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?
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?