Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?

I am curious about some of your thoughtful responses. Darwin said, ""With me the horrid doubt arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" What is the answer to Darwin's question? To know what is true requires us to have knowledge regarding the concerns of the question. Knowledge is warranted true belief. Knowledge is not simply a belief, but is true belief.

How do we procure true belief. It seems we form a belief by cognitive faculties, and only if the function as these faculties operate in a proper cognitive environment for the way those faculties were designed to function and when that design plan is aimed at obtaining truth. In order to be designed for acquiring truth (knowledge = warranted true belief) those cognitive faculties must operate normatively (as they were designed to function), not statistically usual

It is easy to understand normative function in, say a carburetor, intelligently designed and we know it functions as it was meant to work. So it seems that knowledge presupposes that those beliefs were produced by cognitive operations operating normatively (as designed). Therefore knowledge presupposes a designer. It seems the atheist, naturalist, Darwinist owes us an explanation of what it would mean have proper cognitive function and reliable knowledge acquisition without proper designer of that cognitive function selected for to acquire knowledge.

The issue is this: if knowledge exists and if properly functioning mental (not neurological) requires a designer of those faculties, which cannot be explicated from a naturalistic standpoint, isn't it reasonable to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is false? I would remind you that this 'natural selection' selects for fighting, fleeing, feeding, and fornicating (reproduction). Your theory does not say it selects for true beliefs. In fact it is violative of naturalism to say invariant abstract entities even exist, and truth is an abstract invariant entity. There are many theories which say there is no survival value for truth. So, I ask you, "Why do you believe in anything at all?"

One final question......

Do you KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth today? This is a yes, no, or I do not know question. I am not interested in explaining why you believe yes, no, or I do not know.....

Thank you.

Boogieman: "This is not science, this is historical speculation.
You cannot make a scientific conclusions about how the similarities in the genomes arose, because you cannot replicate the conditions which gave rise to those similarities.
Therefore, you are stuck with speculations which cannot be confirmed by experimental analysis, and that is not science."

By law, only scientists can define what is, or is not, "science", and scientists have defined what you call "historical speculation" as a legitimate confirmed scientific theory.

So, in scientific terms, there are three possible categories here:

A fact, which is a confirmed observation, such as: the Earth is round.
We've seen it from space, we know it's true.
A hypothesis which is a reasonable but unconfirmed explanation, such as the conclusion drawn by Ancient Greek Eratosthenes, that the Earth is round, based on his measurements of shadows in wells.
He didn't know it for sure, but his conclusion was reasonable.
A confirmed theory such as the confirmation of Eratosthenes' hypothesis by explorers sailing around the world.
At that point, the Earth's roundness was still not a "fact", because it had not yet been observed.
But it was a strongly confirmed theory.

Likewise, while short-term evolution is a confirmed fact, long-term evolution is today a strongly confirmed scientific theory.

Boogieman: "Lack of a testable hypothesis does not mean we have to pretend that the untestable hypothesis we have is correct.
We can instead, give a truthful appraisal of the situation, and admit that we have no confirmed hypothesis at the moment."

Long term evolution is not a "fact", but it is a confirmed theory -- confirmed by innumerable predictions & tests.
Here is a partial listing.

And here is another.

Of course, in some ontological sense, that doesn't make evolution "true", indeed nothing in science is necessarily true -- it's all a model of reality, much of it based on mathematics, which is itself a model.
So, anybody who wishes to assert a philosophical distinction between absolute "truth" and, for example, "scientific confirmed hypothesis" is legitimately free to do so.
But science is still the best method we have for recognizing reality as we can perceive it.

Boogieman: "No, it’s not science. Science must follow the scientific method, and this does not."

Of course it does, all your claims and hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.
Evolution is a recognized, confirmed scientific theory.

Boogieman: "No, bits and pieces of the theory may have been confirmed, but the larger and most controversial predictions of the theory remain completely untested and in fact untestable."

Basic evolution theory is nothing more than two facts combined: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
The theory says that over long time spans (millions of years) these can result in separated populations becoming so different from each other they can no longer interbreed, and are therefore separate species, genera, families, etc.

