosmology?"

Yet again I remind you that the academic distinction between theology and natural-philosophy (today aka "science") goes back to the Middle Ages, and if you personally wish to challenge that, then you must begin by studying the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, FRiend.

As for the "Big Bang Theory", it is only one of several scientific proposals.
Years ago we had Hoyle's "steady state hypothesis", and today we have what I'd call "multi-verse bubble hypothesis".
All meet the definition of: "natural explanations for natural processes", but none totally exclude the likelihood of a Creator God.

In that regard, "Big Bang Theory" is unusually attractive.

Texas Songwriter: "So the question arrises are there other realities which do not extend into space?
Ontological naturalists who are materialists oppose ontological dualism (the view that there are 2 irreducible kinds of things that actually exist)."

Sorry, but at this point, your words become more sophomoric by the sentence.
In fact terms like "Naturalism" and "materialism" are for practical purposes synonymous.
Likewise, "philosophical naturalism", "metaphysical naturalism" and "ontological naturalism" are synonymous, and all refer to atheists.

But atheism itself is not science, rather, it's a religious belief which falls under the category of theology, not natural-philosophy (science).

And the point is: regardless of what some scientists say, you cannot, you must not, debate science with your religion.
Since at least the time of Aquinas, they have been recognized as separate realms.

Yet again, here is a listing of Christian scientists down through the ages.

Texas Songwriter: "Both physicalist and dualist agree, for the most part, on the Standard Model as the inciting event of physics.
The question I put was the epistemological and ontological (cause) of the Standard Model.
Without it, neither physicalist nor dualist can that cause.
The exclusionary necessity of metaphysical naturalism of that First Cause screams out to be answered."

I don't know of any "screaming", as a still small voice should be more than adequate for the purpose. ;-)

Obviously, you are trying to ask: Who Created the Big Bang?
The atheist-materialist answers: natural processes.
The theologian answers: God, of course.
Neither has scientific data to support their conclusion, both go by what their life's experiences have taught them.

Texas Songwriter: "Jaegwon Kim (physicalist) says the metaphysical naturalist MUST give an accounting for what caused the Big Bang, or abandon it.
Dualist have been waiting for 100 years for their answer."

Then Jaegwon Kim knows nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- of what science is all about.
Science itself has nothing to do with metaphysical, ontological or philosophical certitude, nothing.
Science is, and only is, all about what works.
Today's version of the "Big Bang Theory" seems to work, by most of the standards cosmologists apply to it.
But it's not perfect, there are still plenty of nagging questions, and so scientists continue to work on finding better answers.
And that's all there is to it.
Scientists are not going to abandon the Big Bang Theory just because some theologian tells them it doesn't necessarily answer the question of First Cause.

Texas Songwriter: "These are the sources of the warrants which I asked for.
Why does one believe what one believes? "

This is not a difficult question, and I refer you to the famous quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.
My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day."

Texas Songwriter: "science does not say anything.....scientists say things.
These scientists have their presuppositions, as I have said, and those presuppositions color interpretations of facts and observations."

Actually, no, science itself speaks volumes, but only, only about scientific matters, never about the higher realms of philosophy or theology.

Of course, scientists themselves, just like anyone else are entitled to their own personal opinions, and their own religious/philosophical beliefs (or disbeliefs).
But regardless of whether they personally believe or disbelieve, the methodology of science remains the same: natural explanations for natural processes.
As soon as they wander outside this "lane", then by definition, their words are no longer scientific.

Texas Songwriter: "As one moves to ad hominem and pejoratives the discussion has decayed to the point of uselessness."

Can you quote even one ad hominem posted here?

[Texas Songwriter]

Can you quote even one ad hominem posted here?

From this point on I detect a certain "cut and paste" quality to your words, as if they were lifted, not from some college professor's thesis, but rather from a college Sophomore's frat-house term-paper library.

Sorry, but at this point, your words become more sophomoric by the sentence.

Then Jaegwon Kim knows nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- of what science is all about.

My answer to your question is...yes.

Yet again I remind you that the academic distinction between theology and natural-philosophy (today aka "science") goes back to the Middle Ages, and if you personally wish to challenge that, then you must begin by studying the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, FRiend.

