Viva la Evolution?

CreationOnTheWeb ^ | September 3, 2008 | David Anderson

[GodGunsGuts]

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

[tacticalogic]

The 'a priori' adoption of philosophical naturalism for origins theories is simply a reality of 'science'.

I disagree, and subit that disagreement is no less authoritative than anythiing you provided to the contrary.

[GourmetDan]

"I disagree, and subit that disagreement is no less authoritative than anythiing you provided to the contrary."

Unfortunately, an opinion is not as authoritative as the complete agreement of all scientific theories with the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.

[tacticalogic]

Unfortunately, an opinion is not as authoritative as the complete agreement of all scientific theories with the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.

Those theories are in equally complete agreement with methodological naturalism, which requires no a priori committment to philosophical naturalism.

[GourmetDan]

"Those theories are in equally complete agreement with methodological naturalism, which requires no a priori committment to philosophical naturalism."

No they are not. Their beginnings are neither observable nor repeatable. They are mathematical and/or philosophical projections into the unobservable past and should not be mistaken for reality. Except by credulists who love fallacy and non sequitur, that is.

Again, you're simply insisting that the fallacy of composition and the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism is a logical foundation for assuming that foundation as the basis for origins theories. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work.

But I understand that you dismiss such objections as 'meaningless drivel'. That is why you consistently fall into fallacy and non sequitur.

[tacticalogic]

Their beginnings are neither observable nor repeatable.

No one's ever actually observed electromagnetism, nuclear decay or fusion, molecular bonding, sedimentary rock formation, or any number of phenonema that are outside of the range of our senses or within the timespan of lives. Are you claiming that none of these are within the scope of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

[GourmetDan]

"No one's ever actually observed electromagnetism, nuclear decay or fusion, molecular bonding, sedimentary rock formation, or any number of phenonema that are outside of the range of our senses or within the timespan of lives. Are you claiming that none of these are within the scope of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?"

Any claim that is not observable and repeatable is not within the scope of the scientific method and is based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.

[tacticalogic]

Any claim that is not observable and repeatable is not within the scope of the scientific method and is based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.

Does that mean you believe that indirect evidence should be inadmissible in science - that all evidence must be directly observable and no theory can address anything that cannot be re-created in the laboratory?

[Just mythoughts]

How is it that evolution is so mysteriously hidden to naked flesh eyesight? Who put the time control factors that got worn smooth over a long span of time? Why are there no more original single cells reproducing themselves into other creatures?

Follow the money, without tax collectors spreading the wealth, evolution withers on it dead vine. Kinda like the acorn movement got its standing from the gods of government through their corrupt taking of power $$$$$ continue to ripped off the blind. Whatever happened to the ideology of no more taxation without representation???

Now why would the Creator allow a system/methodology of dissing Him become the law of the land? See something is not quite right with what creationists claim either.... First and foremost this earth is not just a mere 6,000 years old and there is NO such claim found cover to cover in the instruction manual sent to those who would believe.

[GourmetDan]

"Does that mean you believe that indirect evidence should be inadmissible in science - that all evidence must be directly observable and no theory can address anything that cannot be re-created in the laboratory?"

It means that theories that claim that unobservable events occurred in the unobservable past are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism.

[tacticalogic]

It means that theories that claim that unobservable events occurred in the unobservable past are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism.

Why is it an 'a priori' committment to philosophical naturalism to assume that an observed phenomenon or process had been occurring before it was first observered and recorded if the physical evidence indicates that it was?

You seem to be demanding that scientists assume that no physical phenomenon or process ever occurred prior to it first being observed and recorded, and basing all theories on that assumption, and any physical evidence to the contrary be considered inadmissible.

[GourmetDan]

"Why is it an 'a priori' committment to philosophical naturalism to assume that an observed phenomenon or process had been occurring before it was first observered and recorded if the physical evidence indicates that it was?"

Because science must be observable and repeatable to fit the definition of methodological. If it isn't, it doesn't and is philosophical.

"You seem to be demanding that scientists assume that no physical phenomenon or process ever occurred prior to it first being observed and recorded, and basing all theories on that assumption, and any physical evidence to the contrary be considered inadmissible."

You seem to be demanding that scientists assume that all physical phenomenon or process ever occurred prior to it first being observed and recorded, and any physical evidence to the contrary be considered inadmissible.

[tacticalogic]

Because science must be observable and repeatable to fit the definition of methodological. If it isn't, it doesn't and is philosophical.

Evidence is observable, and those observations can be repeatable without having witnessed the original events that produced the evidence.

You seem to be demanding that scientists assume that all physical phenomenon or process ever occurred prior to it first being observed and recorded, and any physical evidence to the contrary be considered inadmissible.

What statements have I made that lead you to that conclusion?

[GourmetDan]

"Evidence is observable, and those observations can be repeatable without having witnessed the original events that produced the evidence."

No, evidence is 'interpretable'. That's what really happens. And when it is 'interpreted' inside a model that is philosophically naturalistic, it is interpreted strictly 'naturally'. No surprise there.

"What statements have I made that lead you to that conclusion?"

Same type that I supposedly made that led you to your statement.

[tacticalogic]

No, evidence is 'interpretable'. That's what really happens. And when it is 'interpreted' inside a model that is philosophically naturalistic, it is interpreted strictly 'naturally'. No surprise there.

Will putting it into a supernatural context make in any more "observable", or any less "interpretable"? If evidence is not "observable" but only "interpretable", how is the original event any different? If evidence is not "observable", then what is there to "interpret"?

[tacticalogic]

Which statements, specifically do you submit are of this “type”?

[GourmetDan]

"Which statements, specifically do you submit are of this “type”?"

Which statements, specifically do you submit are of the same type?

[GourmetDan]

"Will putting it into a supernatural context make in any more "observable", or any less "interpretable"? If evidence is not "observable" but only "interpretable", how is the original event any different? If evidence is not "observable", then what is there to "interpret"?"

As should now be quite clear, interpretations based on philosophical naturalism are no more scientific than interpretations offered from a supernatural context.

[tacticalogic]

As should now be quite clear, interpretations based on philosophical naturalism are no more scientific than interpretations offered from a supernatural context.

Scientific interpretation of data is not based on philosophical naturalism. It is based on methodological naturalism.

[tacticalogic]

Which statements, specifically do you submit are of the same type?

It's your assertion. You are the only one who knows what "type" you were talking about when you made the assertion. If you can't remember, I can't help you.

[GourmetDan]

"Scientific interpretation of data is not based on philosophical naturalism. It is based on methodological naturalism."

Projecting methodological naturalism back into unobservable, extrapolated time and events is based on philosophical naturalism.