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.