Of course you did, and now deny it?
I'm starting to "get" that you are highly confused & disoriented.
So, let me see if I can cut through the clutter in your mind: science is a model of reality, not reality itself.
Though it can be falsified, the scientific model is never "true", only "confirmed" or "observed".
If you were expecting "truth" from science, you're asking more than it was intended to deliver.
What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.
Is that not clear & simple enough for you?
Texas Songwriter: "I asked you about, essentially, how you reconcile Darwinian evolution with Naturalism.. But you evade."
That's not what you asked, and I "evaded" nothing, FRiend.
The answer is: Darwin's theory of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is the very essence of methodological naturalism.
So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?
Texas Songwriter: "Defining Science is a philosophical issue.
The approach to defining science is called an external philosophy of science."
The most important point for you to remember about science is: you, personally do not get to define it.
Scientists will define what it is, or is not, not anti-scientists.
Scientists define it with terms like "methodological naturalism" based on assumptions such as "uniformitarianism" and using a "scientific method" which they will determine, not you.
So you don't get to declare their methods "unscientific".
Of course, if scientists become corrupt or misbehave (i.e., "global warming") that's a different matter.
But in that case, you will always find some scientists who can make the opposing case, which you are free to agree with, or reject.
Texas Songwriter: "With your devotion to science and seeming resentment for theological ideas, I must ask if you believe truth exists."
Sorry, but your accusation of "resentment" is a total fantasy.
Of course truth exists, but not within science, only in other schools of learning -- i.e., religion, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, etc.
Such truth is outside the realm and scope of science.
Texas Songwriter: "...is this to say truth does not exist?
Is truth important if it does exist?"
I can't think of anything in human affairs which is more important, can you?
Texas Songwriter: "And finally, my "trick" question, as you describe it, asks of all of this proselytizing of Darwinian evolution, you refuse to answer if you know it is true."
Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?
I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works.
That's as good as it ever gets in science.
On a higher spiritual level, I believe what most Christian denominations teach, something called "theistic evolutionism", meaning that whatever theories science may advance about evolution of the Universe & life, it was intended, designed and executed by God, from the beginning.
That is the truth, as I see it.
Texas Songwriter: "...when asked, you refuse to answer if it is true or not.
You refuse to logically and rationally defend your acclamations of Darwinism..."
You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.
Why do you say such stuff?
It's simply not honest, FRiend.
Texas Songwriter: "Your declaration that answers assertion are false, without epistemically defending why."
And here you are just blathering nonsense.
Come on, take a deep breath, get a grip on yourself.
Texas Songwriter: "So based on your statement does history, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, or any adductive science, have just as valid a claim on truth and knowledge as science?"
Do you not yet "get" the idea that science itself formally makes no claims at all on "truth"?
Science literally hands the whole subject over to whichever school of learning wishes to claim it.
Science won't touch it, and for obvious reasons, among them that science can't even define it, much less observe or confirm it.
So science does not require you to "believe it" much less "believe in it", only that whatsoever you do believe, you don't call "science", unless it truly is.
What I personally believe is that science is probably on the right track regarding such subjects as evolution and physics of the Universe, but that there is so much more unknown than known, that future discoveries could turn our present understandings upside down.
I also believe that God's Truth is something science can never touch, and ultimately more important than anything mere "methodological naturalism" can conceive.
Does that not answer your question?
I believe if you go back to my first post to you (post 61) you will find that I asked you how you know what you know. I asked you how you procure warranted true belief (). You chose to ignore my question and go another direction. But I did not ask about science, per se. I then asked you if you believe truth exists. It seems like a reasonable place to begin when speaking of knowledge or beliefs. It sort of lets us know how to determine a starting point of our conversation. I am happy to discuss Science and its permutations and presuppositions if you wish, but I did ask about how you know what you know.
What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.
Here you interestingly anthropomorphize science, as if it was sentient in character. I think what you mean is scientists do in their intentionality. Intentionality is a whole other subject of which entire books are written about. But let us keep it simple for now.
I evaded nothing, Friend.
OK. But you did refuse to answer my simple questions. Call it what you wish. It is beside the point.
So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?
Yes, let me explain. I would argue that scientific naturalism has a defect-it is incomplete. When I say scientific naturalism I mean naturalism. It has essentially two components. (1)It is a metaphysical doctrine about what exists in the world and (2) it is monistic in its view of the world. That is to say the only thing which exists to the naturalist is that which is extended into space (matter & energy). It must presuppose numbers, sets and any invariant abstract entity by definition because these things do not demonstrate spatial extension. They must be explained naturally. Scientific naturalism or methodological naturalism, as a worldview is regarded as continuous with science. It therefore looks to scientific understanding of the world for justification. The defense of naturalism presupposes a version of scientific realism; unless science provides us with objective truth about reality, it has no authority to dictate to us the form which our philosophical ontology and metaphysics must take. It seems paradoxical but scientific realism is incompatible with naturalism (that is why I asked you gently to answer my questions about how evolution could account for our cognitive ability to acquire truth (in post 61). So, to answer your question, YES. I have given you a fairly descriptive Plantigan analysis which refutes evolution as the mechanism for developing our cognition to acquire warranted truth belief (knowledge). If you follow the logic you will see what I am saying. Other examples of things which basic darwinian evolution and neodarwinism cannot account for is consciousness, sentience, love, justice, beauty,...those abstract entities which I keep referring you to look at. If these things exist, they must have come to be deterministically and consistent with the requisite monism of naturalism or the naturalist must abandon this worldview. But he cannot account for them epistemically. As Jagwon Kim said, "Devotion to naturalism exacts a high epistemological price which theology accounts for logically and reasonably".
Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?
I suppose I will just throw that question to Socrates who said 'The only invalid question is one which is not asked." I will let you wrestle with those types of notions.
You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.
Is my question politically incorrect, or as Merle Haggard said, "Politically Uncorrect"? You have made certain pronouncements about Darwinian evolution without explanation and I simply want to understand why you say what you say. I believe that is a reasonable thing to ask you to do. So, NO, I am not ashamed to myself.
I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. That's as good as it ever gets in science.
I have read your statements to and they are heavy on declaration and thin on explication. Here you say, "I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. You see....I gave you the correct answer....a declaration without epistemic justification....and, .."so it works". Another declaration without epistemic justification.
John Doe Smith Ph.D. has a doctorate in Biology. A Doctor of Philosophy in Biology. I wonder why those universities calls it a doctor of philosophy....Could it be that the way we acquire knowledge and truth has a lot to do with understanding First Principles, logic, reason, rational thought and to understand our presuppositions in an honest way. Dr. Fred Hoyle held a Ph.D in Astrophysics, and the thought of a Standard Model (Big Bang) was abhorrent to him, but he finally evaluated the model and ascented to it because his reason and logic demanded it.
Your last paragraph is nice read, and I am interested in that subject, but it did not answer my question in post 61. It seems a yes or no should be easy enough. But let us leave it here if you wish.
Good luck to you and yours. Yes. There is so much to learn.