Posted on 03/25/2009 9:29:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?
March 24, 2009 — Two teams of evolutionists are having a spat over whale evolution. Thewissen and team (Northeastern Ohio U) say the hippo is close to the pig, but Jessica Theodor (U of Calgary) and Jonathan Geisler (Georgia Southern U) say it’s in the whale family tree. Their arguments and counter-arguments were published in Nature last week...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The real truth of this matter is that I'm as honest as I know how to be. Your claims otherwise don't change that.
You on the other hand must know full well that every word you write is lie from beginning to end. The reason you know that is because at some point you must have been taught differently, and therefore made a conscious decision to abandon truth in favor of a pack of nonsense.
"Clearly you don't know the difference between the science and the philosophy behind these 'methods'. Knowing where the method stops and the philosophy begins is critical. You seem unable to make that distinction."
Here you're trying to make some kind of distinction between science and philosophy which no reasonable person would agree to. Science is what it is. You may not like it, may not agree with it, but it is still science and you are not. Instead, you are simply trying to impose your theological perspective on science -- nothing wrong with that, except that what you say is not science, it's your religion.
I've said this before: science is not, and cannot be, "ultimate truth," only God is "ultimate truth." Science is simply a disciplined way of looking at the material universe, a method that excludes the Supernatural, and therefore can never be "ultimate truth."
Yes, anyone can and should look at science through their perspective on the Supernatural, but science itself must remain embedded in the natural world. Otherwise, by definition, it's not science.
"Oh sure it does. Dark matter, dark energy, big bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution. There are LOTS of miracles in 'science'."
Here you're just playing dishonest games with words. Sure, I'd say every bit of science is a "miracle of God," but what we're talking about here are miracles of the Bible. By definition those miracles are special acts of God and so have no basis in science.
Finally, we note again the disingenuousness of your responses to the question of micro- versus macro-evolution. First you refuse to recognize the point that science itself says there is no difference, except the time frame. Then you go on and on about how you can't define a word that doesn't exist. But, the very definition anti-evolution is based on making that distinction between micro- and macro- evolution.
You want us to believe there is no "macro-evolution" but you won't tell us what it is that word means. I see nothing honest in that.
The real truth of this matter is that claiming to be 'as honest as I know how to be' doesn't mean much if you don't know how to be honest, now does it? My claims otherwise stand.
"You on the other hand must know full well that every word you write is lie from beginning to end. The reason you know that is because at some point you must have been taught differently, and therefore made a conscious decision to abandon truth in favor of a pack of nonsense."
You simply don't possess the critical-thinking skills to understand what I'm telling you is the absolute truth. I used to believe a 'pack of nonsense' when I believed in old-ages and evolution. As I studied that nonsense, I came to the realization that it was a 'pack of nonsense'. Unfortunately, you seem unable to walk that same path.
"Here you're trying to make some kind of distinction between science and philosophy which no reasonable person would agree to."
Ah, so now anyone who tells you something that you don't want to accept isn't 'reasonable'. Wow, the antics you will go through to justify your belief is amazing.
"Science is what it is. You may not like it, may not agree with it, but it is still science and you are not."
Again, the methodology is fine and I love science. Your claim that I do not is merely the fallacy of reverse ad hominem. You do that to maintain your philosophical paradigm.
It is the 'a priori' beliefs of the adherents that makes the difference. Believers in philosophical naturalism will find a philosophically natural answer every time because that's all they can see. Their 'a priori' beliefs blind them to anything else.
"Instead, you are simply trying to impose your theological perspective on science -- nothing wrong with that, except that what you say is not science, it's your religion."
And you are simply imposing our theological perspective on science -- nothing wrong with that, except that what you say is not science, it's your religion.
"I've said this before: science is not, and cannot be, "ultimate truth," only God is "ultimate truth." Science is simply a disciplined way of looking at the material universe, a method that excludes the Supernatural, and therefore can never be "ultimate truth.""
I've said this before and will say it again: The men practicing science have absolutely no interest in truth. Their interest is in creating just-so stories based on their 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.
"Yes, anyone can and should look at science through their perspective on the Supernatural, but science itself must remain embedded in the natural world. Otherwise, by definition, it's not science."
Yes, scientists can and do look at science through their perspective of philosophical naturalism, but science itself must avoid engaging in the fallacy of invoking 'a priori' belief as an empirical reference. Otherwise, by definition, it's not science.
"Here you're just playing dishonest games with words. Sure, I'd say every bit of science is a "miracle of God," but what we're talking about here are miracles of the Bible. By definition those miracles are special acts of God and so have no basis in science."
You're the one playing dishonest games with words. You want to limit the discussion to Biblical miracles while ignoring the 'miracles' of philosophical naturalism that you yourself believe. You play lots of games with definitions to maintain your paradigm. Too bad you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize what you're doing.
"Finally, we note again the disingenuousness of your responses to the question of micro- versus macro-evolution. First you refuse to recognize the point that science itself says there is no difference, except the time frame. Then you go on and on about how you can't define a word that doesn't exist. But, the very definition anti-evolution is based on making that distinction between micro- and macro- evolution."
Finally, we note again the disingenuousness of your response to my point of micro- vs macro-evolution. First you refuse to recognize the philosophical foundation of science and the use of 'truth by definition'. Then you go on and on about how this definition applies to science and that one to the Bible as you construct a house of cards in your mind. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the philosophical basis of belief in macro-evolution.
"You want us to believe there is no "macro-evolution" but you won't tell us what it is that word means. I see nothing honest in that."
You want me to believe that there is something called 'macro-evolution' but all you have is a definition that exists only in your mind and you won't admit it. I see nothing honest in that.
First, I disagree with all your mockings of my arguments. But obviously, they make no impression on you, so we're probably finished here. One last attempt to reason:
In all of this "discussion," I've made one main point over and over. By definition, science requires "methodological naturalism," nothing more, nothing less. So, for something to be scientific, it must by definition conform to methodological naturalism. If it does not, then it's not scientific. That's all I've been trying to say.
Yes, anyone including myself, can impose our own theological & religious perspectives on science -- we can, for example view the Universe as entirely teleological. But science itself cannot because teleology is not part of methodological naturalism.
Wikipedia on the various philosophical naturalisms
As an example, if you wish to say the Bible tells us the earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago, and you believe those numbers rather than the findings of science, then I'd have no real problem with what you say. You've identified your belief and the source of it, and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want on the subject. There's nothing dishonest in that.
On the other hand, if you say, "oh no, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather I have 'scientific objections' to the work and findings of hundreds and thousands of scientists, and that's why I believe the earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago." Well, now I have to first ask your credentials and accomplishments as a "scientist," and on learning that you have none, then I'd have to call you what you are: a Big Liar.
Let me suggest what I hope is an appropriate analogy. I don't know your church or your minister, but I'm pretty certain I don't belong to it, and wouldn't buy much of what he/she preaches. So suppose I walk into your church one bright morning, and in the middle of minister's sermon, I stand up and begin giving an alternate sermon. How much are you, sitting in the congregation, going to appreciate my interruptions? Not much, I'd suspect.
On the other hand, suppose that I attend, study hard and graduate from your church's seminary, and then am fortunate to be invited by your minister, to speak on a subject the congregation is vitally interested in. Now how much are you in the congregation going to appreciate my words? Assuming I do a good job, quite a bit more, I'd suppose.
Am I saying science a church? Not at all, but like any church it does have certain doctrines, and methodological-scientific naturalism is one of them.
Why is that hard for you to understand?
It's revealing that you feel that it is 'honest' to call this statement a 'mocking'. "Believers in philosophical naturalism will find a philosophically natural answer every time because that's all they can see." There is no 'mocking' there, just a statement that is easy to understand. You're completely dishonest.
"One last attempt to reason: In all of this "discussion," I've made one main point over and over. By definition, science requires "methodological naturalism," nothing more, nothing less. So, for something to be scientific, it must by definition conform to methodological naturalism. If it does not, then it's not scientific. That's all I've been trying to say."
OK, one more attempt to reason with you. I have been saying over and over that there is nothing 'methodological' about macro-evolution. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism. It is obvious that it is impossible to 'methodologically' test unobserved events that are imagined to have occurred in unobservable time frames. By your own definition, macro-evolution is not scientific.
"Yes, anyone including myself, can impose our own theological & religious perspectives on science -- we can, for example view the Universe as entirely teleological. But science itself cannot because teleology is not part of methodological naturalism."
Please, please stop personifying 'science'. It is fallacious to claim that 'science' 'cannot impose theological & religious perspectives on itself' when it is not a person. Especially immediately after you have admitted that adherents can impose their philosophical perspectives on their interpretations. Your thinking is horribly confused.
"On the other hand, if you say, "oh no, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather I have 'scientific objections' to the work and findings of hundreds and thousands of scientists, and that's why I believe the earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago." Well, now I have to first ask your credentials and accomplishments as a "scientist," and on learning that you have none, then I'd have to call you what you are: a Big Liar."
You simply commit the fallacy of equivocation by attempting to equate a methodology with the philosophy of naturalism imposed by believers. If you claim that the objections to the Biblical time-frame are methodological, then I have to call you what you are: a Big Liar.
"Am I saying science a church? Not at all, but like any church it does have certain doctrines, and methodological-scientific naturalism is one of them."
Of course you are, but you feel that you need to deny it lest people see it for what it is. Again, what you preach is philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not translate into macro-evolution without assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Why is that hard for you to understand?
Now, doggonit, didn't you just tell me, over and over, there's no such thing as "macro-evolution," and that's why you can't even define it? And yet, here you are using that undefinable word. Why is that?
If I were to speak with you about a micro-walk and a macro-walk, then you would instantly know what I mean: micro-walk is a short walk, macro-walk is a long walk, that's all. Regardless of how long the walk, it's all just one foot in front of the other.
Science tells us that's the only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
But, when I ask YOU to define just exactly what YOU mean by "macro-evolution," you refuse, and yet you still want to use that word as a weapon, to trash both me and science in general. How does that work?
"Please, please stop personifying 'science'. It is fallacious to claim that 'science' 'cannot impose theological & religious perspectives on itself' when it is not a person. Especially immediately after you have admitted that adherents can impose their philosophical perspectives on their interpretations. Your thinking is horribly confused."
I don't think I'm a bit confused about this subject, but your words here make no sense. What I said was that WE -- meaning you and I, not science -- are free to impose OUR own philosophical, theological or religious perspectives on whatever naturalistic explanations science comes up with.
Of course, the perfect example is the so-called Big Bang theory. To me this sounds just like an updated version of Genesis, so I see no problem with it at all. But science itself never intended it that way. Science simply held a debate -- one side said the Universe exists forever, the other side said, no, it had a beginning and will end someday. Well, as more and more data accumulated over time, the Big-Bangers seem to have won that debate.
But nothing is cast in stone, so to speak. Perhaps someday the Immortal-Universers will discover something to strengthen their case, and the Big-Bangers will be consigned to the ash-cans of scientific history. You never know...
"You simply commit the fallacy of equivocation by attempting to equate a methodology with the philosophy of naturalism imposed by believers. If you claim that the objections to the Biblical time-frame are methodological, then I have to call you what you are: a Big Liar."
Now let's see, just what was that "scientific evidence" which you presented "proving" the Biblical time-frame of earth created in six days, 6,000 years ago? Silly me, how did I miss that?
"Again, what you preach is philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not translate into macro-evolution without assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
So now, after you've finished defining the scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution, are you going to define for us the technical differences between methodological and philosophical naturalism?
Or, let me put it this way: if I see one of those things laying on the sidewalk, how do I know if it's just a harmless "methodological" or that poisonous "philosophical" naturalistic snake? ;-)
Nope. That's not what I told you. Are you confused again?
"If I were to speak with you about a micro-walk and a macro-walk, then you would instantly know what I mean: micro-walk is a short walk, macro-walk is a long walk, that's all. Regardless of how long the walk, it's all just one foot in front of the other."
Nope, that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"Science tells us that's the only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution."
Again, stop personifying science. Science is not a person. People with philosophical beliefs tell you that's the 'only difference'. Science doesn't tell you anything.
"But, when I ask YOU to define just exactly what YOU mean by "macro-evolution," you refuse, and yet you still want to use that word as a weapon, to trash both me and science in general. How does that work?"
That's not what you asked me. Did you forget?
"I don't think I'm a bit confused about this subject, but your words here make no sense. What I said was that WE -- meaning you and I, not science -- are free to impose OUR own philosophical, theological or religious perspectives on whatever naturalistic explanations science comes up with."
You personified science just above when you wrote, "science tells us". Science doesn't tell us anything. People with philosophical beliefs tell you things based on their 'a priori' philosophical assumptions. You can't understand that apparently.
"Of course, the perfect example is the so-called Big Bang theory. To me this sounds just like an updated version of Genesis, so I see no problem with it at all. But science itself never intended it that way. Science simply held a debate -- one side said the Universe exists forever, the other side said, no, it had a beginning and will end someday. Well, as more and more data accumulated over time, the Big-Bangers seem to have won that debate."
Again, science has no 'self'. It is not a person. It has no intent. Science held no debate. Science has no 'sides' to speak. Those are people with 'a priori' philosophical beliefs doing that. Please stop personifying science while denying you do it.
"Now let's see, just what was that "scientific evidence" which you presented "proving" the Biblical time-frame of earth created in six days, 6,000 years ago? Silly me, how did I miss that?"
You simply prove the equivalence of creation and science. You just don't understand that you do so.
"So now, after you've finished defining the scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution, are you going to define for us the technical differences between methodological and philosophical naturalism?"
Again, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism. Are you unable to recognize that?
"Or, let me put it this way: if I see one of those things laying on the sidewalk, how do I know if it's just a harmless "methodological" or that poisonous "philosophical" naturalistic snake? ;-)"
Snakes can be 'venomous' or 'non-venomous'. They are not 'poisonous'. Your ignorance is astounding.
Your "arguments" are nonresponsive.
My arguments are fine.
You are the one who is 'nonresponsive' and has no argument beyond philosophical belief and fallacy.
Your arguments say nothing except to deny the obvious. You have not correctly answered even one of my simple questions.
You are way too quick with insults.
You have nothing of value to offer.
My arguments point out the obvious that you simply deny.
To explain again, you cannot ask a question that assumes a logical fallacy 'a priori' and expect that any answer confirms or rejects your belief. Your question assumes fallacy is truth. That is a critical-thinking error.
"You are way too quick with insults."
Pointing out that your critical-thinking skills are lacking is an insult? How would you have me point out that obvious fact without 'insulting' you?
"You have nothing of value to offer."
What I offer is the essence of understanding that macroevolution is nothing more than an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply lack the ability to comprehend it.
There you used that word again: "macroevolution," which you keep telling me doesn't exist, can't be defined, is nothing but "a priori assumption" based on falsely "affirming the consequent."
And I keep saying: what in the world are you talking about? To which you answer, in effect: see above. And you claim that's "responsive"?
But you CAN accept "micro-evolution," can't you -- because we can see it, and measure it, right? Indeed, micro-evolution is a "confirmed observation," which is the scientific definition of the word "FACT."
And we know for certain that micro-evolution has been going on for at least 100 years, because we have scientifically observed it for about that long.
Indeed, we have NO reason to believe that micro-evolution has not been going on since the beginning of life on earth, have we?
So, how long has life been micro-evolving on earth?
Well now, there's a big dispute about that, isn't there? Don't scientists tell us billions of years? While biblical literalists say, no, only 6,000 years, right?
So, who is correct? Well, biblical literalists tell us that scientists are all wrong, that scientific observations about decay rates of radioactive isotopes are just nonsense, and therefore, only the biblical account can be relied on... do I have that right so far?
Scientists, on the other hand, tell us there is no physical evidence -- whether it's methodological, or philosophical, or metaphysical or ontological naturalism they use -- no evidence to support a Young Earth date of 6,000 years. All the physical evidence points to much older dates, they say.
Now I've said this before -- the obvious surmise is that God could easily have created the earth in six days 6,000 years ago, and may well have done so. But just as obviously He left a lot of clues laying around to confuse modern day naturalistic scientists to the point where He's got almost all of them believing the earth is a very old place indeed.
And how do biblical literalists respond to the findings of those scientists? Well, as best I can tell, with a single word: LIAR.
Now, there's no way I'm going to believe that all those scientists are lying, or that biblical literalists have even a small shred of real scientific evidence to support their claims.
I am therefore left to conclude that the ones yelling so loudly "LIARS" may possibly have a little problem with truth-telling themselves.
You agree, no doubt?
I can use the words "invisible pink unicorn" and "flying spaghetti monster" as well. Are you claiming that using the word means that they exist?
"But you CAN accept "micro-evolution," can't you -- because we can see it, and measure it, right? Indeed, micro-evolution is a "confirmed observation," which is the scientific definition of the word "FACT.""
It's properly called adaptation. Adaptation is a confirmed FACT. Do you actually believe that using the same word 'evolution' and assigning it to what can be observed (adaptation) and what can't be observed (macroevolution) makes macroevolution true? Wow.
"Indeed, we have NO reason to believe that micro-evolution has not been going on since the beginning of life on earth, have we?"
And by tying that assumption to the assumption of long-ages, you engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"Scientists, on the other hand, tell us there is no physical evidence -- whether it's methodological, or philosophical, or metaphysical or ontological naturalism they use -- no evidence to support a Young Earth date of 6,000 years. All the physical evidence points to much older dates, they say."
Again, this is based on the assumption of unobserved, assumed long-ages and philosophical naturalism. Scientists cannot say that the 'physical evidence' point to much older dates. What they properly say is that they INTERPRET the evidence to point to much older dates by assuming that decay rates have never been different than they are today. Believer such as yourself confuse interpretation with evidence.
"And how do biblical literalists respond to the findings of those scientists? Well, as best I can tell, with a single word: LIAR."
Pointing out the philosophical foundation of science is not calling anyone a liar. You engage in the fallacy of reverse ad hominem in order to manufacture an objection.
"Now, there's no way I'm going to believe that all those scientists are lying, or that biblical literalists have even a small shred of real scientific evidence to support their claims."
Do you see how you've manufactured an objection so that you can reject arguments that don't agree with your beliefs? That's simply poor reasoning or an idealistic commitment to philosophical naturalism is clouding your critical-thinking skills.
"I am therefore left to conclude that the ones yelling so loudly "LIARS" may possibly have a little problem with truth-telling themselves."
No one is yelling LIARS except you. But, as I have shown, you need that reverse ad hominem to justify your existing belief paradigm. That's easy to see.
"You agree, no doubt?"
You have an extreme idealistic commitment to philosophical naturalism. So much so that you will engage in fallacy so that you can justify your faith in men.
Of course, those sophomores' sometimes chemically enhanced perceptions cover all of reality (especially the opposite sex ;-) ), whereas your presumably more sober reflections are focused, laser like, on just science.
Science, you claim, is full of "a prioris" and "modus ponens," (not to mention ad hominems) and so cannot be believed in anything it says which might conflict with your particular exegeses of Biblical scriptures. Is that about right?
Well, let me begin my answer by first addressing a complaint you've made many times. There is not, you say, such a thing as "science," in the sense of "science says this, or science says that." "Science" you say, can't "say" anything, because there is no "science," only some people claiming to be "scientists," who are really just a bunch of wacked out nut-cases, too stupid to know the difference between a legitimate scientific finding and a bunch of ridiculous a priori & modus ponens assumptions.
Your claims are false. There is such a thing as science, which includes many subdiciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc. We see this in such simple expressions as: mathematics tells us that two plus two equals four, and that two to the fifth power equals 32. There is no dispute or "debate" about this, these are proved facts. In such matters, science speaks with one voice and no matter how much politicians, or our sophomoric philosophers may want to debate it, there is no scientific debate. So it is legitimate to say what science tell us about such things.
Further, while science is not a single corporation, it is indisputably a team sport in a scientific community. Every scientist collaborates and cooperates, while at the same time often competing with other scientists. So "settled science" simply means that amongst the scientific community, there is no opposition team to debate what science says about that particular subject.
In today's world, we have a good example of serious scientific debate, where individuals and teams of qualified scientists line up on one side or the other, and slug it out. The example, of course, is global warming.
So in this example it would NOT be fair to say of science, as if it were a corporate or government entity, "science says global warming means we must abandon capitalism and adopt international socialism." "Science" says no such thing.
Which brings us to the subject of evolution. Is there a scientific debate within the scientific community about evolution? Sure, lots of debates, over many scientific issues relating to evolution, but none over the existence of evolution (defined as "descent with modification") itself. That much at least is "settled science," and so we can legitimately speak of it as "science says this, or science says that" about evolution.
Now let's look at some of your arguments:
"It's properly called adaptation. Adaptation is a confirmed FACT. Do you actually believe that using the same word 'evolution' and assigning it to what can be observed (adaptation) and what can't be observed (macroevolution) makes macroevolution true? Wow."
Let's remember again, I've often asked you to define what YOU mean by "macro-evolution" and you consistently refuse. I've made no defense of that term, except to say: it's micro-evolution over the long term, nothing else. Since you agree with the IDEA of micro-evolution -- or "adaptation" -- I have to presume it's ONLY the "long-term" part you disagree with.
Since we agree that "micro-evolution" or "adaptation" has gone on since life began, it's only a matter of dispute over that date, right? Was it six thousand years ago, or, say, four billion years ago?
Well, radiometric dating is just one method among several used to establish ages of the natural world. And not one of these methods point to an Earth-age of 6,000 years. Even Carbon-14 dating goes back to about 60,000 years. Also, archaeologists identify many sites as existing before those known historically as 6,000 years old.
So, it is settled science that the earth is older than 6,000 years. But you hope to defeat science with sophomoric philosophy, claiming "a priori" and "modus ponens" till the cows come home, right? Well, good luck pal.
"Pointing out the philosophical foundation of science is not calling anyone a liar. You engage in the fallacy of reverse ad hominem in order to manufacture an objection."
When someone claims something which is obviously false, there are not a whole lot of choices about why. He is either:
A scientist, by definition, cannot be either stupid or misinformed about his/her area of specialty. If he is, then he's not a real scientist. Neither is he supposed to be motivated by ideological or partisan commitments -- though this is precisely the issue in global warming. Of course, scientific debates are just that -- areas of presumably honest disagreement, also fertile grounds for further research. But the basic idea of evolution ("descent with modification") is settled science, not subject of scientific debate.
Yes, of course, science is ideologically committed to itself -- or scientists are committed to the philosophical idea of science, which is methodological (aka scientific) naturalism, meaning: natural explanations for natural occurrences.
Point is this: in matters of settled science, you cannot legitimately claim that scientists are stupid, or misinformed, or ideologically committed to anything other than science. So, if you claim their ideas are false, that only leaves "LIARS" as the reason.
And there is no way I'm going to believe that hundreds and thousands of scientists are lying about evolution.
"You have an extreme idealistic commitment to philosophical naturalism. So much so that you will engage in fallacy so that you can justify your faith in men."
Utter nonsense. I've only argued, repeatedly, that science is science, and religion is not. I believe theologically that God created the heavens and earth, for teleological reasons of His own, and created life on earth through theistic evolution, meaning: from the beginning He intended to create us. But NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with science. Science is strictly, by definition: natural causes for natural occurrences.
Surely you agree?
Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?
I don't know but you haven't lived until you have seen a hippo fling poo with it's tail.
As best I can tell, you are hoping to hide behind the term 'science' while ignoring the philosophical foundations and pretending that 'a priori' philosophical decisions have no impact on the interpretations, like freshmen in a 2:00 AM bull session who believe that they can ignore reality and believe that their drug-induced fantasies have a basis in reality.
"Of course, those sophomores' sometimes chemically enhanced perceptions cover all of reality (especially the opposite sex ;-) ), whereas your presumably more sober reflections are focused, laser like, on just science."
Of course, those freshmen chemically-induced hallucinations cover all of reality (especially the opposite sex ;-)), whereas your presumably more sober reflections are focused, laser-like, on methodological naturalism.
"Science, you claim, is full of "a prioris" and "modus ponens," (not to mention ad hominems) and so cannot be believed in anything it says which might conflict with your particular exegeses of Biblical scriptures. Is that about right?"
Science, you claim, is personified and is not affected by the personal philosophical assumptions of those generating the just-so stories and so can be believed in everything it says and any conflicts must be resolved by adjusting your particular exegesis of Biblical Scriptures. Is that about right?
"Well, let me begin my answer by first addressing a complaint you've made many times. There is not, you say, such a thing as "science," in the sense of "science says this, or science says that." "Science" you say, can't "say" anything, because there is no "science," only some people claiming to be "scientists," who are really just a bunch of wacked out nut-cases, too stupid to know the difference between a legitimate scientific finding and a bunch of ridiculous a priori & modus ponens assumptions."
Well, let me begin my answer by first addressing a complaint you've made many times. There is, you say, a thing called 'science' that has sides that speak, has intent and debates and that I err by pointing out that 'science' is really the result of the 'a priori' beliefs of practitioners. You then must manufacture non-existent ad hominem attacks that never happened to make a ridiculous point.
"Your claims are false. There is such a thing as science, which includes many subdiciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc. We see this in such simple expressions as: mathematics tells us that two plus two equals four, and that two to the fifth power equals 32. There is no dispute or "debate" about this, these are proved facts. In such matters, science speaks with one voice and no matter how much politicians, or our sophomoric philosophers may want to debate it, there is no scientific debate. So it is legitimate to say what science tell us about such things."
Your claims are false. There is no such thing as science having sides that speak, have intent and debate. Invoking subdiciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, is mere hand-waving and throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what may stick. That you must use arithmetic and simple mathematics to support your belief in macroevolution shows how desperate you are for evidence. There is no dispute or "debate" about mathematics and no one has claimed that 2+2 does not equal 4 or that two to the fifth power does not equal 32. You are using the fallacy of example where the examples bear no relationship to the issue being discussed (macroevolution). Science does not 'speak' with a voice and no matter how much sophomoric philosophers may want to debate, it is illegitimate to say what science 'tells' us about such things. Science doesn't 'tell' us anything. "
"Further, while science is not a single corporation, it is indisputably a team sport in a scientific community. Every scientist collaborates and cooperates, while at the same time often competing with other scientists. So "settled science" simply means that amongst the scientific community, there is no opposition team to debate what science says about that particular subject."
This would be the fallacy of equivocation where you try to equate 'scientific' beliefs wrt macroevolution with your earlier fallacy of using arithmetic and simple mathematics as 'examples' that 'support' macroevolution. This is also known as the fallacy of the suppressed correlative where you attempt to imply that there is no disagreement and anyone who disagrees isn't 'scientific'.
"In today's world, we have a good example of serious scientific debate, where individuals and teams of qualified scientists line up on one side or the other, and slug it out. The example, of course, is global warming."
Since there are plenty of scientists who consider 'global warming' as 'settled science' and therefore subject to your 'team sport' allusion above, you clearly engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well and the fallacy of special pleading with your use of the term 'serious' in an attempt to argue that your particular belief in opposition to global warming is 'scientific' while opposition to macroevolution is not. Did you not see that before you wrote it?
"So in this example it would NOT be fair to say of science, as if it were a corporate or government entity, "science says global warming means we must abandon capitalism and adopt international socialism." "Science" says no such thing."
Fallacy of special pleading noted. Your global warming beliefs are not 'settled science' while my opposition to macroevolution is 'settled science'. It's different for your beliefs, isn't it? You argue 'settled science' when convenient for you and 'settled science exception' when convenient for you. The only common denominator that I see in your arguments is 'you'.
"Which brings us to the subject of evolution. Is there a scientific debate within the scientific community about evolution? Sure, lots of debates, over many scientific issues relating to evolution, but none over the existence of evolution (defined as "descent with modification") itself. That much at least is "settled science," and so we can legitimately speak of it as "science says this, or science says that" about evolution."
Finally. I suppose I could have just ignored all of the BS above. As I said, there is no debate over the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism. The only 'debate' is over the imaginary mechanisms that might have produced the 'macroevolutionary result' given an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism. That is what is clear.
"Now let's look at some of your arguments:"
Let's misstate my arguments is more like it. Lots of preparatory work was required to get to the misstatement part, huh?
"Let's remember again, I've often asked you to define what YOU mean by "macro-evolution" and you consistently refuse. I've made no defense of that term, except to say: it's micro-evolution over the long term, nothing else. Since you agree with the IDEA of micro-evolution -- or "adaptation" -- I have to presume it's ONLY the "long-term" part you disagree with."
Here the misstatement begins. I clearly said that ADAPTATION was the term to use and you feel you need to twist that back around so that you can use the term 'evolution' again. You truly are locked into definism where you think that the use of the term means that your extrapolation is true by definition.
"Well, radiometric dating is just one method among several used to establish ages of the natural world. And not one of these methods point to an Earth-age of 6,000 years. Even Carbon-14 dating goes back to about 60,000 years. Also, archaeologists identify many sites as existing before those known historically as 6,000 years old."
Here you rely on the fallacy of reification by assuming that current observations can be extrapolated backward into unobservable, assumed time frames. Follow that by the fallacy of argumentum ad populum for arguing that 'archeologists' say...
"So, it is settled science that the earth is older than 6,000 years. But you hope to defeat science with sophomoric philosophy, claiming "a priori" and "modus ponens" till the cows come home, right? Well, good luck pal."
So, you went from the fallacy of reification to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and ended up with 'settled science'. Pretty impressive, pal.
"When someone claims something which is obviously false, there are not a whole lot of choices about why. He is either:"
Whether a thing is 'obviously false' is in the eye of the beholder as you demonstrate. You believe macroevolution to be 'settled science' yet 'global warming' is not. You must be calling every scientist who considers 'global warming' to be 'settled science' a liar. There's simply no other choice.
"A scientist, by definition, cannot be either stupid or misinformed about his/her area of specialty. If he is, then he's not a real scientist. Neither is he supposed to be motivated by ideological or partisan commitments -- though this is precisely the issue in global warming. Of course, scientific debates are just that -- areas of presumably honest disagreement, also fertile grounds for further research. But the basic idea of evolution ("descent with modification") is settled science, not subject of scientific debate."
So, what you believe is 'presumably honest disagreement' while what I believe is 'motivated by ideological or partisan commitments'. Again we see that the only consistent factor in your flip-flopping is whether you yourself believe it or not.
"And there is no way I'm going to believe that hundreds and thousands of scientists are lying about evolution."
Fallacy of argumentum ad populum noted. I also note that you'll believe that 'hundreds and thousands of scientists' are in 'presumably honest disagreement' because you happen to disagree with global warming. The only constant in your argument is how you justify your existing beliefs. Nothing else is consistent.
"Utter nonsense. I've only argued, repeatedly, that science is science, and religion is not. I believe theologically that God created the heavens and earth, for teleological reasons of His own, and created life on earth through theistic evolution, meaning: from the beginning He intended to create us. But NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with science. Science is strictly, by definition: natural causes for natural occurrences."
Simply denying that you have an idealistic commitment to philosophical naturalism by invoking a belief in a God who is indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism is simply the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Nothing more.
Surely you agree?
I'd say this statement above proves my conclusion that you are anti-science and hoping to defeat science with the power of mocking philosophical terms -- in this case "a priori," though I notice several more introduced later.
But in fact, the "a priori" philosophical decision of science is just what you name below: methodological naturalism (aka scientific naturalism). This is not under debate -- the "debate" is only your claim there is no such thing as "methodological naturalism" when it comes to all the sciences related to evolution (biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.). Here you claim that "methodological naturalism" has been replaced by "philosophical naturalism" aka "metaphysical naturalism," aka "ontological naturalism."
It's a claim which might merit some interest, except that as in everything else, you refuse to even define your terms, much less offer evidence in support. In other words, you are only throwing fancy words at the issue.
"Science, you claim, is personified and is not affected by the personal philosophical assumptions of those generating the just-so stories and so can be believed in everything it says and any conflicts must be resolved by adjusting your particular exegesis of Biblical Scriptures. Is that about right?"
I have not "personified" science any more that you would personify by speaking of, oh say, "the US government," or "the Catholic Church," or "General Motors," etc.
Of course, science is not a single legal corporate entity. But it has many communities of scientists who collaborate, cooperate and compete with each other. My suggested comparison would be the National Football League, which defines and enforces rules of the game, and announces scores, but otherwise encourages competing teams to go at each other -- may the better idea win.
As to whether science "can be believed in everything it says and any conflicts must be resolved by adjusting your particular exegesis of Biblical Scriptures." That's ridiculous, and you no doubt know it.
What I've said from the beginning is: science is science and religion is religion. You are entitled to believe whatever religious doctrine appeals to you. But if you start calling your religious doctrine "science," then you are a liar.
Of course, if your particular religious doctrine doesn't square well with science, then that's your problem. Go ahead and condemn science if you like. But as a non-scientist yourself, you have no more right to control what science teaches than science has to control your religious doctrine!
"Well, let me begin my answer by first addressing a complaint you've made many times. There is, you say, a thing called 'science' that has sides that speak, has intent and debates and that I err by pointing out that 'science' is really the result of the 'a priori' beliefs of practitioners. You then must manufacture non-existent ad hominem attacks that never happened to make a ridiculous point."
I note here as elsewhere how quick you are to misrepresent my views. From my first post in this debate, I've insisted that the "a priori beliefs" of science -- in other words, the rules of the game -- are methodological (aka scientific) naturalism. So that's not the issue. The issue is your repeated but entirely unsubstantiated and undefined replacement of those terms with the charge of "philosophical naturalism."
But as in the case of "macro-evolution," you steadfastly refuse to even define, much less substantiate the claim of "philosophical naturalism." So once again, you are only throwing fancy words at the issue.
"Your claims are false. There is no such thing as science having sides that speak, have intent and debate."
Pure nonsense, and you no-doubt know it. The whole history of science is the history of many scientific debates, some of which raged and changed over generations, as new data and new analysis was added. Any number of examples could be listed. I've mentioned one: global warming.
There is a real debate amongst actual scientists -- not theologians pretending to be scientists -- about the nature, causes, effects and responsibilities for "global warming." Is it actually happening? Is it man-made or natural? Can we, should we try to do something about it? All these are questions about which real science can have some input.
By the way, while we are on this particular subject, let us note that much of the anti-global warming argument is based on scientific findings about the record of climate changes over many millions of years. These records include ice cores which go back tens of thousands of years in Greenland, and hundreds of thousands of years in Antarctica. So, it's sort of hard to argue that the earth has natural climate cycles stretching over hundreds of thousands of years, if we can't first admit the earth is older than 6,000 years, isn't it?
"That you must use arithmetic and simple mathematics to support your belief in macroevolution shows how desperate you are for evidence."
Again you misrepresent my argument. I used mathematics to support my belief in the word "science." I could just as easily have selected some other example, from astronomy, for example: astronomy tells us the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Remember, this was not always known for certain. Or from biology: biology tells us the brain is the center of human thinking and emotion. Remember this was not always known for certain. How about chemistry: chemistry tells us that water is made of two atoms hydrogen, one atom oxygen, and so on and so on and so on. The question here is, can we speak of science as telling us things. Answer: obviously yes.
But science cannot tell us everything, and is often in heated debate over many issues. Then all we can do is report the simple facts: scientists are debating the old theory X with some suggesting a new theory Y. No big deal, that's just what scientists do.
"your belief in macroevolution "
This is more than a figment of your imagination, it's an outright lie, because I've explained the truth of it to you many times. And you not only refuse to acknowledge the truth, you won't even explain what YOU mean by the charge of "macro-evolution."
Indeed, I note where you suddenly want to replace the whole terminology of "evolution," "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" with yet another undefined word: adaptation.
OK, Mr. Philosopher: define for us scientifically precisely how "adaptation" differs from "evolution," "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution."
"This is also known as the fallacy of the suppressed correlative where you attempt to imply that there is no disagreement and anyone who disagrees isn't 'scientific'."
False again. Many scientists disagree on many issues. They publish peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals blasting away at each others' pet theories. But factually, none of these involve the arguments of Intelligent Design / Creation Scientists. When that fact is no longer true, then we will have a somewhat different debate.
"Since there are plenty of scientists who consider 'global warming' as 'settled science' and therefore subject to your 'team sport' allusion above, you clearly engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well and the fallacy of special pleading with your use of the term 'serious' in an attempt to argue that your particular belief in opposition to global warming is 'scientific' while opposition to macroevolution is not. Did you not see that before you wrote it? "
Rubbish. Rubbish. It's a simple fact that many scientists do not support every claim of "global warming" politicians such as Al Gore. These scientists do research and publish peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals relating to one aspect or another of the broad global warming issue. Yes, some aspects of global warming are "settled science," but many more are far from settled.
By contrast, factually, there is no serious scientific debate regarding the claims of Intelligent Design / Creation Science. There are no peer-reviewed articles by ID-Creationists published in scientific journals. Instead, this debate is between science on the one hand and anti-science theology on the other.
"Fallacy of special pleading noted. Your global warming beliefs are not 'settled science' while my opposition to macroevolution is 'settled science'. It's different for your beliefs, isn't it? You argue 'settled science' when convenient for you and 'settled science exception' when convenient for you. The only common denominator that I see in your arguments is 'you'."
No, I'm speaking factually. There is no scientific debate over ID-Creationism. If there were, then we could take note of it. But as yet, none of the ID-Creationists have been able to meet the standards for qualification as a publishable scientist on issues relating to evolution. This is simple fact, not debatable, at least as far as I've learned. When the facts change, then the debate will change.
"As I said, there is no debate over the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism. The only 'debate' is over the imaginary mechanisms that might have produced the 'macroevolutionary result' given an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism. That is what is clear. "
No, what's clear is: there is only your false claim of "philosophical naturalism," without definition or supporting evidence. In fact, the "imaginary mechanisms" of short-term "micro-evolution" have been convincingly demonstrated repeatedly, in both laboratories and the natural world. The extrapolation of short-term to long-term is demonstrated in fossil records and DNA analysis, among other places. So, it's only the fertile imaginations of our ID-Creationists who insist there are invisible divine laws dictating that "you can't get here from there."
"I clearly said that ADAPTATION was the term to use and you feel you need to twist that back around so that you can use the term 'evolution' again."
Here you have introduced yet another undefined word: ADAPTATION. No one has ever denied that life adapts, but do you somehow fantasize ADAPTATION as basically different from evolution?
"Here you rely on the fallacy of reification by assuming that current observations can be extrapolated backward into unobservable, assumed time frames. "
OK, I understand, radiometric dating is too scientific an idea for such an accomplished philosopher as yourself. So, let's switch over to something that even a philosopher might grasp. Do you understand tree rings? Every year a tree adds a new ring, count the rings, you can find it's age, look at the ring sizes, they say something about the climate each year. Pretty simple idea, right?
Of course, there are no living trees which go back over 6,000 years, so you are pretty safe OK'ing that one, right? Now consider ice cores from glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Same idea, but they go back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.
So do you tell us these ice cores cannot be relied on beyond 6,000 years? And what is your scientific evidence supporting that claim?
"So, you went from the fallacy of reification to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and ended up with 'settled science'. Pretty impressive, pal. "
I'd call THAT a stunning use of fancy words to mask your total lack of serious argument. Pretty impressive, pal.
"Whether a thing is 'obviously false' is in the eye of the beholder as you demonstrate. You believe macroevolution to be 'settled science' yet 'global warming' is not. You must be calling every scientist who considers 'global warming' to be 'settled science' a liar. There's simply no other choice. "
Rubbish. No scientist (other than Nobel Prize winners like Al Gore!!) can claim that all of "global warming" is "settled science." For one thing, last time I checked, none of their highly sophisticated computer models have accurately predicted even the current weather, much less decades into the future. For another, in recent years, the earth seems to be cooling a bit. I could go on and on. Yes, some things are settled -- the earth did warm a bit over the last 100 years -- but many more things are not.
I've said the basic idea of evolution -- descent with modifications -- is settled science. Many of the details are not settled, but none of the ideas of ID-Creationists are considered scientific enough to be peer-review published.
"Fallacy of argumentum ad populum noted. I also note that you'll believe that 'hundreds and thousands of scientists' are in 'presumably honest disagreement' because you happen to disagree with global warming. The only constant in your argument is how you justify your existing beliefs. Nothing else is consistent. "
Rubbish. This is a matter of simple fact, easily confirmed. Just cite for me all the peer-reviewed technical articles published in scientific journals by ID-Creationists on subjects relating to evolution.
Only if you misrepresent it. The statement was about you, not science.
"But in fact, the "a priori" philosophical decision of science is just what you name below: methodological naturalism (aka scientific naturalism). This is not under debate -- the "debate" is only your claim there is no such thing as "methodological naturalism" when it comes to all the sciences related to evolution (biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.). Here you claim that "methodological naturalism" has been replaced by "philosophical naturalism" aka "metaphysical naturalism," aka "ontological naturalism.""
No, you don't understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. You also cannot distinguish between the philosophical foundation of science and the methodological evidence that is interpreted through the philosophical foundation.
"It's a claim which might merit some interest, except that as in everything else, you refuse to even define your terms, much less offer evidence in support. In other words, you are only throwing fancy words at the issue."
Just concepts that you cannot understand so that your only recourse is to claim them 'fancy' so that you can ignore them.
"I have not "personified" science any more that you would personify by speaking of, oh say, "the US government," or "the Catholic Church," or "General Motors," etc."
When you say science 'tells us', you personify science. When you say science 'intends', you personify science. When you say science 'held a debate', you personify science. When you say science has 'sides', you personify science. Please stop denying that you personify science.
"Of course, science is not a single legal corporate entity. But it has many communities of scientists who collaborate, cooperate and compete with each other. My suggested comparison would be the National Football League, which defines and enforces rules of the game, and announces scores, but otherwise encourages competing teams to go at each other -- may the better idea win."
You do it again. Science 'has' no committees. People with philosophical beliefs belong to committees. Science does none of those things. People do. You continue to personify science and confuse methodological naturalism with the beliefs of the practitioners thereof.
"As to whether science "can be believed in everything it says and any conflicts must be resolved by adjusting your particular exegesis of Biblical Scriptures." That's ridiculous, and you no doubt know it."
So, what Biblical exegesis do you hold that disagrees with science?
"What I've said from the beginning is: science is science and religion is religion. You are entitled to believe whatever religious doctrine appeals to you. But if you start calling your religious doctrine "science," then you are a liar."
What I've said from the beginning is that science is based on philosophical naturalism. You are entitled to believe whatever philosophical naturalistic doctrine that appeals to you, but if you deny that your beliefs are based on philosophical naturalism, then you are a liar.
"Of course, if your particular religious doctrine doesn't square well with science, then that's your problem. Go ahead and condemn science if you like. But as a non-scientist yourself, you have no more right to control what science teaches than science has to control your religious doctrine!"
Of course, if your particular philosophically naturalistic doctrine doesn't square well with Scriptures, then you simply re-define Scripture. Fallacy of reverse ad hominem noted as I have not 'condemned' anything. But I understand that you need that fallacy to manufacture a point. Plus, I have not attempted to 'control what science teaches' nor have I suggested that science is trying to 'control' Scripture.
BTW, there you go personifying science again. Methodological naturalism is unable to be controlled or to control since it is a method only. What you admit is that only people control things and you are afraid that people will reject the philosophical pronouncements of science if they understand the philosophical foundation of them. You simply must demonize me to protect your own belief paradigm. That's clear.
"I note here as elsewhere how quick you are to misrepresent my views."
And I likewise note here as elsewhere how quick you are to misrepresent my views.
"From my first post in this debate, I've insisted that the "a priori beliefs" of science -- in other words, the rules of the game -- are methodological (aka scientific) naturalism."
From my first post in this debate, I've insisted that the 'a priori' foundation of science is philosophical naturalism in the beliefs of its practitioners. Here again, you personify science as though methodological naturalism can hold 'beliefs'. You make this mistake over and over and over.
"So that's not the issue. The issue is your repeated but entirely unsubstantiated and undefined replacement of those terms with the charge of "philosophical naturalism.""
Absolutely every single scientific theory substantiates my position. All you need to do is name one scientific theory that is not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't do that.
"But as in the case of "macro-evolution," you steadfastly refuse to even define, much less substantiate the claim of "philosophical naturalism." So once again, you are only throwing fancy words at the issue."
I will explain it again for you. You assume that macroevolution exists and that a defined delineation can be made. If you do not assume that macroevolution exists, then the request for a delineation is meaningless, as I rightly maintain. You also continue to misrepresent my position since all of science substantiates my claim. Your appeal to 'fancy words' simply illustrates that you don't understand what you are talking about and are grasping at straws.
"Pure nonsense, and you no-doubt know it. The whole history of science is the history of many scientific debates, some of which raged and changed over generations, as new data and new analysis was added. Any number of examples could be listed. I've mentioned one: global warming."
Pure nonsense, and you no-doubt know it. The point is that you personify science and then appeal to human interpretations that are philosophically-based. You simply called human philosophy that you agreed with 'settled science' and human philosophy that you don't agree with 'debatable' in the most self-serving terms possible and invoking the fallacy of argumentum ad populum where convenient for your existing beliefs. That's easy to see.
"There is a real debate amongst actual scientists -- not theologians pretending to be scientists -- about the nature, causes, effects and responsibilities for "global warming." Is it actually happening? Is it man-made or natural? Can we, should we try to do something about it? All these are questions about which real science can have some input."
Here again, you simply play word definitions where people who believe as you believe are 'actual scientists' and slam people who are not even in the global-warming debate as 'theologians' as though your 'actual scientists' do not have philosophical beliefs. Trust me, they do and those beliefs impact their pronouncements. The insidious thing about your position is that you pretend that only one side has philosophical beliefs, your opponents. That is not honest.
"By the way, while we are on this particular subject, let us note that much of the anti-global warming argument is based on scientific findings about the record of climate changes over many millions of years. These records include ice cores which go back tens of thousands of years in Greenland, and hundreds of thousands of years in Antarctica. So, it's sort of hard to argue that the earth has natural climate cycles stretching over hundreds of thousands of years, if we can't first admit the earth is older than 6,000 years, isn't it?"
Um, those aren't 'records'. Those are interpretations based on philosophical naturalism. That's what you are incapable of understanding.
"Again you misrepresent my argument. I used mathematics to support my belief in the word "science." I could just as easily have selected some other example, from astronomy, for example: astronomy tells us the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Remember, this was not always known for certain. Or from biology: biology tells us the brain is the center of human thinking and emotion. Remember this was not always known for certain. How about chemistry: chemistry tells us that water is made of two atoms hydrogen, one atom oxygen, and so on and so on and so on. The question here is, can we speak of science as telling us things. Answer: obviously yes."
Didn't misrepresent you at all. You used arithmetic and simple mathematics because you need the fallacy of equivocation to equate arithmetic and simple math to macroevolution. I simply called you on it. And you simply don't understand what is methodological naturalism and what is not.
Astronomy doesn't 'tell' us anything. You are personifying an inanimate methodology again. Methodological astronomy evidence is only of the relative rotation of the earth and the universe. Men with geokinetic beliefs say that the earth rotates. It could just as easily be the universe that rotates. Methodological astronomy evidence is only of the relative motion of the earth and sun. Men with geokinetic beliefs say that the earth orbits the sun. Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis all recognized that geocentric models are equally valid under GR. That is a concept you cannot grasp.
