Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan
You're misrepresenting the issue to avoid admitting that evolution is the philosophy of naturalism supported by the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

ToE has been used by naturalists to attack Christianity. That is most assuredly correct. But the science behind what ToE has morphed into today is not a philosophy. It's based on the scientific method. Hypothesis, Observation.Testing, Conclusion. And it, through many hiccups and sideroads, has become the dominant, most rational for the data, explanation based on experiment (not faith) out there today. That's what good science does. It preens out the crap over time and only the ideas that stand the test of time and repeated questioning remain. See Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Equations...

195 posted on 06/29/2010 11:43:03 AM PDT by morkfork (Candygram for Mongo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]


To: morkfork
"But the science behind what ToE has morphed into today is not a philosophy. It's based on the scientific method. Hypothesis, Observation, Testing, Conclusion."

This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible.

The philosophy of naturalism is what forces 'science' to conclude that what is observed happened without cause and for no reason through purely natural methods. Alternatives to P are excluded by definition. This is a philosophical choice, a scientific axiom, not an empirical fact.

202 posted on 06/29/2010 11:53:29 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson