Replies

Starts with Darwin’s presupposition that Christianity is false which is a tautology and he builds his hypothesis from there. From a science stand point, an argument that can not be testable(such as God exists)...is a tautology; science can’t speak to it’s truthfulness or its falsity. Deductive reasoning can lead to an educated opinion that God exists based on observations all around us but such deductions are still based on a presupposition. Most classical science in Western Countries before 1800 or so still proceeded from a “rational” deductive process which assumed that God exists and all knowledge, morality and wisdom proceeded from that “given” belief.

Modern Science prides itself on “inductive reasoning”, that being taking testable data and forming a hypothesis based on the reliability of repeated testing of such data then forming a theory or explanation of that data in a way that creates a cogent picture of what the data shows and why. From there, Deductive reasoning can be applied, or educated guesses on what would happen if such and such were applied or changed based on the original hypothesis.

There are 2 dirty little secrets that an ethical scientist, if he is truly ethical at all, tries hard to avoid....1. the presupposition that any argument, opinion, or statement that is tautologous, in turn must always be considered false and there-fore “superstitious” nonsense and 2. Coloring one’s inductive examination of data so that the data support a pre-conceived notion, to the point that data observed acting contrary to the accepted “inductive” narrative is arbitrarily thrown out(such as Mann’s famously massaged global warming temperature “hockey stick” that he uses to try to assert “man caused” climate change...with his thinly disguised efforts to influence governments to send all men back to the stone age with drastic controls to be placed on population growth. Mann has argued as much politically, aside from his so-called “science”, thus we learn what has “pre”- colored his scientific approaches)