The theory is supported by innumerable facts and predictions, but it has also resulted in many unconfirmed hypotheses, notably the abiogenesis of life on earth.
The important point here is that we should not fail to distinguish between an observed fact, versus confirmed theory and an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Science is chock full of all.

Boogieman: "Now you’re mixing up terms like some of the less knowledgeable anti-evolution folks.
A theory must be confirmed by experimental data and replication in order to be a theory.
If it is not, it is merely a hypothesis.
There is no such thing as scientific “fact”."

Sure, I "get" that as an anti-scientist you wish to redefine "science" to suit your own opinions.
But I'll repeat, you are forbidden by law from doing so.
You don't get to define what is, or is not, "science".
You have to take science's definitions as they are given by scientists.

Scientists define a "fact" as a confirmed observation.
Scientists define a "theory" as a confirmed hypothesis, confirmed by tests and predictions.

Evolution theory is confirmed by innumerable tests and predictions.
The fact that it cannot be confirmed by some test you might fantasize does not make it less a theory.

Boogieman: "...what you hypothesize are the effects of long term evolution can be seen, but that does not mean that those properties are actually the effect of long term evolution, because you cannot establish that by the scientific method."

Your definition of "scientific method" has been ruled invalid.

Texas Songwriter: "isn't it reasonable to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is false?"

Of course, metaphysical naturalism equals atheism, and is a false religion.
Science itself is not metaphysical naturalism, is not a religion, and is not in that sense "false".

But, scientific enterprise begins with the a priori assumption of methodological naturalism.
Indeed, that term "methodological naturalism" defines the basics of what is or is not "science" -- it means "natural explanations for natural processes".
That limits "science" to what is found in nature, and forbids it from realms like religion, theology, metaphysics, philosophy, spirituality, etc.

Science's one great claim, "ontological claim", if you wish is this: it works.
If that's not enough for you, then seek your answers elsewhere.

Texas Songwriter: "Do you KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth today?
This is a yes, no, or I do not know question.
I am not interested in explaining why you believe yes, no, or I do not know....."

Sorry, but when you ask a trick question, you must expect some sort of tricky answer.
Evolution theory does "account for the diversity of biological life on earth today".
It is a scientifically confirmed theory, meaning it's as close to truth as we can get, so far.
But no real scientist would claim it as absolute "truth" or certain "knowledge".
Those categories belong to other schools of study, not science.

The most science says is: the data fits & confirms its theories.

Boogieman: "No “hand waving”, just common sense."

Most all of your assertions here are mere hand-waving.
Also, you try to define a straw-man "science" to suit your own purposes, then beat it down with hand-waving assertions.

Not much serious argument there, FRiend.

Boogieman: "Yes, but as the estimated ages are derived from a somewhat subjective standard, it makes it just another arbitrary property upon which to arrange your meaningless visual display."

More hand-waving at a photograph you keep insisting, over and over and over, is "meaningless".
Methinks you doth protest too much...

In fact, all such age estimates are as "objective" as scientists know how to be, considering geological strata, radiometric results and other known fossils.
So, if you claim such estimated ages are somehow wrong, what scientific evidence can you present of their actual ages?

Boogieman: "I could take a bunch of skulls of creatures that evolutionists don’t speculate have common descent, arrange them in the same way, and make it look like there is a progression, but that would not demonstrate any actual progression ever happened."

First of all, evolution theory tells us all large creatures are thought to have common ancestors, be it millions or hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, right out of the box, your premise is wrong.

Of course, science does not know which fossils actually descended from which ancestors, and so cannot say for sure if one skull was the actual ancestor of another.
But the progression over time is striking, and morphological similarities strongly suggest close relationships -- just as they do today with living creatures.

Indeed, if we look at morphological similarities of living creatures, and then compare their DNAs, we see that one strongly correlates to the other.
This is one basis for concluding how much ancient fossils were more, or less, closely related.

I did not ask you about science. I asked you about, essentially, how you reconcile Darwinian evolution with Naturalism.. But you evade.

Defining Science is a philosophical issue. The approach to defining science is called an external philosophy of science. Science, itself the datum, is defined as an applied general philosophy, not science itself. It is an attempt to understand reality, knowing logic, and logical structure.

