the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
I just did.he cannot justifiably ignore the obvious ontological questions concerning the original organism, even before it reproduced.
emphasis addedprinciples and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
my emphasisFirst, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs.
Because “Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.” [opening post]Capital "E" evolution, no. Lower-case "e" evolution? Yes.
[SQ31] Then what’s “creation science”? Are you going to use the term then argue that it doesn’t exist?To answer your question directly, no, but I don't see how it is relevant, or how the inability to know the mechanics of creation precludes creationism from being creation science.
“He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it), which, according to Jim, is a logical fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratnerd
A theistic evolutionists explains the horse as a product of evolution and bases this argument on their God-given powers of logic. Nobody is asking and can give a play-by-play, I’m simply asking for a general mechanism.
The creationist explains the horse as the creative work and design of God and bases this argument on the revealed Word of God. The general mechanism is God's creative power and volition. He. Made. It.
V.B.1. Ontological naturalism. Ontological naturalism is a universal statement. Methodological naturalism makes no such universal claim – not even on a small scale. You must simply leave out supernatural explanations because there’s nothing you can do with it. Consider God to be background noise if you want.methodological naturalism, by its prejudicial dismissal of anything and everything extra-natural, becomes a form of ontological naturalism.
MN is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor and response variable. Regardless, science (including Evolution justifies the use of MN because (repeating myself) the supernatural cannot be included (even if we want it to) in a falsification framework of science. Sure, ontologically speaking Jim can argue all about God being everywhere and the source of logic but then God is reduced to background noise. But if we are talking about answering real scientific issues, such as the cause of a particular disease, the nature of inheritance, etc, then the supernatural cannot be incorporated because, as Jim pointed out, we have no idea how to.To get around this, Methodological Naturalism as a hypothesis must then assert that logic and science are axioms that do not need to be proven. But of course, this violates Stratnerd's own requirement for the justification for a hypotheses.
As if it were some secret, Stratnerd apparently had a secondary "Eureka!" moment when his comrade, mighty_duck, revealed to him that Hilston is a proponent of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (TAG).
If only I had that kind of time… like Aharvey has pointed out – here’s a debate about evolution sans biology.Anyone could easily discover this by a simple Google search (use quotes around my full name, "James Hilston"), by visiting my personal website (www.jameshilston.com), by visiting my church's website (www.tgfonline.org) or by searching here on TOL for my debates with anti-Theists and evidentialist Christians.
In most of the sciences that do not conflict with Biblical literalism then these questions such as “the source of logic” are irrelevant because they have no real consequence. Would Watson and Crick discover the structure of DNA if they were Biblical literalists or atheists? Probably would make no difference. However, for questions that are touched on by Genesis then Jim is absolutely right. If one has the attitude that the have the absolute truth then you will make statements like “there are no scientific reasons to question the overall accuracy of extant Biblical texts.” If we listen to these cocktail philosophers we turn off the skepticism, put away the microscopes, and stop asking the most interesting questions.These are legitimate and crucial questions that can only be answered by a transcendental consideration of one's theory of knowledge and of science.
As I pointed out above, this relies on accepting Jim’s argument and there’s no need to. Of course you can’t test it so asking so is just silly.Here's the justification and the support: the rejection of the God of the Bible reduces all reasoning and science to absurdity. Go ahead and test it.
I’ll say amen to that!Being able to justify one's methodology does not guarantee right conclusions.
Certainly, absolutely, positively! Let me pull out the evidence presented by creationists and let me show in a public debate in a site called “Theology Online” what I big pile of crap it truly is.But now Stratnerd is asking me to address topics that have already been argued extensively, not only here on TOL, but in scores and scores of books.
I do? My science does but not my reality. Not at all. Are you conflating scientific explanations for universal ontological statements yet again?Stratnerd holds to a view of reality that excludes, in advance, any and all extra-natural considerations.
YES!Does it get us anywhere to lob factual claims of evidence back and forth[?]
Frankly, the world had not seen enough of these debates!frankly, the world has seen quite enough of those types of debates.
Simple, I use what works. How do I know something works? I look at the philosophies and methods that make the greatest advances in science. Skepticism of induction and methodological naturalism (not ontological naturalism) have been essential to these advances.How do we know what we know? What I've attempted to do, and will continue to strive toward, is a clear understanding of Stratnerd's underlying assumptions about reality….This is why I continue to ask him to justify his tools and methods of knowing.
Please note the operative term: "... justifiably ..."Stratnerd said:I just did.
I'm curious that Stratnerd has in these last two rounds suddenly begun to use the term "Evolutionary biology." Is Stratnerd attempting to move the goal posts?Stratnerd said:Now compare this definition to what Evolutionary biology does and one can easily see that Evolution falls within this definition.
Of course. Recall my very first post, in which I typed: "However, in the broadest sense of the word, I would say that everyone is a scientist, that is, we all use science to varying degrees and with varying success as a means to understand our world. To be human is to be a scientist in the broadest sense, as we cannot escape the tools and methods of science that inform us of the world around us."Stratnerd said:As I mentioned before, almost everyone is a scientist under this definition.
In order to study a certain species of bird, one should have factual knowledge about birds in general, how species relate to one another, to other animal life, to human beings and to the Creator. However, on the surface level of his question, Stratnerd has posed something isn't about science. Extrapolations into the unobserved past, whether by avian biologists or geologists, about mutations rates, avian populations and the ages of rocks are conjecture at best. On a more relevant level, the Methodological Naturalist who presumes to formulate a hypothesis, let alone the actual procedure of testing it, is pretending to be a Creationist by expecting the stated hypothesis to be comprehensible in the ears of others (induction) and for expecting the tools and procedures that worked last time will work this time as well (uniformity of nature).Stratnerd said:For example, you’re a scientist that examines the population genetics of birds on an island. Using known mutation rates you estimate that the population coalesced (when the population is founded – which fits nicely into a creationist perspective) 100,000 thousand years go.
SQ30c: Do you dismiss your findings as aberrant? Do you modify your version of creationism (e.g., that the timeline is way off). What if you repeat the exercise with a different species of bird and you get the same date? And you do it again and again and get the same results – consistent results? Now a geologist estimates the age of the island and you get a similar estimate. Do you dismiss all these independent data? Do you, CAN YOU, modify your views of creation?
That is correct. Although I must admit, I have and do use the term "creationism" and "creation science" (lower case "c") to refer to creationistic science, that is, when a Creationist applies the scientific method, which I do view as actual science (such as the hypothetical scenario with which I opened this post). But in "mixed company," i.e. in the midst of a debate between competing worldviews, I try to be more careful.Stratnerd said:No. By the standard definition it isn’t and apparently Jim doesn’t disagree.
The tools are not science. The application of them is. To be more precise, the tools used by the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist are borrowed from God, the very Foundation of science. The Creationist is justified in his use of the tools; the E/MN is not.Stratnerd said:Ironically, Jim claims that the tools of the scientist are borrowed from Creationism, which, by it’s very nature, not science.
There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition.Stratnerd said:“He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it), which, according to Jim, is a logical fallacy.
If the scientist employs logical inference, he has incorporated a supernatural premise in his explanation. If the scientist assumes uniformity, he has involved an extra-natural premise in his explanation.Stratnerd said:When a scientist asks “why does this phenomenon occur?” the scientist can only incorporate explanations that do not involve the supernatural.
Stratnerd said:The scientist need not make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist – he or she or it can even posit the workings of the supernatural at work.
And this?:Stratnerd said:Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work.
Stratnerd said:Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.
This is not only untrue, it is irrational. Note that Stratnerd previously acknowledged,Stratnerd said:However, the scientist cannot incorporate such workings into a testing framework.
It is a category error to include God as a primary regulator. This will be seen below. God is not a primary regulator in anything in this current Biblical economy (except in regeneration and salvation-- theological points for those interested). Rather, He is secondary and all-pervasive in that role. He is the very atmosphere in which science can take place. As transcendent and omni-sustaining of all natural laws, His existence and attributes are what make the very formulation of the proposition intelligible.Stratnerd said:For example: here are a number of explanations that you can rationalize for the primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm
a. nutrient levels available to the producers
b. population dynamics of the producers
c. population dynamics of the herbivores
d. population dynamics of the predators
These are all biologically justifiable (causal links between the response and predictor variables) hypotheses. There are theoretical reasons why each one should change the entire contents of the microcosm. I include God for the sake of argument.
You don't; you can't. His role as secondary regulator of all things without exception is on a transcendent level.Stratnerd said:We can now experiment with a-d by adding/subtracting individuals or manipulating nutrient levels. How does one deal with God in this situation?
Exactly. But that doesn't mean you can justifiably ignore the fact that His existence is the foundation of science. The fact that that the formulation of your hypothesis is intelligible, and that your tests yield successful results, is all due to the secondary regulatory governance of the Creator upon His creation.Stratnerd said:How can you manipulate God to demonstrate the effect on the system? You can’t.
Note that Stratnerd contradicts himself in exactly this point. Earlier he said:Stratnerd said:So MN is simply the admission that you can’t incorporate the supernatural in a falsification framework.
If the E/MN posits the exclusion of all extra-natural considerations, then ON is inescapably implied, and utterly irrational. The statement of the exclusion is itself extra-natural. It is a self-refuting claim.Stratnerd said:Ontological naturalism is a universal statement. Methodological naturalism makes no such universal claim – not even on a small scale.
I again remind Stratnerd of his previous statement:Stratnerd said:You must simply leave out supernatural explanations because there’s nothing you can do with it.
As I stated above, this "Background Noise" is the very atmosphere in which we live, and move and have our existence; God makes science possible and intelligible.Stratnerd said:Consider God to be background noise if you want.
Will Stratnerd accept his own argument? Again, I bring up the previous statement:Stratnerd said:Self-refuting. Methodological naturalism is only self-refuting if you accept Jim’s argument. I do not.
Of course it is a hypothesis! The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.Stratnerd said:A hypothesis.MN is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor and response variable.Hilston said:To get around this, Methodological Naturalism as a hypothesis must then assert that logic and science are axioms that do not need to be proven. But of course, this violates Stratnerd's own requirement for the justification for a hypotheses.
Please refer to Stratnerd's above concession regarding the supernatural character of mathematics. Falsification itself is extra-natural in character.Stratnerd said:Regardless, science (including Evolution justifies the use of MN because (repeating myself) the supernatural cannot be included (even if we want it to) in a falsification framework of science.
Interesting. I would say God is magnified as omnipresently essential to the success of science.Stratnerd said:Sure, ontologically speaking Jim can argue all about God being everywhere and the source of logic but then God is reduced to background noise.
Please refer to Stratnerd's above concession on this point.Stratnerd said:But if we are talking about answering real scientific issues, such as the cause of a particular disease, the nature of inheritance, etc, then the supernatural cannot be incorporated because, as Jim pointed out, we have no idea how to.
I agree. Therefore, I would like to ask Stratnerd to justify his Methodological Naturalism hypothesis. He proposes Methodological Naturalism as a (tentative?) explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor (the application of logic and scientific methods) and a response variable (true results). How does Stratnerd justify this hypothesis?Stratnerd said:When I use the term justification, I usually use it in regards to hypotheses. ... However, I stress that we need to justify our scientific hypotheses that propose causal links between the prediction (independent) and the response (dependent) variables.
That cracked me up. Seriously. I almost fell off my chair because it just sounded so funny in my head when I read it. Perhaps it's just the effects of loopiness again.Stratnerd said:Something else.
This is because, within a shared worldview, foundational questions about fundamental presuppositions and precommitments are not immediately relevant. However, when the debate is between different and opposing worldviews, for reasons I've explained above and in previous posts, this is exactly where debates about ultimate questions about the nature of reality and knowledge should take place: On a presuppositional level, examining the crux of the differences between worldviews, requiring justification for things that are otherwise taken for granted, and asking the tough questions about how one accounts for the foundations of our knowledge, the intelligibility of human experience and the successes of science and logic.Stratnerd said:I have never seen, except this debate, the need to justify the source of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. ... Regardless, of the field (genetics, evolutionary biology, histology) you’re not asked to justify the source of logic.
I understand; I encounter this often, even among "my own." The fact is, I'm compelled by sound reason and the clear testimony of the Bible, both by divine command and by example, to address opposing systems of thought in this way. I am saddened that more Creationists do not take the Biblical approach to these kinds of debate. I am often frustrated and embarrassed for those who find themselves in a proverbial Mexican standoff, clueless about how to make any progress or how to bring resolution to such discussions.Stratnerd said:There are two professional and published scientists on this board, AHarvey and myself, and look at our reaction to these questions.
Ignore what? (Kidding). I'm sorry to lay this on you. (Not really). The very statement, "I just choose to ignore it," the very act or effort you put into ignoring it, affirms it loud and clear, because without the Background Noise (which is starting to grow on me, by the way), you could not make any statement, let alone an intelligible one.Stratnerd said:Jim will claim that it is True if I buy it or not but I do buy on some “deep” level I just choose to ignore it.
I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.Stratnerd said:Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.
If the laws of logic are but a human construct, then they are no longer laws If everything is just matter in motion, which is the necessary implication of Evolutionistic Methodogical Naturalism, then the so-called "laws of logic" become merely brain states. But if they're merely brain states, then they can't be laws, because what happens in one man's brain does not legislate over what is in another man's brain, nor does it necessarily correspond with what happens in the brain of another. If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"? On what rational basis does one proceed through life on the assumption that such a transitive description should be taken as true in general? If the laws of logic are merely sociological constructs, then anyone can arbitrarily stipulate their own laws by claiming contradictions are factual truths, that question-begging is legitimate argumentation, that it's OK to be irrational, etc. But no one comes to a debate or reads a debate expecting the participants to behave or to think that way. Nor is it expected that they should first sit down and agree upon logical constructs. When we step up to debate, it is already assumed that the laws of logic are universal, invariant and necessary for discursive thought and rational discourse.Stratnerd said:I cannot make sense of the question “what is the source of logic” since logic, to me, is a human construct.
Then please consider the following links:Stratnerd said:As for the uniformity of nature, as someone that studies ecology and understanding evolution – I don’t know what uniformity you’re talking about.
Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that? Without induction, Stratnerd wouldn't be able to understand the words of this sentence. He would have no reason to assume the symbols before his eyes had any meaning whatsoever, let alone representing actual words and thoughts, let alone having any confidence that the meanings of the words represent the thoughts of the person who originally typed them. For help on the meaning of "induction," please consider the following links:Stratnerd said:
This is exactly the point. The reason they work so well, despite the Methodological Naturalists ability to account for them, is that God is the powerful, personal, volitional and purposeful "Background Noise" to every breath, to every movement and to everything that exists in creation. The fact that the laws of logic, the permutations of mathematics, and the tool and methods of science have repeated success in the world is that God sustains the orderly working of the universe by His power and will. That is to say, the Methodological Naturalist breathes God's air, moves God's molecules and applies God's logic whenever he does his science, and thereby unwittingly hijacks the Creationist tools and methods, unconsciously steps into the shoes of the Creationist in order to make sense of science and his experience in the world.Stratnerd said:Well, our magical axioms and our blind faith in them works exceedingly well.
Hilston said:How do we know what we know? What I've attempted to do, and will continue to strive toward, is a clear understanding of Stratnerd's underlying assumptions about reality….This is why I continue to ask him to justify his tools and methods of knowing.
Note that the phrase, "I use what works," is question-begging in the extreme. Here is the importance of justifying one's so-called "axioms." In order to that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it. This is what the Methodological Naturalist is left with. It's like using one's own eyes in isolation to test for colorblindness.Stratnerd said:Simple, I use what works.
HQ24:For example?Stratnerd said:How do I know something works? I look at the philosophies and methods that make the greatest advances in science.
HQ25:For clarity, is Stratnerd here saying that he is skeptical of induction and methodological naturalism? Didn't Stratnerd elsewhere say ...Stratnerd said:Skepticism of induction and methodological naturalism (not ontological naturalism) have been essential to these advances.
Stratnerd said:Explanations are tentative… not the tools and methods. I hope I never implied it because I do not feel that way. The tools and methods of science, methodological naturalism, skepticism, logic, falsification (and now the information-theoretic framework) have a long history of success in our understanding of the world.
Hilston said:Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the uniformity of nature, which cannot be tested without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption does not come under the purview of Methodological Naturalism, Evolution fails as science on this point.
When we are talking about justifying one's tools and methods, the result is that scientists who can justify their tools and methods (Creationists) have justified knowledge. Whereas scientists who cannot justify their tools (Methodological Naturalists), do not have justified knowledge. As I've said before, both Creationist scientists and Evolutionist scientists do science in that they employ the tools and methods of science. They both have success and can arrive at true knowledge in the work that they do. The difference is that the former has a worldview in which those successes make sense. The latter does not, and must pretend to be Creationists to do science, all the while appealing to a manufactured myth.Stratnerd said:Substitute genetics, physiology, physics, cosmology, cytology, histology, etc for Evolution. In a very tortured way you are arguing that all sciences fail as being science.
Methodological Naturalism is thus self-refuting, because Methodological Naturalism is itself an extra-natural stipulation, and it employs tools and methods that cannot be justified without appealing to the supernatural (i.e., extra-natural), which Methodological Naturalism explicitly excludes.Stratnerd said:Let me put this simply; MN [Methodological Naturalism] is the exclusion of supernatural explanations.
The very concepts involved in recognizing biodiversity -- the perception of distinctions, the use of logical inference, the applications of the tools and methods of science -- are all extra-natural, abstract principles. The explanation itself is extra-natural in that it invokes the extra-natural abstract principles of perception and inference, which undermines the exclusion of the extra-natural. The same goes for gravity, ecology, genetics, physiology, physic, cosmology, cytology, etc.Stratnerd said:Evolution is an explanation for biodiversity that excludes the supernatural.
Gravitational acceleration is an extra-natural concept. We see instances of it, but the principle itself is extra-natural. The mathematics used to calculate gravitational acceleration are extra-natural. Similar examples could be given about all fields of science. The extra-natural is inextricably embedded in the scientific enterprise. Methodological Naturalism is a contradiction.Stratnerd said:Gravity is an explanation that excludes the supernatural. Explanations from ecology, genetics, physiology, physics, cosmology, cytology, etc etc etc are all based on MN [Methodological Naturalism].
