Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Viva la Evolution?
CreationOnTheWeb ^ | September 3, 2008 | David Anderson

Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Darwinism is ultimately the creation story of naturalism and atheism...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cmhamanhasspoken; creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-196 next last
To: GourmetDan
Evidence, in this case, would be scientific theories not based on the philosophy of naturalism, like ID. Since philosophical naturalism (i.e. 'science') considers any mention of a designer to be religion, Lewontin's statement is true.

The statement says they have an a priori committment to naturalism, and you submit that this is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, and that he speaks for all scientists.

Theories would only inovolve methadological naturalism. For his statement to be true in the terms you specify they must be atheists. That's the test. He fails.

121 posted on 09/22/2008 6:54:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"The statement says they have an a priori committment to naturalism, and you submit that this is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, and that he speaks for all scientists."

Which they do. Otherwise ID would be accepted as scientific. ID is the perfect opportunity to refute Lewontin's statement, however the 'scientific' communities reaction to ID merely confirms Lewontin's statement.

122 posted on 09/23/2008 2:56:45 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Their reaction to ID is due to it’s inability to be reconciled with the methodological naturalism of the scientific method. You’re trying to conflate methodologcial and metaphysical naturalism. You’ll have to peddle that fallacy to someone else. I’m not buying it.


123 posted on 09/24/2008 5:14:34 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Their reaction to ID is due to it’s inability to be reconciled with the methodological naturalism of the scientific method."

Not at all. Their reaction is due to their fear of allowing that 'Divine Foot' in the door. While ID does not require a supernatural creator, acknowledging any type of designer is allowing that 'Divine Foot' in the door and they simply won't even begin to go there.

"You’re trying to conflate methodologcial and metaphysical naturalism. You’ll have to peddle that fallacy to someone else. I’m not buying it."

I'm not the one that does that. Science peddles that fallacy every day. That's why science fears ID so intensely. ID opens the door to the fact that methodological naturalism does not affirm philosophical naturalism.

124 posted on 09/27/2008 9:39:39 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I'm not the one that does that. Science peddles that fallacy every day.

IOW, you know science better than the scientists. What an arrogant buffoon you are.

125 posted on 09/27/2008 2:29:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"IOW, you know science better than the scientists. What an arrogant buffoon you are."

Better? Oh no. They know they do that as well.

That was Lewontin's point, remember?

126 posted on 09/28/2008 6:20:20 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

You mean Lewontin’s opinion? Either he’s claiming a fraudulent authority to speak for all scientists, or your misrepresenting his comments as representative of all scientists. One or both of you is a liar.


127 posted on 09/29/2008 5:28:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"You mean Lewontin’s opinion? Either he’s claiming a fraudulent authority to speak for all scientists, or your misrepresenting his comments as representative of all scientists. One or both of you is a liar."

Nope, he's admitting that scientists approach the evidence with an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism. The treatment of the IDer's is proof of the truth of Lewontin's statement.

Were ID scientists not rejected as 'religionists', you might have an argument; but their treatment proves that no opinion other than a naturalistic one will be tolerated in 'science'. Lewontin's admission is correct.

128 posted on 09/29/2008 3:57:28 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Nope, he's admitting that scientists approach the evidence with an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.

All you have to do is find one that doesn't and he's proven wrong. There are plenty of examples to be found.

ID is rejected because it's inconsistent with methodological naturalism and the scientific method.

In order for science to operate the way you think it should it will have to abandon methodological naturalism and the scinetific method, and accept supernatural explanations as valid scientific theory - in all disciplines. The arguments that hurricae Katrina was caused by God's punishment of New Orleans because there were too many fags and fornicators will be elevated to valid scientific theory.

129 posted on 09/29/2008 4:06:26 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"All you have to do is find one that doesn't and he's proven wrong. There are plenty of examples to be found."

Yeah, IDer's who aren't considered to be scientists.

"ID is rejected because it's inconsistent with methodological naturalism and the scientific method."

So is an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism but that doesn't seem to stop 'science'.

"In order for science to operate the way you think it should it will have to abandon methodological naturalism and the scinetific method, and accept supernatural explanations as valid scientific theory - in all disciplines. The arguments that hurricae Katrina was caused by God's punishment of New Orleans because there were too many fags and fornicators will be elevated to valid scientific theory."

No, that's the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief.

130 posted on 09/30/2008 4:26:28 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Yeah, IDer's who aren't considered to be scientists.

Chemists, applied physicists, materials research, metallurgy, ceramics, botanists, pharmacology, there's all kinds of other fields of science - and you submit that Lewontin speaks for them all. Not likely.

No, that's the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief.

Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences.

131 posted on 09/30/2008 4:37:36 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Chemists, applied physicists, materials research, metallurgy, ceramics, botanists, pharmacology, there's all kinds of other fields of science - and you submit that Lewontin speaks for them all. Not likely."

I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..

"Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences."

Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable.

132 posted on 09/30/2008 4:52:04 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..

I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to. Put the goal post down, and leave it there.

Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable

I just all 'em like I see 'em.

133 posted on 09/30/2008 5:00:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to."

What you are doing is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Clearly Lewontin explains why philosophical naturalism is at the foundation of 'science'. Otherwise, those scientists who propose ID as an explanation would be given equal consideration. The fact that they are dismissed outright shows that the 'scientific community' has an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.

"Put the goal post down, and leave it there."

Not until you promise to stop moving it.

134 posted on 10/01/2008 7:01:51 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Does Lewinton speak for all scientists or not?

If he does, then his comments are demonstably false.

If he doesn't then they can't be taken as representative of "science".

You can't have it both ways.

135 posted on 10/01/2008 7:23:35 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Does Lewinton speak for all scientists or not? If he does, then his comments are demonstably false. If he doesn't then they can't be taken as representative of "science". You can't have it both ways."

Great reiteration of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

136 posted on 10/02/2008 1:35:33 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Great reiteration of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

We've been over this. The question was explicitly asked and explicitly answered. It's your antecedent, and now you're the one trying to deny it. One more time, put the goal post down and leave it there, and quit trying to blame me for the holes in your argument.

137 posted on 10/02/2008 2:19:21 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"We've been over this."

That's OK. We can go over it again if we need to.

"The question was explicitly asked and explicitly answered. It's your antecedent, and now you're the one trying to deny it."

You are the one using fallacious statements to deny the antecedent in hopes of falsifying the consequent. That is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

"One more time, put the goal post down and leave it there, and quit trying to blame me for the holes in your argument."

One more time, not until you agree to stop moving them and stop using logical fallacies as arguments for non-existent 'holes'.

138 posted on 10/03/2008 3:52:34 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Your argument is a fallacy of appeal to an invalid authority. I’m simply demonstrating that fallacy. He doesn’t and can’t speak for all scientists.


139 posted on 10/05/2008 3:54:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Your argument is a fallacy of appeal to an invalid authority. I’m simply demonstrating that fallacy. He doesn’t and can’t speak for all scientists."

My argument isn't based on the 'authority' of Lewontin, but on the authority of what can be observed, i.e. that 'theories' based on philosophical naturalism are the only form of theory that is allowed in 'science'. Were that not true, then ID would be equally as valid.

Your argument is the fallacy of denying the antecedent because your opposition is based solely on the claim that Lewontin doesn't speak for all scientists, not on any evidence contrary to his statement.

140 posted on 10/06/2008 6:02:51 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-196 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson