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 Here you claim that "methodological naturalism" has been replaced by "philosophical naturalism" aka "metaphysical naturalism," aka "ontological naturalism."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.