Were it not for that which "working scientists" (as if they're some kind of elite class of people) consider "background noise," science would be impossible. Stratnerd admitted this when he said, "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction – but induction is speculation and we don’t know if this new idea is worth anything until it proves its mettle." As men of science, it should not suffice to merely relegate the wonder of the tools and methods to "background noise." Indeed, it is irrational to do so.Stratnerd said:To reduce this down to arguments about the source of logic, uniformity, etc is fruitless, get you know where and is like background noise for working scientists.
Hilston said:Induction cannot be falsified without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption is not falsifiable, Evolution fails as science on this point as well.
This is what concerns me. As a working scientist, you must have studied these things. As a man who respects science and rationality, you must have asked the pertinent questions about induction and what justifies its use in the scientific enterprise. For you to claim it is merely "background noise" is alarming.Stratnerd said:This leaves me scratching my head – what the heck are you talking about? Do you know?
The appeal to uniformity is extra-natural. We don't find uniformity growing in certain climates but not in others. Uniformity is an extra-natural concept. It is abstract in character. Induction is not something you can collect and store in mason jars in your cellar. Scientists appeal to the inductive principle whenever they do science. It is not perceived as a concrete entity, but is rather abstract in character, not found in nature, and therefore, extra-natural.Stratnerd said:Another puzzle is the claim that scientists are appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Really? What? How can scientists can be appealing to an “extra-natural” principle when, by their vary nature are “removing God from the equation”? Very odd.
Hilston said:If the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, as it claims to be, then one should rightly expect that whatever the Bible says about nature, about cosmogony, about anthropology, about biology, etc. would be accurate and true because the testimony came from the One who created it all and sustains it all.
God's inerrant and infallible Word is the very foundation of all your reasoning and science. Therefore, on what rational basis could one "test" the claims of the Bible and declare them bunk? The very formulation of the statement is Creationistic in that no other worldview can make human experience intelligible.Stratnerd said:of course if it ain’t we can test the claims and declare them bunk when they fail.
Hilston said:If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is God's inerrant/infallible Word, then it follows that the Creator has exclusive prerogative to determine and declare through His Book what is and is not reality.
Stratnerd misses the point. Without the God of the Bible, there is no discovering of anything, let alone ascertaining what is reality. The very tools and methods by which discoveries happen make no sense in a universe that is only matter in motion.Stratnerd said:yup, “if” and if we do not blindly accept this assertion we will have to discover what reality is
Hilston said:When pressed to explain and justify the basic tools of life that we all take for granted, or to give a basic account of where life originated or how things have become the way they are, the Evolutionist must resort to an invented ad-hoc story that reaches back into an imagined, unobserved past, passed on to subsequent generations by way of blind tradition, the basic premises of which are not to be questioned, but ignorantly assumed and embraced, lest the very fabric of so-called science be torn asunder. This is the stuff of myth and legend, not science.
Again, Stratnerd misses the point of the Bible's "grandiose claim." Without the God of Creationism, scientists couldn't do "what scientists do." Neither could Evolutionists, biologists, the scientific community, nor the cable guy.Stratnerd said:LOL, very grandiose indeed. I thought Evolutionists, any scientist really, posited hypotheses that are to be tested. Where did you get this skewed and erroneous view of biology and of science? You obviously don’t know the scientific community very well and have no idea what scientists do.
SQ23: Then why do keep detecting and creating randomness?Hilston said:The latter. Randomness does not exist in nature. It is merely a theoretical construct.
I don't claim that Creationism is science, just as I don't agree that Evolutionism is science. There are creationists who do science, and there are evolutionists who do science. But as overarching perspectives of reality, neither Creationism nor Evolutionism is actual science.Stratnerd said:Why is making predictions about creationism relevant? Well, if falsification is a necessary part of science and you can’t come up with a means to falsify your claims then you aren’t doing science and creation scientists cannot exist.
Of course.Stratnerd said:By your standards of science their might be creationist scientists but so is the secretary that does the payroll and the guy that picks up trash.
Hilston said:God created the animals and distinguished them from plants and other non-living matter. As animals, they would have defining characteristics, such as being sentient, defined as "1. Having sense perception; conscious. 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." Being able to move would be another. ... the Creationist recognizes that nothing would or can exist without the supernatural, namely God, holding all things together and sustaining the natural order and the uniformity, which God, by His creative and sustaining power, imposes upon creation.
This is a noteworthy unwitting concession on the part of my opponent. He would rather presume intellectual autonomy and use his imagination to come up with anything in order to avoid the Creator-God to as the explanation of sentient life, all the while presuming upon the Creationist conception of reality by using the tools and methods of science.Stratnerd said:Or you’ve just reached the limits of your imagination.
Hilston said:Either a Personal and Powerful Creator made and sustains all that exists, or it's magic.
To which Stratnerd replied:Hilston said:All people use the tools of logic and the methods of science to varying degrees. Some are more successful than others, for reasons unrelated to whether or not they are Creationists. The point is, all else equal, the Creationist alone can do science with a justified general confidence, whereas the Evolutionist, as you admitted above, must ever be tentative even about the tools and methods he uses to do his science.
Stratnerd said:yes, and?
HQ26: I'm merely looking for clarity and understanding. What did Stratnerd mean by his earlier statements?Stratnerd said:Explanations are tentative… not the tools and methods. I hope I never implied it because I do not feel that way. The tools and methods of science, methodological naturalism, skepticism, logic, falsification (and now the information-theoretic framework) have a long history of success in our understanding of the world.
It is fascinating to me how often non-Theists will readily criticize what they view as circularity in the views of others, but seem to utterly fail in seeing it in their own view. The reliability of knowledge is grounded linearly, not circularly, in the existence of God. The reliability of knowledge is not used to directly prove the existence of God, therefore the justification of knowledge is not circular. However, note that the Methodological Naturalist circularly presumes to use the tools of science to justify the tools of science ("It works"), and does not even attempt to justify them.Stratnerd said:In this case reliable knowledge is defined by the self-insulating episteme of creationism. And how do you know this knowledge is reliable without jumping on a circular track of arguments?
Yet Stratnerd is apparently undaunted by his own circularities, using the tools of science to justify the tools of science, which were somehow spawned from some mindless, purposeless magical source.Stratnerd said:True though, if you presuppose the Bible is inerrant then you are immune to contrary evidence. Although that’s a very comforting position to take (your worldview can’t be wrong), I find it very dissatisfying.
The tools of science would be the universal laws of logic and mathematics, as well as the particular applications of our sensory faculties and our reasoning abilities. The methods of science would be the collection and observation of data, the formulation of hypotheses, the testing of hypotheses, then rejection or support of hypotheses, and the publishing of findings for the benefit of the scientific community.Stratnerd said:What tools and methods are you referring to?
Not really. The success of methodological naturalism (and falsification) by (1) various scientists and (2) it’s ability to discover new and explain new phenomena justify it’s use and this is nothing like testing your own eyes in isolation. Why does it work? Natural explanations are adequate for explaining natural phenomena. Science doesn’t seek Truth only accurate descriptions of natural phenomena and the accuracy is judge by the ability to incorporate new cases.Note that the phrase, "I use what works," is question-begging in the extreme. Here is the importance of justifying one's so-called "axioms." In order to that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it. This is what the Methodological Naturalist is left with. It's like using one's own eyes in isolation to test for colorblindness.Simple, I use what works.
Only in a debate or argument. However, in the world of science, insulating explanations of the natural world are an abomination. The way we have confidence in explanations is that they are open to testing and are self-critical. Like Popper said, explanations (those arrived at inductively) need to “prove their mettle”. And on a personal level, I would hate to have absolute faith in something like that – I would always get the creepy feeling like I might be totally deceived. I feel like the arguments that Jim puts forth sets him up perfectly to deceive himself.Insulation against error is a good thing,
A person that never sees himself as being wrong has always come across to as the person most likely to be wrong.thus it isn't rationally possible for data, duly interpreted, to conflict with the Creationist worldview.
So where’s the mention of rapid ice ages in the text?SQ21: where’s does the text suggest a rapid ice age? If it wasn’t there are you still going to insist that it wasn’t invented?
HA_SQ21: The young earth thesis (Creationism) coupled with observed phenomena currently in the world suffices to suggest a rapid ice age.
Genesis 1:6 = God says let there be creation of landSQ22: Where in the Bible is super tectonics, rapid ice age, water vapor canopy, super light speed, super speciation mentioned?
HQ_SQ22: Genesis 1:6,7,14, 21-25 10:25,32 1Chronicles 1:19
There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition.
SQ34 the question that is “begged” is “how does divine fiat work to manifest objects out of nothingness?HQ_SQ23:There is no need to make a prediction about how God created a horse; it is known. He made it by supernatural divine fiat. The details of the method transcend human comprehension
Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. This is what I was referring to as “local”. Jim takes this and forces us to believe that MN extends to the “global” or universal and essentially equates MN with ontological naturalism.The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration.