At least you understand that scientific facts do not equate to truth.

Science itself makes no pretense of being ontologically "true" -- science doesn't even know what "true" is. Sure, science can define a "fact" as "confirmed observation", but makes no claims that such "facts" are "true". For all such affirmations, you must turn to your religion or philosophy, not science. Science's one great claim, "ontological claim", if you wish is this: it works. If that's not enough for you, then seek your answers elsewhere.

With your devotion to science and seeming resentment for theological ideas, I must ask if you believe truth exists. For example, when you say, "For all such affirmations, you must turn to your religion or philosophy, not science", is this to say truth does not exist? Is truth important if it does exist?

And finally, my "trick" question, as you describe it, asks of all of this proselytizing of Darwinian evolution, you refuse to answer if you know it is true. You should have the courage of your literary convictions. You explication ad nauseum regarding Darwinism, but then, when asked, you refuse to answer if it is true or not. You refuse to logically and rationally defend your acclamations of Darwinism,....just that you make declarations, and others are supposed to believe. That is not an argument for your position. Your declaration that answers assertion are false, without epistemically defending why. My "trick" question was as simple as I could make it for you. You simply created a trap for yourself. Yes, no, or I do not know. I tried to make it simple for you...it was a multiple choice answer. I cannot make it more simple than that.

You say no scientist would make a claim of truth. If that is so, why the angered dogmatism? It seems to say science does not have an exclusive claim on truth and therefore knowledge. In fact you say it has no at all on truth. So based on your statement does history, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, or any adductive science, have just as valid a claim on truth and knowledge as science?

I won't go further. I will leave you with these simple questions to pontificate. I earnestly await your reply. Thank you.

“Also, you try to define a straw-man “science” to suit your own purposes, then beat it down with hand-waving assertions.”

Yeah, sure. Demanding that science follow the scientific method is such a straw man.

“More hand-waving at a photograph you keep insisting, over and over and over, is “meaningless”.”

It’s not hand waving, it’s the truth. If you are not aware of the elements of the dating methodology that make it a very fallible standard to appeal to, then that is your problem, not mine.

“In fact, all such age estimates are as “objective” as scientists know how to be, considering geological strata, radiometric results and other known fossils.”

As “objective” as they know how to be? No, sorry, that is just plain false. The dating is speculative at best, always subject to the biases of the one doing the dating. The fact that the same samples submitted to different scientists for dating yield wildly different dates is ample demonstration of that.

The process of dating often ends up as mere cherry picking one date out of a range of possible dates, simply because that date fits better with the patchwork timeline that other scientists have assembled. It doesn’t get much more subjective than that.

“So, if you claim such estimated ages are somehow wrong, what scientific evidence can you present of their actual ages?”

I’m not presenting any evidence, because I have no need to. I am not claiming that I know when those fossils were buried in the ground.

“First of all, evolution theory tells us all large creatures are thought to have common ancestors, be it millions or hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, right out of the box, your premise is wrong.”

Obviously, from the context of my statement, it’s clear I meant recent common ancestors, since that is the claim made for the hominid fossils that I was making a comparison too. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that distinction clear enough for you.

“Of course, science does not know which fossils actually descended from which ancestors, and so cannot say for sure if one skull was the actual ancestor of another.
But the progression over time is striking, and morphological similarities strongly suggest close relationships — just as they do today with living creatures.”

Any presentation where you line up skulls to create an apparent progression would be striking. It demonstrates nothing.

“Indeed, if we look at morphological similarities of living creatures, and then compare their DNAs, we see that one strongly correlates to the other.”

That is only true in some cases, it is false in many others. That is why it is a precept of evolutionary science that morphological similarities do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate (recent) common descent. In case you are unfamiliar with that, perhaps check out the evolutionary concept of “parallel evolution” which is used to try to explain similar morphology where there is clearly no (recent) common descent.

“This is one basis for concluding how much ancient fossils were more, or less, closely related.”

Yes, but for the reason I cited above (contradicting evolutionary science’s own stated principles), it is a very poor basis for doing so.

“By law, only scientists can define what is, or is not, “science”, and scientists have defined what you call “historical speculation” as a legitimate confirmed scientific theory.”

Do you discount the possibility that scientists, for whatever motive, may ascribe the status of “science” to something that does not actually meet the criteria they have set? Is it not possible that, even though they say it is science, we can conclude objectively that it doesn’t fit the definition?

“A hypothesis which is a reasonable but unconfirmed explanation, such as the conclusion drawn by Ancient Greek Eratosthenes, that the Earth is round, based on his measurements of shadows in wells.
He didn’t know it for sure, but his conclusion was reasonable.”

This is really the only aspect of science that the historical speculation (as I categorize it) can hope to aspire to, and yet it fails to meet the standard. In order to be an unconfirmed speculation, there must exist the possibility of confirmation, which does not exist for this kind of historical speculation. Since the “hypothesis” can never be tested and confirmed, it is useless as a hypothesis and can’t honestly be called one at all.

Let’s look at the example you gave of Eratosthenes’ hypothesis. Yes, it was unconfirmed, and yes it was beyond Eratosthenes’ abilities to confirm it. However, it was still within the realm of reasonable possibility that an experiment could be designed to confirm the assertion, so it was a valid hypothesis. If, instead, Eratosthenes had proposed that the Earth was round because a giant space turtle had shat it out 50ma years ago, that would be an untestable and invalid hypothesis.

” Long term evolution is not a “fact”, but it is a confirmed theory — confirmed by innumerable predictions & tests.
Here is a partial listing.

And here is another.”

Well, it will take me a while to go through those links and see how valid the evidence is, but the first few examples I looked at were not impressing me, due to some of the failures of logic I’ve already pointed out to you.

“Evolution is a recognized, confirmed scientific theory.”

Repeating this doesn’t make it true. Until science invents a time machine, it’s simply not possible to apply the complete scientific method to vast swathes of evolutionary speculation.

“Basic evolution theory is nothing more than two facts combined: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
The theory says that over long time spans (millions of years) these can result in separated populations becoming so different from each other they can no longer interbreed, and are therefore separate species, genera, families, etc.”

See, you say there are 2 facts (which nobody really disputes), but you also must include the third paragraph, which is speculative. That’s exactly the problem I am trying to explain.

There are also a few other speculative assumptions you didn’t mention that must be accepted for evolutionary theory seem reasonable (such as common descent), but who is counting?

“The important point here is that we should not fail to distinguish between an observed fact, versus confirmed theory and an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Science is chock full of all.”

We should also not fail to distinguish between science and pseudo-science masquerading as science.

“Sure, I “get” that as an anti-scientist you wish to redefine “science” to suit your own opinions.”

Ha, sure just call me names which aren’t based on anything. That’s going to convince me that your points are reasonable and I should come around to your position.

I’m not anti-science, I’m just anti-bad science.

“The fact that it cannot be confirmed by some test you might fantasize does not make it less a theory.”

Events that may have happened millions of years ago on the earth are not observable, testable, or for the most part, repeatable. I am not fantasizing that.

If a scientist looks at a fossil, he is only looking at that fossil, as it exists today. He is not looking at the events that led to the owner of that fossil developing in a certain way. If he looks at a DNA sequence, he is only looking at the DNA, as it exists today. He is not looking at the sequences of events that led to that genome existing in its current state.

Yet, modern scientists pretend that by looking at the byproducts of historical events, they can, through speculation, determine what those historical events were, even though they can never replicate those events to confirm their speculation. Then they call this “science”. You may call it “science” too, if you wish, but even if everyone on the planet calls it “science”, it would never make it so.

“Your definition of “scientific method” has been ruled invalid.”

Well, I didn’t define the scientific method, so that doesn’t really bother me.

Texas Songwriter: "I did not ask you about science."

Of course you did, and now deny it?
I'm starting to "get" that you are highly confused & disoriented.
So, let me see if I can cut through the clutter in your mind: science is a model of reality, not reality itself.
Though it can be falsified, the scientific model is never "true", only "confirmed" or "observed".
If you were expecting "truth" from science, you're asking more than it was intended to deliver.
What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.
Is that not clear & simple enough for you?