"But science cannot tell us everything, and is often in heated debate over many issues. Then all we can do is report the simple facts: scientists are debating the old theory X with some suggesting a new theory Y. No big deal, that's just what scientists do."
You personify science again. Science tells you nothing. Men with philosophical beliefs tell you things. And you think it no big deal that theories constantly change, as thought that is a strength. It is a weakness and a warning not to accept philosophical naturalism as being real. It will change tomorrow. Even things that you think are 'settled' are not and you merely believe them because lots of other people do, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
"This is more than a figment of your imagination, it's an outright lie, because I've explained the truth of it to you many times. And you not only refuse to acknowledge the truth, you won't even explain what YOU mean by the charge of "macro-evolution.""
You haven't 'explained' anything. You have a little definition that you use such that what you believe is a 'defined truth'. Don't confuse a 'defined truth' with reality. They are not the same. And again, since macroevolution does not exist there is no way to define something that does not exist. You can make it whatever you want.
"Indeed, I note where you suddenly want to replace the whole terminology of "evolution," "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" with yet another undefined word: adaptation."
Nope. Wrong again. Adaptation is clearly defined and I use the standard dictionary definition of it.
"OK, Mr. Philosopher: define for us scientifically precisely how "adaptation" differs from "evolution," "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution.""
Adaptation is observed and wrongly referred to as 'micro-evolution'. Macro-evolution does not exist except as a philosophical belief.
"False again. Many scientists disagree on many issues. They publish peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals blasting away at each others' pet theories. But factually, none of these involve the arguments of Intelligent Design / Creation Scientists. When that fact is no longer true, then we will have a somewhat different debate."
Nope, not in the context you were using it. You simply moved the goalposts so that you could be 'correct' and then re-commit the same fallacy by defining the ID scientists out of your reality. In doing so, you re-commit the fallacy that you just denied that you committed.
"Rubbish. Rubbish. It's a simple fact that many scientists do not support every claim of "global warming" politicians such as Al Gore. These scientists do research and publish peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals relating to one aspect or another of the broad global warming issue. Yes, some aspects of global warming are "settled science," but many more are far from settled."
Ah, the use of emotionally-charged words are required when you have no answer, aren't they? You clearly engaged in the fallacy of poisoning the well and the fallacy of special pleading with your use of the term 'serious' in an attempt to argue that your particular belief in opposition to global warming is 'scientific' while opposition to macroevolution is not.
"By contrast, factually, there is no serious scientific debate regarding the claims of Intelligent Design / Creation Science. There are no peer-reviewed articles by ID-Creationists published in scientific journals. Instead, this debate is between science on the one hand and anti-science theology on the other."
Another 'defined truth', how convenient. Since ID scientists do not subscribe to philosophical naturalism, their articles cannot be published in philosophically natural journals, thereby making them unscientific 'by definition'. It's a small little logical circle, but one you enjoy running.
"No, I'm speaking factually. There is no scientific debate over ID-Creationism. If there were, then we could take note of it. But as yet, none of the ID-Creationists have been able to meet the standards for qualification as a publishable scientist on issues relating to evolution. This is simple fact, not debatable, at least as far as I've learned. When the facts change, then the debate will change."
No, you have a 'defined truth'. There is no 'scientific' debate of ID because science is based on philosophical naturalism and ID can (but is not required to) be interpreted supernaturally. This scares the pants off of the philosophical naturalists and so they set a standard that the ID papers can't meet 'by definition'. People like you then turn around and claim that they can't be scientific because they aren't published in a journal where they can't meet the definition. A small logical circle but one you enjoy running in.
"No, what's clear is: there is only your false claim of "philosophical naturalism," without definition or supporting evidence. In fact, the "imaginary mechanisms" of short-term "micro-evolution" have been convincingly demonstrated repeatedly, in both laboratories and the natural world. The extrapolation of short-term to long-term is demonstrated in fossil records and DNA analysis, among other places. So, it's only the fertile imaginations of our ID-Creationists who insist there are invisible divine laws dictating that "you can't get here from there.""
No, that's the fallacy of equivocation for equating observed adaptation with macroevolution through a definition and extrapolation. You really should learn to distinguish such philosophical beliefs from reality.
"Of course, there are no living trees which go back over 6,000 years, so you are pretty safe OK'ing that one, right? Now consider ice cores from glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Same idea, but they go back tens and hundreds of thousands of years. So do you tell us these ice cores cannot be relied on beyond 6,000 years? And what is your scientific evidence supporting that claim?"
Again, since there are no human observations and records, these things are interpretations of observations made currently. You simply can't distinguish between reality and philosophical belief based on assumption and extrapolation.
"I'd call THAT a stunning use of fancy words to mask your total lack of serious argument. Pretty impressive, pal."<
I call THAT a stunning admission of an inability to avoid using fallacy as argument. Pretty impressive, pal.
"Rubbish. No scientist (other than Nobel Prize winners like Al Gore!!) can claim that all of "global warming" is "settled science." For one thing, last time I checked, none of their highly sophisticated computer models have accurately predicted even the current weather, much less decades into the future. For another, in recent years, the earth seems to be cooling a bit. I could go on and on. Yes, some things are settled -- the earth did warm a bit over the last 100 years -- but many more things are not."
Ah, emotionally-charged words again. They really are most helpful to you in the absence of argument, aren't they? What you fail to realize is that those same arguments apply to your belief in macroevolution. The only difference is that you philosophically accept the evidence that supports what you already believe and philosophically reject the evidence that doesn't support what you already believe. The only constant is what you already believe.
"I've said the basic idea of evolution -- descent with modifications -- is settled science. Many of the details are not settled, but none of the ideas of ID-Creationists are considered scientific enough to be peer-review published."
Except that 'descent w/ modification' could also be observed in an adaptive biology that is not 'evolving' consistent with macroevolution. Yet you reject that because you philosophically believe in macroevolution. And again with the reliance on 'defined truth' and argumentum ad populum. You have nothing but philosophical beliefs and fallacy.
"Rubbish. This is a matter of simple fact, easily confirmed. Just cite for me all the peer-reviewed technical articles published in scientific journals by ID-Creationists on subjects relating to evolution."
Again with the emotionally-charged words, 'defined truth' and the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. When all is said and done, that's all you have.
Another false accusation, repeated over and over, even after I've explained that it's false. What's wrong with you, pal?
"Just concepts that you cannot understand so that your only recourse is to claim them 'fancy' so that you can ignore them. "
Anther false accusation, and I'll explain why: pal, when you write stuff which is flat wrong, you leave me wondering, is that because you are too stupid to know the truth, or because you are lying? Well, when you use fancy foreign words, that tends to eliminate the argument of simple stupidity, and adds weight to the argument for lying. That's why I highly recommend the KISS rule: Keep It Simple Stupid.
"When you say science 'tells us', you personify science. When you say science 'intends', you personify science. When you say science 'held a debate', you personify science. When you say science has 'sides', you personify science. Please stop denying that you personify science. "
Well, look at that: an actual argument, what do you know? And to your argument there's a simple answer. Does Christianity teach us anything? Or is it only some people claiming to be Christians who make statements regarding their religious beliefs? Or, indeed, does the Bible teach us anything? Or are there only certain people who claim to have read the Bible as the basis for their own religious teachings? And how do we even know for sure if those people and their supposed ideas are even real? What if they are not?
It's stupid questions like this which caused me to introduce you to our 2:00 AM philosophical sophomores, whose chemically enhanced perceptions lead them to conclude that all of reality is just illusion and deception.
In fact, that's all just nonsense. In ordinary usage and simple language, we do speak of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, science, biology, physics, etc., etc., as teaching us certain doctrines, principles, laws, facts, and so on.
The doctrines of science include methodological naturalism, which you insist on calling "philosophical naturalism," though you refuse to define either term, or explain the difference, all the while falsely accusing me of not knowing or misrepresenting them.
I do know the difference, I know that science is fundamentally based on methodological naturalism. and that your claim of "philosophical naturalism" is just another false accusation.
"You do it again. Science 'has' no committees. People with philosophical beliefs belong to committees. Science does none of those things. People do. You continue to personify science and confuse methodological naturalism with the beliefs of the practitioners thereof."
In fact, there is such a thing as "science," which does have committees, in the same sense as there is Christianity, or Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, and so on. More to the point: what is your particular problem with this? You seem seriously hung up on it. I'm telling you, you sound like a bunch of 2:00 AM sophomores on this. Why?
Sorry, now I'm out of time. I will come back and finish up later.
Your silly attacks on me are meaningless -- they only serve as red herrings to draw attention away from the subject at hand, which is your anti-science theology. Since I'm only here as a non-scientist to defend science, your attacks on my arguments (and on me personally) are just proxies for your attacks on science itself, I'd say.
Sure you might well claim that you just love science, and it's only me trying to defend science that you attack. But to say that, you'd first have to confess that there IS such a thing as "science," which so far you've refused to do. Indeed, we might then logically ask, how can you pretend to "love" a subject (science) which you deny even exists?
(returning to where we last left off):
"So, what Biblical exegesis do you hold that disagrees with science?"
All of it. That's because, by definition, methodological naturalism (science) has no place for supernatural interventions (God). By contrast, religion -- Christianity especially -- is all about the acts and purposes of God as they relate to mankind. In other words: by definition, all of the Bible disagrees with science -- every word of it. So any part of the Bible we hold true is, in a sense, in contradiction of science.
I'll put this as simply as I can: the Bible is not about science, it's about God and mankind. Science is not about God or anything else supernatural. It's only about the natural world, and natural causes which govern it.
"What I've said from the beginning is that science is based on philosophical naturalism. You are entitled to believe whatever philosophical naturalistic doctrine that appeals to you, but if you deny that your beliefs are based on philosophical naturalism, then you are a liar. "
Baloney. The discipline science claims for itself is "methodological naturalism." The charge of "philosophical naturalism" is usually just a pejorative, thrown by anti-science theological-philosophers claiming that science is nothing but atheism.
The truth is, some scientists do subscribe to "philosophical naturalism" -- also known as "metaphysical naturalism" or "ontological naturalism." And you could easily call that belief their religion -- or more properly: their denial of religion.
However, many other scientists reject philosophical naturalism as the basis of religion, and instead believe in Christianity or some other traditional teaching.
But let us note carefully the distinctions between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Philosophical naturalism denies the very existence of a supernatural realm, saying: the natural world is the ONLY world there is.
Methodological naturalism does not deny the existence of a supernatural realm, but says instead: by definition, science can only deal in the natural realm with natural occurrences.
In other words, where methodological naturalists can be scientists during the week and still go to church on Sunday, philosophical naturalists, by definition don't go to church. Is that clear enough for you?
"Of course, if your particular philosophically naturalistic doctrine doesn't square well with Scriptures, then you simply re-define Scripture. Fallacy of reverse ad hominem noted as I have not 'condemned' anything. But I understand that you need that fallacy to manufacture a point. Plus, I have not attempted to 'control what science teaches' nor have I suggested that science is trying to 'control' Scripture."
Another false accusation. I have redefined nothing.
And of course you DO "condemn" science -- that's what this whole exchange is all about. If you did not condemn-reject-dispute-mock-etc science, then we'd have nothing left to discuss.
You DO condemn science and scientists, whenever you attempt to redefine it as something other than "methodological naturalism."
Further, there is ONLY a public debate about this subject at all because of the ID-Creationists' decades and decades long efforts to get their religious ideas taught in public school science classes.
So, do I understand you to now say that you reject those efforts to get ID-Creationism taught in public school science classes?
"BTW, there you go personifying science again.
I speak of "science" in the same way we speak of "Christianity" of "conservatism," or any other ideas-based teachings.
"Methodological naturalism is unable to be controlled or to control since it is a method only.
A most curious assertion, and as usual for GourmetDan, without explanations or evidence provided to support the claim.
"What you admit is that only people control things and you are afraid that people will reject the philosophical pronouncements of science if they understand the philosophical foundation of them. You simply must demonize me to protect your own belief paradigm. That's clear."
Nonsense. I've admitted no such thing. I'm afraid of no such thing. And unlike you, who mock and attack me at every opportunity, I've never mocked, much less "demonized" you. Do you disagree? Go find an example, pal.
I think your paragraph above betrays some pretty serious misunderstanding on your part. You should think hard about what those are.
"From my first post in this debate, I've insisted that the 'a priori' foundation of science is philosophical naturalism in the beliefs of its practitioners. Here again, you personify science as though methodological naturalism can hold 'beliefs'. You make this mistake over and over and over."
Your mistake, not mine. The word "science" refers to the disciplines of methodological naturalism, as well as to the doctrines of "settled science," as well as to the debates of (how shall we say it?) "un-settled science," plus the however loosely knit groups of people who work in fields of scientific study, research, development, etc.
What "science" does NOT include are those people and ideas who reject the fundamentals of methodological naturalism.
"Absolutely every single scientific theory substantiates my position. All you need to do is name one scientific theory that is not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't do that."
Utter nonsense. All truly scientific theories (which excludes ID-Creationism) are based on methodological naturalism. None that I know of require the further "leap of faith" into philosophical naturalism.
And as always for GourmetDan, you've here refused to define your terms, or supply any supporting evidence for your claims. That makes this claim of yours bogus.
"I will explain it again for you. You assume that macroevolution exists and that a defined delineation can be made. If you do not assume that macroevolution exists, then the request for a delineation is meaningless, as I rightly maintain.
Wrong again. I've assumed nothing regarding "macro-evolution." I've made no claims about it whatsoever, beyond "long-term micro-evolution," or if you prefer, "long-term adaptation." It's only YOU who continually use that word "macro-evolution" -- as a weapon against evolution and science in general. And against me. You make all kinds of crazy claims about what I supposedly believe regarding "macro-evolution." But at no time have you defined what YOU mean by that word.
"You also continue to misrepresent my position since all of science substantiates my claim.
Here you are wrong yet again. None of science substantiates your claims. But you can easily prove me wrong on that point by citing an example.
AND, BTW, WHY ARE YOU YOURSELF NOW PERSONIFYING SCIENCE?? ;-)
"Your appeal to 'fancy words' simply illustrates that you don't understand what you are talking about and are grasping at straws."
Rubbish. You use fancy foreign words just like you use every other word -- without defining your meanings or providing evidence of support. Instead, you apparently hope that I should believe true whatever you say. Well... I'll tell you what I do believe: the fancier and more foreign a term, the less likely it is in the ordinary sense to be true. So, if you fill your arguments with nonsensical terms, I reject them for what they are: rubbish.
"The point is that you personify science and then appeal to human interpretations that are philosophically-based. You simply called human philosophy that you agreed with 'settled science' and human philosophy that you don't agree with 'debatable' in the most self-serving terms possible and invoking the fallacy of argumentum ad populum where convenient for your existing beliefs. That's easy to see. "
What's easy to see is that you continually make false accusations. In fact, beyond "personifying science" (which you do too, whenever it suits your purposes!), I've done none of those things.
I have insisted that science is methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism -- AND I've clearly defined my terms.
I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there ARE debates amongst scientists about various aspects of so-called global warming. That is not disputable.
I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there are NO debates amongst scientists regarding claims of ID-Creationists. That's because, by definition, ID-Creationists -- whatever they may claim about themselves -- are not scientists.
As for supposed "argument ad populum" let's see you quote an example of such inappropriate argument. Are you perhaps referring to questions of just what may be "settled science" or "unsettled science"? I've said those terms refer to whether there is actual debate amongst real scientists over a particular subject. And it is not inappropriate "ad populum" to report the FACTs of such debate or no debate.
This is more than enough response for one post. But it seems I'm barely half way through your arguments. Will complete the rest later.
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.