I might argue that it goes much farther back in history than Thomist writings. Though I do not subscribe to Demicritus, Epucurus, and Lucretius some consider these atomists as some of the first to proscribe the rudiments of Darwins theory. But, as you are want to say, it does not have much application to this discussion, although Demicritus lived 16 centuries prior to Aquinas. Some experts even consider that alchemy was the foundation upon which modern chemistry was built, although we all would separate ourselves from alchemy in the modern age.

Years ago we had Hoyle's "steady state hypothesis", and today we have what I'd call "multi-verse bubble hypothesis". All meet the definition of: "natural explanations for natural processes", but none totally exclude the likelihood of a Creator God.I do not know why you bring up Fred Hoyle. He, himself, renounced the Steady State theory. As for the multiverse, oscillation-contraction, the cosmic rebound theory, imaginary time theory, string theory.....or any other please give me one piece of hard evidence which supports or proves any one of them. There is no evidence and you know it is true. So why you bring this up is puzzling.

Actually, no, science itself speaks volumes, but only, only about scientific matters, never about the higher realms of philosophy or theology.

To say this is to say scientists do not interpret their findings. It seems you are saying, though they have opinions, science says what it says, regardless of the opinion of the scientist. I am not one that subscribes to determinism like this. It seems you say the scientist is pure in his pronouncements, unmolested by his presuppositions, while the theist cannot be so. That is your presupposition. Science,itself, says nothing apart from the interpretations of the scientist, a human with all of his frailties, predispositions, agendas, and vicissitudes of opinion. We all have those characteristics.

I see no gain from continuing our discussion I will, if you wish, but I am not going to convince you of anything, nor you, me. Thank you for your correspondence.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

To say this is to say scientists do not interpret their findings. It seems you are saying, though they have opinions, science says what it says, regardless of the opinion of the scientist.

I think the point is that when scientists speak philosophically, they're speaking as philosophers, and not as scientists.

Unfortunately, science is difficult to define. Empiricism comes close.

[Texas Songwriter]

I think the point is that when scientists speak philosophically, they're speaking as philosophers, and not as scientists.

Thank you for your comment. I tried to explain this in an earlier post. Perhaps he is right...perhaps I do write sophomorically. So....I will try again to make my point.

My point is that science is a slave to philosophy. Science cannot be done apart from philosophy. There are many things which scientist (all of us, in fact) cannot prove scientifically, but we are all rational to accept. A few of these are mathematics and logic which cannot be proven by science because science presupposes them. Metaphysical truths such as the fact that there exists other minds than my own (other than the scientists mind). Ethical judgements cannot be proven by science. Science cannot prove Hitler was evil because morality is not subject to scientific method. Aesthetic judgements cannot be proven by scientific methodology. Science itself cannot be proven by scientific method . You cannot prove the laws of logic, the Law of Causality , the Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observation by running tests and experiment. Moreover, materialism (naturalism) makes reason impossible. Human thoughts are immaterial. The irony seems thick because science, which claims to be the arbiters of truth, cannot use reason or logic which is impossible in an exclusively physicalist universe. So, even when they are right about their assertions, their worldview (metaphysical naturalism) gives us no reason to believe them because immaterial entities and invarient abstract ideas cannot exist in their worldview governed only by chemical and physical forces. The materialist who declare that we should only rely on reason alone cannot be justified because reason requires faith. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular and makes the argument worthless. The atheist/Darwinist/ materialist/metaphysical naturalist (use the term you wish) believe by faith that our minds arose from mindless matter without intelligence intervening. It is believed by faith because because it contradicts all scientific observations which demonstrate that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. You cannot give what you do not have to give.

It is said that Darwinists think they have reasons to be atheists actually presupposes that God exists. Why? Because reason requires the universe to be a reasonable universe that presupposes order, logic, design, and truth. To say something is unreasonable is to presuppose what is reasonable. To say something is not true is to say that person knows what truth is.

So, if the Darwinist/materialist/naturalist/physicalist who declare everything in this universe is extended into space, then that personneeds to account for the immaterial and invarient abstract entities from a physical perspective or abandon their worldview.

I do not know how to make it more plain that that.

Sorry I was so verbose . It just takes a few words to convey these ideas and that is about a brief as I can break it down. Thank you for your correspondence.