We are not asking where logic comes from or if God exists. We simply want to know why there might be a certain proportion of herbivores to producers. I provide “local” hypotheses. Lest, I be accused of changing definitions, I’m merely attempting to clarify.Originally Posted by Stratnerd
For example: here are a number of explanations that you can rationalize for the primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm
a. nutrient levels available to the producers
b. population dynamics of the producers
c. population dynamics of the herbivores
d. population dynamics of the predators
It is a category error to include God as a primary regulator.
side note? What you are saying is that methodological naturalism is valid, up to a point, and then is no longer valid? No doubt, Jim will repeat the mantra that MN excludes the supernatural so MN can’t be justifiably used because it doesn’t account for the uniformity of nature, induction, logic, etc. But MN doesn’t care about the origin of these, like I’ve been saying, it’s like background noise. In the present case it only cares about how to explain how biological communities are structured. I imagine that Jim, as a lawyer could get a criminal case dismissed because the prosecutor admitted that he was using methodological naturalism to link the suspect to the case therefore his whole case was built on an irrational worldview. My point is things like logic work regardless of your worldview and can successfully describe the world around us.As a side note, such miraculous event do not occur presently, for theological reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.
Really? And how does this hypothetical cause and effect work to get a “true” explanation? How does logic cause a true explanation? [what is a true explanation anyway?]Of course it is a hypothesis! The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.
In your world-view you don’t allow for uniformity except in your worldview which is the only explanation for uniformity because you don’t allow for uniformity in other worldviews because your worldview is the only explanation for uniformity, and so on. Rinse. Repeat.“universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness”
The following statements were:HQ23: I must ask: Do you now retract the following statements?
SA_H23. No. I’d have to buy your argument but I don’t.Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work.
Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.
SQ35 There is no answer in this response what or why we should test.HA_SQ30.2: Faith in induction is necessary for testing anything and everything. You can't conduct a test without faith in induction. The question is: Is such a faith in induction justified? For the Creationist, it is. For the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist, it's not. Not only so, but the E/MN must presume upon the Creationist worldview in order to make sensible use of induction.
I have every confidence in the methods of science.
HA_SQ30.3: I'm fine with falsification as a tool; I just don't agree with defining science that way.
HQ26: I'm merely looking for clarity and understanding. What did Stratnerd mean by his earlier statements?I'm confused concerning Stratnerd's view of the tools and methods of science. I need to understand why the following statements by Stratnerd seem so contradictory.
This is what concerns me. As a working scientist, you must have studied these things. As a man who respects science and rationality, you must have asked the pertinent questions about induction and what justifies its use in the scientific enterprise. For you to claim it is merely "background noise" is alarming.
SA_HQ24. Relativity. Structure of DNA.
]claims and the necessary underpinnings and implications of those claims. I have no problem with Stratnerd's definition. What I have a problem with is Stratnerd's refusal to acknowledge the necessary foundation and ramifications of the agreed-upon definition.
of course Jim will continue to misrepresent evolution. Is this surprising to anyone?What I will not do, however, is bury my head in the sand next to Stratnerd's in order to pretend that his definition of Evolution does not impose grave, irrational demands upon its proponents, or does not impose significant, far-reaching and incoherent ramifications by its claims.
Right and methodological naturalism and falsification is part of every scientific pursuit so… no science is science.When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific. When one proffers a proposition that ventures outside or beyond the reach of the scientific method, then it is no longer science.
Sure, absolutely. But all hypotheses are conjecture. Nobody observes population regulation, what structures biological communities, chemical reactions, and, previously, molecular structure. Historical hypotheses are no different.on the surface level of his question, Stratnerd has posed something isn't about science. Extrapolations into the unobserved past, whether by avian biologists or geologists, about mutations rates, avian populations and the ages of rocks are conjecture at best.
Not so serious but real example: I often lose my keys. A rational explanation is that they fell out of my pocket and are sitting on my truck seat. I go to my truck and the keys are not there (case 1) Another rational answer is that the keys are in my shirt pocket (I hate wearing shirts with no pockets) and the keys are not there (wrong again!). The keys are actually still sitting in the door but I never even thought of it but there they are, in plain sight (a perfectly rational and correct explanation but I didn’t think of it).
[SQ37] why? Are you saying that natural laws are real things that are out there for us to discover? Or are they descriptions of nature created by humans?If the laws of logic are but a human construct, then they are no longer laws If everything is just matter in motion,
Brains do not experience “A = B, B=C, therefore A=C” so they cannot be experienced differently by different people.If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"?
The relevant definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (working without internet access) of induction is “3.a. The act or process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances”. That’s what I’m talking about. What in the world is Jim talking about?Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that?
Your data is the Bible? You’re right I do dismiss this “data” since it’s a mere assertion. I was hoping you might have a letter of Darwin’s. Another reason to reject this assertion is that many “philosophers” in Darwin’s time saw the study of nature as firsthand revelation of God’s handiwork.SQ32b: Specifically, you made this claim about Darwin and claimed to know the incentive for him putting forth evolution. Got data?
HA_SQ32b: Yes, but again, the data would be dismissed. The Bible says all men know God, but those who reject Him deliberately push Him away. They search for reasons to disregard Him and presume their own autonomy in order to do so.
The Sun circles the earth. Or the chair that broke. I don’t claim to have infinite knowledge – if I did I wouldn’t need induction.SQ19.1: Since when is induction reliable?
HA_SQ19.1: Since the universe was created.
HQ_SQ19.1]: Can you give an instance of when induction has failed? (I can't believe I'm asking this).
So in theory, induction is never wrong because you’re always armed with the right knowledge. I’ll have to say that situation does not exist for us mere mortal so we must test our induction.I think Stratnerd is confusing the principle of induction, which is the focus of my question, with particular applications of induction. We must not confuse the principle itself, which is necessary for making human experience intelligible, and certain cases where human application seems to fail. When I sit in a chair without testing it first, I've employed the inductive principle. When the chair collapses, induction hasn't failed me. My information about the structural integrity of the chair is what was lacking. Induction would inform me that the structural integrity of the chair had been compromised since the last time I sat in it. Induction would also inform me that a similar chair with similar structural problems would similarly collapse.
SA_HQ20b. Given that you could ask an infinite series of “and rationalize that” it seems pointless to answer.HQ20: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert the principle of Occam's Razor?
SA_HQ20: Parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation.
HQ20b: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert that parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation?
Again, this means nothing other than the limitations of your imagination and ignoring the fact that rationalization does not imply reality. So you do just need to believe it.SQ7: [but related to the questions above] Can you back up this assertion? Do just have to believe it?
HA_SQ7. I don't see a rational alternative
But you presuppose God. And simply say that you can’t rationalize God because of his transcendence. So the very basis of your argument is irrational.It is fascinating to me how often non-Theists will readily criticize what they view as circularity in the views of others, but seem to utterly fail in seeing it in their own view. The reliability of knowledge is grounded linearly, not circularly, in the existence of God.
Consider the following statement by T.H. Morgan:Stratnerd said:The best test of a hypothesis, especially a historical hypothesis is congruence among independent lines of data.
Yet, immediately above we see that a foundational plank of Evolution is inherently flawed and fails to meet Stratnerd's criteria of testability and observation.Stratnerd said:This is exactly how E/evolution works. Scientists posit relationships and mechanism of evolution and these are tested by experiments and observations.
Note that Stratnerd's statement is philosophical in nature, and as such, it is not materialistic or "natural." It is a self-refuting claim.Stratnerd said:Why does [Methodological Naturalism] work? Natural explanations are adequate for explaining natural phenomena.
Whenever someone makes such a statement, the question must be asked: Is that true? Is it true that science does not seek Truth? Would not accurate descriptions of natural phenomena be considered "true" descriptions? These types of word games are common, at least in my experience. I had an Anthropology instructor make the same claim: "We're not interested in Truth; we're interested in the facts," as if to throw the Creationist off the trail by putting an upper-case "T" on the word "Truth" and artificially distinguishing it from "accurate descriptions." Nevermind that facts are meaningless apart from a context with which to interpret and to apply them. Nevermind that there is a true and a false way to interpret and to apply facts.Stratnerd said:Science doesn’t seek Truth only accurate descriptions of natural phenomena and the accuracy is judge by the ability to incorporate new cases.
Anti-Creationist thinking destroys science by rendering it arbitrary and by reducing it to philosophical absurdity. Only the Creationist can rationally do science. That is not to say that the anti-Creationist can't do science, but he cannot do so rationally.Stratnerd said:Jim’s creation science includes all sciences as long as the practitioner is a creationist.
Please consider: I have a worldview that says God is the Creator of the universe, that He created this universe in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, that the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible message to mankind. Is my view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! Any hypothesis that requires acceptance of an old earth is rejected as contrary to God's Word, and therefore contrary to science. Stratnerd has a worldview that says the universe is random matter in motion, yet nature behaves in a uniform way that can be correctly understood by strictly naturalistic methods. Is his view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! He refuses to even entertain the question of how he justifies his assumptions about nature and his method of science: A perfectly insulated worldview.Stratnerd said:However, I think we both agree that creationism itself and all the subsequent explanations that it attempts to incorporate (e.g., origin of biodiversity) is not scientific because it cannot be falsified – a perfectly insulated worldview.
