[Dimensio]

So, in other words, someone can, possibly, accept the 'truth' of evolution, from the position of more than one philosophical tradition?

Yes. Are you suggesting otherwise?

What about logical reasoning itself? Is that not also based purely in one or more philosophical traditions?

To some extent, yes it is.

There is no absolute standard by which to trust logic .... is there?

An appeal can be made to its consistency. Are you attempting to make a point?

What I'm saying is that in order to logically defend any position, one must hold to a single 'truth' reference, thus, a single philosophical tradition. The common one of course here is that gentle spirit, 'reason'. But reason itself is based in a philosophical tradition.

Reason is a function of thinking.

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is. That is the beginning faith point, by which all else, including Darwinism is derivative. And, given the only evidence available, on a predictable basis, points in this direction, it is no wonder the world is chock full of materialists.

This appears to be a great deal of verbiage, but I do not understand how it supports your claim that the theory of evolution is "acidic", or that all who accept it are materialists.

[gobucks]

"Reason is a function of thinking."

Oh. But only for the reasonable people, right? I like that word, reason, much better now. I have a copy of the 1828 original Websters ... and looked up 'reason'. Turns out its origin is from the latin 'ratio', which merely means 'to number'.

So much of reasoning, all?, thus, is based on the ability to be numerate. But woe betide the illnumerate.

Ah sweet reason, lovely logic ... the power of thinking.


Maybe we can make headway via another route ... tomorrow.

Are you a golfer?