Note that the anti-Creationist is not open to testing or being self-critical about their hypothesis of knowledge. Again, the Evolutionist betrays his special pleading and arbitrariness by stipulating requirements that he will not apply to his own hypothesis of knowledge.Stratnerd said:The way we have confidence in explanations is that they are open to testing and are self-critical.
Does Stratnerd ever get the creepy feeling like he might be totally deceived about Methodological Naturalism?Stratnerd said:Like Popper said, explanations (those arrived at inductively) need to “prove their mettle”. And on a personal level, I would hate to have absolute faith in something like that – I would always get the creepy feeling like I might be totally deceived.
I did NOT say that the Creationist "never see himself as being wrong." What I am saying is, when the Creationist finds out that he is wrong, he has a reliable foundation (God's existence and the laws that reflect His character) upon which to assess his error and to proceed toward correcting it or finding a better explanation. The Methodological Naturalist does not.A person that never sees himself as being wrong has always come across to as the person most likely to be wrong.
Without getting into what Stratnerd means by "Biblical literalism" (e.g. I do NOT believe Jesus' statement "I am the Door" meant that He was made of wood and hinges), there are no instances where the principle of uniformity clashes with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, the uniformity of nature and the regularity of nature are prerequisite to miracles. If there were no regularity, then nothing could be ascertained as miraculous. If there were no uniformity, there would be no knowledge or learning whatsoever by which to ascertain anything.Stratnerd said:Yet how can [the Principle of Uniformity] be reconciled with instances that directly clash with his Biblical literalism.
What does that then suggest? From a Biblical perspective, the nuclear decay rates obviously were not constant through time. Furthermore, the Methodological Naturalist has no justifiable grounds on which to even talk about "rates," because the very notion suggests the uniformity of nature, which is contrary to the Evolutionist's view of random chance processes in a universe comprising matter in motion.Stratnerd said:Nuclear decay rates, if constant through time suggest an Earth billions of years old.
The Bible says there are limits. I don't make any claims on my own authority.Stratnerd said:We know that mutations accumulate and result in phenotypic changes yet Jim says that there are limits.
Hilston said:HA_SQ21: The young earth thesis (Creationism) coupled with observed phenomena currently in the world suffices to suggest a rapid ice age.
It is inferred. Believing in Evolution requires contradicting the Bible, which the rational Creationist will not do.Stratnerd said:So where’s the mention of rapid ice ages in the text?
It is inferred. For me to accept Evolution, I would have to contradict the teaching of the Bible regarding a young earth. The evidence that the ice age occurred, combined with the observation that we are not currently in an ice age, draws out the conclusion that the ice age was rapid.Stratnerd said:I didn’t see any mention of rapid ice ages ...
The waters above the firmament describe the WVC. Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.Stratnerd said:... water vapor canopy, ...
It is inferred. See example of ice age, above.Stratnerd said:... or super light speed. ...
This is a common but unfounded claim. Consider the following: Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.Stratnerd said:Super speciation is used to account for the number of extant species and how Noah could logistically take care of millions of species and that’s not mentioned in there.
Of course.Stratnerd said:So it was a few thousand years ago that continents moved to their present positions within a lifetime?
See what I mean? Stratnerd is using his own definition of "question begging" to describe what I said, but then applies my (normative) definition to my statement in order to critique it. Stratnerd then quotes me: "There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition. ...Stratnerd said:Originally I said “He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it) ...
Let's see. They "exist in the mind," but are not "extra-natural?" If the laws of logic are natural, as Stratnerd asserts, we should be able to open up someone's "mind" (wherever that is) and scrape out the laws of logic and put them in a beaker. I find it discouraging that after six rounds of discussion, we are still having to clarify basic concepts of reality.Stratnerd said:So I reject that the five senses delineate the supernatural. Like logic, the workings of mathematics are abstractions that exist in the mind and are not “extra-natural”.
You've got to be kidding me. Have you ever tripped over a quotient? Perhaps you've found some modus ponens in your pants pocket that went through the wash? Did you ever spill a jar of syllogisms? Or perhaps you've sprinkled some 2s on your spaghetti? I hate it when I get pi stuck between my teeth.Stratnerd said:Therefore, all the arguments where Jim suggests the tools (such as logic and mathematics) are “extra-natural” are not valid.
OK, fine. What do you call the law of non-contradiction? Is it physical? Tangible? Natural? "Natural"? Earlier you called mathematics an "abstraction," which is the opposite of "concrete." What is an abstraction, if not "extra-natural"?Stratnerd said:The supernatural, to me, is the workings of a supernatural entity and is obvious when the “laws” of physics and biology are suspended. I call them miracles ...
This is the work of the Creator. He is able to manifest fire, while sustaining the molecular integrity of the bush. No laws are broken. Regularity is interrupted, but no laws are broken.Stratnerd said:– the Bible is replete with examples where “natural laws” no longer apply. Examples include, bushes burning without loss of mass and talk, ...
Moses spoke for God, Who, through His power and volition, caused a great wind to blow the waters apart and to accelerate the drying of the seabed. No natural laws were broken.Stratnerd said:... a man splits a sea with a staff, ...
It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; the tree and its fruit were symbolic. The fruit did not actually impart knowledge or cause their spiritual death.Stratnerd said:... fruit imparts knowledge, ...
Lazarus and Jesus were not zombies. Their blood was restored, their organs repaired, their bodies were fully functional after being resurrected. No natural laws were broken.Stratnerd said:... men rise from the dead ...
The Greek says that Jesus and Peter actually walked upon the surface of the water, meaning that God somehow caused the water to support their weight. This does not require the breaking of natural law, but rather the manipulation of molecular structure. Etc.Stratnerd said:... and walk on water, etc.
And so continues the irrational belief that scientific tools and methods have anything whatever to do with reality on the basis of blind, purposeless, random chance and matter in motion. This is the epistemological loafer dressed up in Creationist clothes, presuming to use God's tools and to breathe God's air.Stratnerd said:Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.
Interestingly, Stratnerd seemed to understand exactly the kind of distinction I was trying to make, which was betrayed by his qualification between "local" and "global."Stratnerd said:Not sure that a category error is or what a primary regulator is but this sounds like the functional aspect of methodological naturalism.
More epistemological loafing. The Evolutionist wants to ask questions (which would be impossible in a random chance universe) and to use reason to discover and to know things, but he ignores the foundation of learning and knowledge.Stratnerd said:We are not asking where logic comes from or if God exists. We simply want to know why there might be a certain proportion of herbivores to producers.
But it's not. It can't be. If you leave God out of the equation, you have no such thing as reason or knowledge, let alone the concept of "regulate."Stratnerd said:Since we do not know how God may regulate communities we cannot test it. So it’s left out.
It's the wrong question. You do know. Every time you have a coherent thought and type a coherent sentence, God's existence is screamed at you.Stratnerd said:We do not claim that God doesn’t – indeed he might. How would we know?
This is false. The concept of Methodological Naturalism is inherently Godless and irrational. When the Creationist employs logic, balances his checkbook, learns to speak a new language, etc., he recognizes that God is behind all regularity, uniformity, logic, knowledge and the tools of science. He does not, like the Evolutionist, pretend the extra-natural is irrelevant or doesn't exist. Rather, he knows that his knowledge and science are grounded in the existence of the extra-natural.Stratnerd said:So, Jim utilizes the concept of MN until it conflicts with his self-insulating worldview.
The use of logic can generate true explanations. For example, my keys are missing. I find my keys between the cushions of the couch. What is the explanation? They fell out of my pocket while I was sitting on the couch. Thus, logic can generate a true explanation. This is how MN is a hypothesis. The Evolutionist posits a causal relationship between MN and true explanations. Of course, it's not a justified hypothesis, and thus fails as science. In fact, it reduces science to radical skepticism and philosophical absurdity.Stratnerd said:And how does this hypothetical cause and effect work to get a “true” explanation? How does logic cause a true explanation? [what is a true explanation anyway?]
This is false. The very concept of "explanation" is extra-natural, and presupposes the existence and attributes of God. To exclude the extra-natural from consideration of the natural is inherently irrational.Stratnerd said:There’s no conflict between belief in a supernatural diety and needing natural explanations for natural phenomena.
That statement contradicts the following:Stratnerd said:The scientist need not make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist – he or she or it can even posit the workings of the supernatural at work. (Emph. added)
And later, Stratnerd wrote:Stratnerd said:Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work. (Emph. added)
In Round 6, Stratnerd writes:Stratnerd said:Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.
Stratnerd said:Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.
It is noteworthy that Stratnerd has insulated his worldview from explanations of the extra-natural world. Again, this is special pleading.Stratnerd said:However, in the world of science, insulating explanations of the natural world are an abomination.
It is not a rational explanation if they're not there. Rationality did not fail you. You have a lack of justified information.Stratnerd said:Not so serious but real example: I often lose my keys. A rational explanation is that they fell out of my pocket and are sitting on my truck seat.
Again, rationality has not failed you. You were working with insufficient data.Stratnerd said:I go to my truck and the keys are not there (case 1) Another rational answer is that the keys are in my shirt pocket (I hate wearing shirts with no pockets) and the keys are not there (wrong again!).
Not "a" rational and correct explanation, but "the" rational explanation. Suppose someone had followed you around and recorded your every movement. Suppose you said to that person, "I've misplaced my keys. A rational explanation might be that I left them in my shirt pocket." He would reply, "No, it's not a rational explanation, because you did not put your keys in your shirt pocket." Etc.Stratnerd said:The keys are actually still sitting in the door but I never even thought of it but there they are, in plain sight (a perfectly rational and correct explanation but I didn’t think of it).
It was neither based on sound reason nor the testimony of the Bible. That is a myth concocted by anti-theists and their ilk in an effort to repudiate the Bible.Stratnerd said:A more serious example, at one time human kind thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth – an explanation for the rising and setting of the Sun that was based on sound reason and the clear testimony of the Bible. Sound familiar?
I'm baffled by this statement. If the Laws of logic can be modified, then why aren't there myriads approaches to scholarship? If the Laws of logic can be tailor-fitted to "new and contrary data" (as if such qualifiers as "new" and "contrary" could make any sense apart from existing universal, invariant Laws), then why does not every textbook, every published paper, every scholarly publication have a preface explaining the kind of logic that will be employed in that work? The idea that the Laws of logic can be modified is naive and contrary to every sphere of human experience.Stratnerd said:I prefer the latter – that way we can always modify our descriptions when new and contrary data become available.
Absolutely naive. I can't believe what I'm reading.Stratnerd said:If natural laws exist and we become committed to them then we end up needing to artificially explain away these contrary cases. You will have a very comfortable position of always being right but then you run the risk of completely deceiving yourself.
Exactly, the abstract description is not experienced by the brain. It's happening as you read these words. Individual cases of the abstract principle are experienced all the time, even this very moment. If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"?Stratnerd said:Brains do not experience “A = B, B=C, therefore A=C” so they cannot be experienced differently by different people.
Hilston responded: Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that?Stratnerd said:
Dr. Stratford!!! You're using induction to write the sentence "What in the world is Jim talking about?" You just claimed that you "believe in no such thing [as the reliability of induction]." Were you concerned that the verb in that previous sentence was not going to be a verb this time around? Of course not, because you trust induction. Is this really the same person I started debating 20 days ago?Stratnerd said:The relevant definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (working without internet access) of induction is “3.a. The act or process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances”. That’s what I’m talking about. What in the world is Jim talking about?
The fact that think induction is suspect merely because an inductively derived hypothesis has been falsified shows that you have not given due consideration to the very tools you presume to use, not only in your science, but in every thinking moment of your life. I am frankly flabbergasted that I've gotten six rounds into this debate and I'm only now discovering the utter naivete with which I'm dealing on these most basic and foundational matters of science. Un. Believable.Stratnerd said:Yes, science would stall if not for induction. However, induction is by no means a road to “truth”. It provides a tentative explanation that needs to be tested (i.e., we do our best to falsify it). If a particular inductively-derived explanation stands up to falsification then we can have greater confidence in that explanation (no need to keep testing chairs so to speak). If an explanation is falsified then it gets dumped as an explanation despite being perfectly rational (e.g., the Sun circling the earth).
Sure there were. But it cannot be denied that the culture of Darwin's time was ripe for Darwinism before the book was published. Consider the thinkers of that time and their influence declared by history. Such men as Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Goethe, Krause, Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Diderot, LaMettrie, d'Holbach, Buchner, and Schleiermacher, Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Chambers, Spencer, and Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (a so-called "freethinker"). So eager were men to dismiss the notion of the Creator that the culture was primed to leap at the chance to believe something ostensibly scientific in order to no longer need God. Darwin was strongly influenced by "freethinkers" as he rode the crest of a wave of anti-Creationist thinking. Various events of his life indubitably played a role in his repudiation of the God of the Bible. The fact that the Origin of Species completely sold out the day it was released is strongly indicative of the cultural milieu of nineteenth-century England.Stratnerd said:I was hoping you might have a letter of Darwin’s. Another reason to reject this assertion is that many “philosophers” in Darwin’s time saw the study of nature as firsthand revelation of God’s handiwork.
No. The verity of induction is independent of my or anyone's application of it. It is universal, invariant, independent. When our judgments fail, it is not induction that is to blame, but our own false assumptions or faulty data.Stratnerd said:So in theory, induction is never wrong because you’re always armed with the right knowledge.
No, if you're going to be rational, you have no choice. It isn't a matter of "just need to believe it." Rather, it's a matter of "What else are you left with, if you don't want to be irrational and believe in magic?"Stratnerd said:Again, this means nothing other than the limitations of your imagination and ignoring the fact that rationalization does not imply reality. So you do just need to believe it.
No, the basis of my argument is transcendent. That doesn't make God irrational; it makes God infinite. This should come as no surprise to you, Stratnerd. You should have anticipated this response from me, if I am to be consistent with my espoused beliefs.Stratnerd said:But you presuppose God. And simply say that you can’t rationalize God because of his transcendence. So the very basis of your argument is irrational.
Within a few words of my opening post I said:I am frankly flabbergasted that I've gotten six rounds into this debate and I'm only now discovering the utter naivete with which I'm dealing on these most basic and foundational matters of science. Un. Believable.
I do admit that I am not familiar with the lexicon of philosophy but Jim is completely wrong that I do not understand the foundations of science or how science works. This charge comes from someone that admits that they are “not a scientist by training or by profession, as the term is narrowly defined” and he’s leveling his crass assessment against someone that is a professional scientist – and a good one [one that can walk the walk (get published, get grants, win awards) and not just talk the talk (internet debates). The only thing Jim has shown is that he can talk the talk. Maybe he considers himself a scientist in his broad definition where people just think about and look at data. I previously used the term “working scientists”. Unlike what Jim alleges, I was not implying that working scientists are an elite group, rather I was using the term for people that are able to recognize subtleties of definitions, when definitions are apposite, and when they are inappropriate. Examples of our different takes on these definitions are found throughout the six previous rounds. These differences include “test”, “induction”, “hypothesis”. For those readers that are interested in how science works and how it does not I would refer to the works of Hull, Ruse, Popper. The context I used these terms is consistent with these philosophers and with the way that scientists around the world use them.Perhaps just as important as knowledge of evolution is a knowledge in philosophy[sic]. This is admittedly pathetic– worse that I am a Doctor philosophiae. I’ll do my best, hang in there.
So? Why should dictionaries or anyone care about your personal worldview? Or should definitions provide criteria for us to determine if something is or is not something? The question proposed to us was the issue of Evolution and if it was a subset of science. I have consistently used standard definitions of Evolution and of science. Anyone can see this. Jim’s tactic has been to use nonstandard criteria for defining science (whether one can or cannot “justify” their use of logic) and then compared this to a nonstandard definition of Evolution (one that includes ontological baggage). As I pointed out in my first point, if one can change definitions willy-nilly then one can accomplish any goal one wishes.For me to accept Evolution as true, I would have to contradict and deny my fundamental beliefs about reality.
So Jim could care less about definitions and insists on making more out of Evolution than what is called for. Not surprising.That is because Evolution is more than a mere definition about biological change; it is a philosophical vision.
Since “linguist revision” is not in any of my dictionaries, I assume that Jim means that I change definitions or I take words out of context, or I have an incomplete definition. If one examines how I define Evolution and science, one can find those definitions in textbooks, in the peer-reviewed literature, and in dictionaries. Jim, on the other hand, has a unique definition of science that is apparently defined by the ability to explain the origin of logic. This is the first case where Jim does his own linguist revisions. The other case is just as obvious. He defines Evolution with extra baggage; that baggage being the ontological implications of Evolutionary theory primarily ontological naturalism. He defines evolution as a worldview, no, he insists on it. Yet you will not find such a definition of Evolution in any text or dictionary.As I demonstrated in several quotes of Evolutionists, Stratnerd's vociferous denials are tantamount to linguistic revision.
He calls the quotes "errors." I call it history; and connecting the proverbial dots.
Dots indeed. Interpreting Jim’s comments, I assume that he is saying that belief in Evolution (dot A) necessitates (draws a line to) an antheist worldview (dot B). This is necessary in Jim’s worldview because his truth claims on the origin of biodiversity (Genesis = reality) overlap with that explained by Evolution. He will deny it until he turns blue but other worldviews make no such demands; one can be a Christian and an Evolutionist. You can believe in God, Jesus, miracles and not take Genesis literally. It is not a dichotomy (God or Evolution) as Jim would like you to believe. And you don’t believe it, do you? If they undermine the Truth of the Bible then bummer for the Bible.Stratnerd then refers to theistic Evolutionists that he knows, as if the existence of people holding mutually exclusive ideas suffices to prove that Evolution somehow isn't a worldview. Any professing theist who holds to Evolution has compromised the teachings of the Bible and undermines its Truth.
It would be silly of me to say that belief in Evolution does not have implications but where does Jim get off saying that you go from Evolution to “God is a joke and Jesus was a fake”? There is an evolutionary worldview (now watch this get taken out of context like methodological naturalism et al.) but only as far as that is claims that organisms have evolved. Darwin, Evolution’s most famous spokesperson, the biggest gun, says:Any Evolutionist who is not anti-Theistic has simply not adequately reflected on the implications of Evolutionism, nor have they taken the theory to its logical conclusions to fully consider how it ramifies in their worldview.
Actually “survival of the fittest” is an evolutionary hypothesis:Let's apply this logic to the Evolutionary hypothesis, referred to as "survival of the fittest."
Defining evolution more narrowly, one can define it by the mechanisms that supposedly generate change. So that gives us change in populations through time (generations) via sexual recombination, mutation, lateral transfer in cahoots with genetic drift and natural (including sexual selection).
What are the independent criteria for fitness?
How can the fittest organisms be identified apart from those who survived?
That’s an interesting assertion but you provide no evidence of such a thing. The reality of the situation is that there is a great deal of theoretical and experimental work with these two aspects. A person with access to an academic search engine (e.g., Medline) will find a number of articles that examine the relationships between fitness (reproduction) and survival (staying alive).The Evolutionist worldview assumes that the survivor is the fittest by default, unscientifically.
Huh? Sure it is. In fact, the norm is numerous alleles or genotypes per loci. Because survivorship and fitness are dependent on environmental context we can experiment with different genotypes. This type of research occurs with AIDS where the different strains are present in the same individual (resistant and wild-type HIV). I am most familiar with the fruit fly research that looks at the effect of fitness on survivorship. In fact, this research shows the opposite of what Jim asserts – fruit flies with the highest fitness are the least likely to survive! Non-reproducing males live longer but because they have no offspring, the have no fitness.The fact is, it is not a testable hypothesis, because the organisms that did not survive are not around to be tested.
Fitness for survival? What the heck is that all about?Not only that, but the fittest organisms may not have survived for reasons that had nothing to do with their fitness for survival.
First, survival of the fittest is not and was never a “foundational plant of Evolution”. Secondly, we can experiment with fitness and survivorship.Yet, immediately above we see that a foundational plank of Evolution is inherently flawed and fails to meet Stratnerd's criteria of testability and observation.
I’ll define MN as the assumption that we can only test natural explanations – it does not make any claim, either way as to the existence of supernatural beings or effects. MN is limited to the question at hand and is an assumption that must be made to carry out science – much like the assumption of random sampling for an ANOVA or t-test.
Hardly! Either party could test their assertion with evidence. What Jim does make assertions and admits that none of his assertions (God as the source of logic, uniformity of nature, how God goes about creating) can be backed up with evidence. Evidence need not apply.Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
The Pneumatist believes in the existence of air and claims that all breathing depends on the air's existence and that without air, all breathing would be rendered impossible. The Apneumatist does not believe in the existence of air and claims that there is no evidence for the existence of air, and all the while he continues to breathe air. The Pneumatist points out to the Apneumatist the fact that, if air did not exist, he could not be breathing. But the Apneumatist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that my breathing would be impossible without air, because I AM in fact breathing!" This is the a similar scenario as we see in this debate.
What is this? The third time I need to repeat this? MN makes no claims about the supernatural – it only recognizes that one can only include naturalistic hypotheses because the supernatural does not work in a way that it could be incorporated.The Methodological Naturalist refuses to acknowledge the extra-natural
An assertion that, after six chances to do so, has yet to be backed up with some sort of evidence or syllogisms presented so a coherent examination of the arguments could be made.What we see in both of these scenarios is the failure to acknowledge the very foundation of what is being taken for granted. Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God.
Refuses? Or have I pointed out that your hypothesis are no hypothesis at all? At least not in any sense that science works. You don’t like the falsification criteria but most philosophers of science, most scientists, and myself could care less. Jim can make up your definitions of science willy-nilly but nobody will or should take it seriously. We need falsification to make sure or inductive reasoning is correct because, in the real world, we don’t have all the necessary information where the correct inductive conclusion will be made. History shows this over and over.Stratnerd insists on justification for one's hypotheses, yet when asked to apply his own requirement to the hypothesis of science itself, he refuses.
arbitrary? This is how science works. And Jims calls me naive. We use methodological naturalism because we cannot test/falsify supernatural (in the sense that most people use) explanations. MN does not apply to ultimate questions (where logic comes from – if it comes from anywhere). And Jim calls me naïve. Jim admits we cannot do experiments on how a horse was created. So we are reduced to MN to answer such a question. He just doesn’t get it.He limits the requirement to "... the hypotheses we invoke to explain natural phenomena." In other words, he wants to be arbitrary and to create for himself "a perfectly insulated worldview." He claims, arbitrarily, that "[w]hat makes something scientific or not relates to the ability of a hypothesis to be falsified." But this he cannot prove, nor is any attempt made to justify this hypothesis.
And a naturalistic universe is necessarily “random and chance”? Let me guess, Jim will assert that without the Biblical God, there would not be uniformity of nature. Theistic evolutionists say the same thing but also believe in evolution. The naturalistic will simply point out that we don’t know and that the uniformity of nature is a property of the universe itself and the source need not be explained.The successes of science do not make sense in a naturalistic, random, chance universe.
An assertion where no evidence is given. Jim gives us the opportunity to remove God from this equation but knowing that this is not logistically possible I wonder what his point was if not just being a smart *** (he warned us that he would be – it’s part of his nature so I take no offense).They only make sense on the Creationist worldview, in which nature is created and sustained by a personal, purposeful, all-knowing Creator.
How does one prove a methodology? How does one prove a reasoning faculty? We know that things such as mathematics and logic work because they work for all of us. The why seems hardly relevant (and we leave it to philosophers to quibble about it). How do we calibrate mathematics, logic, etc? These questions make no sense.but how does Stratnerd himself assess the work and successes of other scientists? By sensory and reasoning faculties and a methodology that have not been proven and for which he has no means of calibration.
yes. You can never be shown to be wrong because you’ll simply dismiss (“reinterpret”) any contrary evidence. As you admit – how can there be?Please consider: I have a worldview that says God is the Creator of the universe, that He created this universe in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, that the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible message to mankind.
Somebody please tell me what Jim is talking about and why he thinks he can read my mind. I do not posit that the universe is “random matter in motion”. Have I ever asserted this? It is obvious that the universe does not work this way so the dispute is why the universe works [somewhat] orderly. Jim claims that only God can do this. I do not counter this claim. I do not know where the [somewhat] uniform nature of the universe comes from or if it just a property of the universe emerged from the elements within that universe.Stratnerd has a worldview that says the universe is random matter in motion,
Really? All of my ideas and conclusions based on my irrational methods are open to falsification.Is his view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! He refuses to even entertain the question of how he justifies his assumptions about nature and his method of science: A perfectly insulated worldview.
When it comes to the evolution/creation debate? Nope. MN does not exclude God so I don’t use MN in questions about Him. But given the prior success and demonstrated failures of certain ideas I feel quite confident that science is a good way to understand the natural elements in the universe.Does Stratnerd ever get the creepy feeling like he might be totally deceived about Methodological Naturalism?
The methodological naturalist can always invoke God as the source of logic and uniformity of nature. You still do not understand the nature of MN.I did NOT say that the Creationist "never see himself as being wrong." What I am saying is, when the Creationist finds out that he is wrong, he has a reliable foundation (God's existence and the laws that reflect His character) upon which to assess his error and to proceed toward correcting it or finding a better explanation. The Methodological Naturalist does not.
Are you saying that uniformity of nature makes miracles obvious so the uniformity of nature is a “most of the time” phenomenon?there are no instances where the principle of uniformity clashes with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, the uniformity of nature and the regularity of nature are prerequisite to miracles. If there were no regularity, then nothing could be ascertained as miraculous. If there were no uniformity, there would be no knowledge or learning whatsoever by which to ascertain anything.
Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state there are limits. You state them explicitly because you are forced to. I would be uncomfortable in those shoes. Apparently you are not.The Bible says there are limits. I don't make any claims on my own authority.
There was no answer in there.HA_SQ33: Excellent question! Let's suppose it stopped working right now. How would you determine that it stopped working? By noticing non-uniformity in nature? But wait, how would you notice non-uniformity if the principle of uniformity has stopped working? Once again, the Methodological Naturalist is caught question-begging in the extreme, and Godless science is reduced to arbitrariness and utter skepticism; knowledge becomes absurd. For the Creationist, true and justified knowledge is based on the order and uniformity God has imposed on His creation.
No wonder Jim doesn’t like falsification. If we were to actually go out and test this ad hoc does Jim think that it would stand up to reality? He will be forced to say “it doesn’t matter”. It does not matter how much evidence piles up against creationism because evidence is irrelevant – Jim admits it and has steered totally clear of it. I don’t blame him.
I understand what question begging is but it seemed like Jim answered how God’s will created by replying that it is divine fiat. Which is simply rewording the original answer. But Jim is saying that divine fiat is God’s will and doesn’t know how it works.SQ34: the question that is “begged” is “how does divine fiat work to manifest objects out of nothingness?
HA_SQ34: Stratnerd does it again. "Question-begging" is not the same as "prompting the question" or "raising the question," as Stratnerd seems to think. In answer to his question, the workings of divine fiat, beyond the descriptions that God creates by His power and volition, are not revealed.
Quibble? As if mathematics and the working of omnipresent omnipotent beings were equivalent. Do I have to “deal” with how mathematics and logic work in the brain to use them? I don’t understand how my wrench is built but I use it just fine on my truck. To say that I have to accept Genesis as being true because I can read this sentence and add 2 + 2 is absurd. But that is the upshot of what Jim wants all of us to do.Stratnerd wants to quibble over a disagreement regarding the defintion of "supernatural,"
And loafing get me published, win awards, get grants. Maybe it isn’t as important as you imply. Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care. Jim’s entire argument rests on the fallacy of many questions – I don’t buy his premises which he simply asserts are true. I’m under no obligation to believe him. The fact that he claims there can be no rational alternative is a big clue that we should be suspect.More epistemological loafing. The Evolutionist wants to ask questions (which would be impossible in a random chance universe) and to use reason to discover and to know things, but he ignores the foundation of learning and knowledge.
I just don’t hear the voices in my head that you do.God's existence is screamed at you.
Falsification is the point of testing. So Jim don’t agree with that. Without MN we could make innumerable hypotheses why events occur by including any supernatural beings we would like. So the only thing Jim agrees with is “the pursuit of reliable knowledge”. But without falsification how do we know that something is reliable? Jim would repeat experiments (the same ones?) but not doing this in a falsification framework he is only examining with accuracy and precision in measurements – but his entire hypothesis might be wrong.SQ35b: With the exception of two of the critical parts: falsification and methodological naturalism. What is left? Skepticism? What definition were you agreeing with?
HA_SQ35b: "... [Stratnerd's] definition of science is: the pursuit of reliable knowledge (acknowledging that these are tentative explanations) via making justifiable hypotheses and testing such hypothesis with observation or experiment."
Instead of repeating the entire dialogue I’ll just say that Jim countered my claim with caveats where I lacked “justified information” or I was working with “insufficient data”. Indeed, the most interesting caveat was that “someone had followed you around and recorded your every movement”.Stratnerd previously wrote: Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.
Hilston replied: I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.
And anyone can see that I have consistently agreed with Stratnerd's definitions. Given that, we should have ended the debate in the first round as a draw. We both agree; so should we have just packed up our tents and shut down the show? There is obviously a difference of opinion where Evolution is concerned, although not in the definitions of the terms. So, should we have ignored where those differences lie because those differences are not immediately found in the agreed-upon definitions? Or should we have explored the roots and ramifications of Evolution that would expose our differences for the sake of the debate? Isn't it the latter?Stratnerd said:The question proposed to us was the issue of Evolution and if it was a subset of science. I have consistently used standard definitions of Evolution and of science. Anyone can see this.
What Stratnerd has failed to appreciate throughout this debate is that the definitions are useful for enabling us to communicate clearly, not necessarily for setting up the boundaries of the debate. And again, if the debate were to be limited to the definitions only, then there was no need to debate at all, since we agreed on the definitions of the terms.Stratnerd said:Jim? tactic has been to use nonstandard criteria for defining science (whether one can or cannot ?ustify?their use of logic) and then compared this to a nonstandard definition of Evolution (one that includes ontological baggage). ... So Jim could care less about definitions and insists on making more out of Evolution than what is called for. Not surprising.
No. You. can't. Because believing in God and Jesus and His miracles requires also believing Jesus' own words about Moses and Genesis, which unambiguously indicate that Jesus was a Creationist who understood Genesis "literally." Those who presume to believe in a god who used long ages of geologic history to bring about the current biodiversity witnessed on planet earth have presumptuously opposed the unequivocal teaching of the Bible and have done violence to the biblical language, sound exegesis and clear logic. Such people create a god in their own image, one that satisfies their specious "scientific" sensibilities, dressing their god and their speculations in the robes of theism, adorned with the scholarly and scientific affectations of Evolutionism, all the while acting like Creationists in order to even formulate their arguments. That is to say, the theistic Evolutionists are as irrational as non-theistic Evolutionists.Stratnerd said:You can believe in God, Jesus, miracles and not take Genesis literally.
If "high fitness" doesn't contribute to the organism's "survivorship," then it isn't "fit to survive." Stratnerd writes:Stratnerd said:A genotype may have high fitness but low survivorship.
If an organism has "great survivorship," then its genotype is "fit to survive." Stratnerd claims,Stratnerd said:Likewise, a different genotype may have low fitness but may have great survivorship.
Stratnerd must be defining "fit" in a way differently than I understand it, and at this late stage in our debate, further exploration of this may have to be relegated to the Grandstands. I wrote: The Evolutionist worldview assumes that the survivor is the fittest by default, unscientifically. Stratnerd replies:Stratnerd said:The two phenomena are independent no 'buts' about it.
Let's see. Everything that survives was "fit to survive." If a genotype didn't survive, it was not "fit to survive." If a genotype was not "fit to survive," it did not survive. How is fitness defined? As "reproduction"? So perhaps Darwinism can be described as "survival of those who stay alive long enough to reproduce." It's still a tautology.Stratnerd said:That? an interesting assertion but you provide no evidence of such a thing.
This is true. The Creationist view is perfectly insulated against irrational Old Earth argumentation and pseudo-scientific assumptions.Stratnerd said:That is, unless one is a creationista. In this case our inferences will always have to bounded by our presupposition that the earth is only 6000 years old and organisms were poofed here. Since all contrary views are conveniently dismissed, I call it a perfectly insulated worldview.
This is more naivete. Stratnerd would do well to read more creationist literature on age-of-the-earth issues. The evidences for a young earth are pervasive, but such evidence is summarily dismissed when presented to an insulated Evolutionist community whose bread and butter depends on the belief in an Old-Earth cosmology.Stratnerd said:If the world was 6000 years old and organisms were poofed on it then you would think that science would also come up with this conclusion and that they would need to explain away or just say that the implications for this result were beyond their bounds.
Note the contradiction in Stratnerd's thinking. He is a Methodological Naturalist, demanding natural evidence for the extra-natural. Nevermind the fact that his request is, itself, extra-natural, as is the very premise of Methodological Naturalism.Stratnerd said:But Jim asserts (sans evidence) mathematics, logic, and other conceptual tidbits that are processed in our brains are extra-natural and asserts (sans evidence) that the only thing that can account for the origin of the extra-natural is the Biblical God (=Genesis). Evidence need not apply. More below.
Not concerning induction! Scientists do not have a corner on the market for induction! Every waking second, humans apply the inductive principle, whether they're conscious of it or not. Every time a driver hits the lever for his turn signal, he is using the inductive principle. When the time comes that the blinker does not turn on, induction has not failed. Induction is what tells the driver that the bulb is out; not that God has intervened or some spirit gremlin is playing games. Whether you're a biologist or a beautician, everyone uses induction. There is nothing "armchair" about the subject of induction. At. All.Stratnerd said:Problem with these caveats is that they do not apply to the real word. In the real world we work with insufficient data. This is another case where there? a difference between armchair philosophers and people that actually do science. Jim talks about induction in a philosophical world. I talk about induction, as other scientists do, in the real world. I? not saying that a working scientist is elite, certainly not, we just have a different perspective of the problems in science.
I'm baffled. How is it that an inductively derived hypothesis is being conflated with the Inductive Principle?Stratnerd said:So induction in the real world is unreliable (ask Linus Pauling, who came up with alternatives to the double helix) and we need falsification to test our inductively-derived hypotheses.
I agree with you, which is why I wouldn't be caught dead making such an argument.Stratnerd said:But if his argument is that Genesis is true and uses Genesis in his premises then he? using yet another logical fallacy ?question begging.
What follows is the refutation that Stratnerd dismissed in an earlier post, but suffices to summarize his failure to justify his thesis:Stratnerd said:The common elements of the two definitions of science (not ?y?definitions but the definitions used and understood by scientist around the world) involve falsifiability and methodological naturalism (MN).
Stratnerd says in an Information-Theoretic approach, the data are fixed and the hypotheses are variable. So,Stratnerd said:Usually presented as an alternative, which I prefer to think of as a complement, to Popperian science is the information-theoretic framework where multiple hypotheses compete to explain a particular observation.
Stratnerd said:Let me surprise some of you and say that certain aspects [of Creationism] are [scientific] ?no doubt.
Stratnerd reiterates this thought in his closing lines, saying:Stratnerd said:... primarily so I can go play catch, toss a football, watch TV, go see Narnia, visit nature centers and a planetarium with my son, who is only in town for the week.
Anyone who knows me will attest to the importance I place on family and how seriously I take my role as a parent. But I would like to point out, and express my disdain for, something deeper that is suggested by my opponent's comments and affirmed in his overall attitude to this debate. It is this: "What is really important?", as Stratnerd intimates by his comment. Answer?: Family, dirty boots, publishing papers, getting grants and winning awards. Who gives a rip about how we justify the tools of science? What does it matter whence the laws of logic originate? Why should anyone care one whit about how we account for morality and human dignity? Who gives a flying fudgepan about the foundations of the intelligibility of human experience? What does any of this matter compared to what's really important?Stratnerd said:Now I? off to show an 8-year old the difference between running a post and a fade route.