Texas Songwriter: "I asked you about, essentially, how you reconcile Darwinian evolution with Naturalism.. But you evade."

That's not what you asked, and I "evaded" nothing, FRiend.
The answer is: Darwin's theory of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is the very essence of methodological naturalism.
So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?

Texas Songwriter: "Defining Science is a philosophical issue.
The approach to defining science is called an external philosophy of science."

The most important point for you to remember about science is: you, personally do not get to define it.
Scientists will define what it is, or is not, not anti-scientists.
Scientists define it with terms like "methodological naturalism" based on assumptions such as "uniformitarianism" and using a "scientific method" which they will determine, not you.
So you don't get to declare their methods "unscientific".

Of course, if scientists become corrupt or misbehave (i.e., "global warming") that's a different matter.
But in that case, you will always find some scientists who can make the opposing case, which you are free to agree with, or reject.

Texas Songwriter: "With your devotion to science and seeming resentment for theological ideas, I must ask if you believe truth exists."

Sorry, but your accusation of "resentment" is a total fantasy.
Of course truth exists, but not within science, only in other schools of learning -- i.e., religion, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, etc.
Such truth is outside the realm and scope of science.

Texas Songwriter: "...is this to say truth does not exist?
Is truth important if it does exist?"

I can't think of anything in human affairs which is more important, can you?

Texas Songwriter: "And finally, my "trick" question, as you describe it, asks of all of this proselytizing of Darwinian evolution, you refuse to answer if you know it is true."

Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?
I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works.
That's as good as it ever gets in science.

On a higher spiritual level, I believe what most Christian denominations teach, something called "theistic evolutionism", meaning that whatever theories science may advance about evolution of the Universe & life, it was intended, designed and executed by God, from the beginning.
That is the truth, as I see it.

Texas Songwriter: "...when asked, you refuse to answer if it is true or not.
You refuse to logically and rationally defend your acclamations of Darwinism..."

You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.
Why do you say such stuff?
It's simply not honest, FRiend.

Texas Songwriter: "Your declaration that answers assertion are false, without epistemically defending why."

And here you are just blathering nonsense.
Come on, take a deep breath, get a grip on yourself.

Texas Songwriter: "So based on your statement does history, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, or any adductive science, have just as valid a claim on truth and knowledge as science?"

Do you not yet "get" the idea that science itself formally makes no claims at all on "truth"?
Science literally hands the whole subject over to whichever school of learning wishes to claim it.
Science won't touch it, and for obvious reasons, among them that science can't even define it, much less observe or confirm it.
So science does not require you to "believe it" much less "believe in it", only that whatsoever you do believe, you don't call "science", unless it truly is.

What I personally believe is that science is probably on the right track regarding such subjects as evolution and physics of the Universe, but that there is so much more unknown than known, that future discoveries could turn our present understandings upside down.
I also believe that God's Truth is something science can never touch, and ultimately more important than anything mere "methodological naturalism" can conceive.

Does that not answer your question?

Of course you did, and now deny it?

I believe if you go back to my first post to you (post 61) you will find that I asked you how you know what you know. I asked you how you procure warranted true belief (). You chose to ignore my question and go another direction. But I did not ask about science, per se. I then asked you if you believe truth exists. It seems like a reasonable place to begin when speaking of knowledge or beliefs. It sort of lets us know how to determine a starting point of our conversation. I am happy to discuss Science and its permutations and presuppositions if you wish, but I did ask about how you know what you know.

What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.

Here you interestingly anthropomorphize science, as if it was sentient in character. I think what you mean is scientists do in their intentionality. Intentionality is a whole other subject of which entire books are written about. But let us keep it simple for now.

I evaded nothing, Friend.

OK. But you did refuse to answer my simple questions. Call it what you wish. It is beside the point.

So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?

Yes, let me explain. I would argue that scientific naturalism has a defect-it is incomplete. When I say scientific naturalism I mean naturalism. It has essentially two components. (1)It is a metaphysical doctrine about what exists in the world and (2) it is monistic in its view of the world. That is to say the only thing which exists to the naturalist is that which is extended into space (matter & energy). It must presuppose numbers, sets and any invariant abstract entity by definition because these things do not demonstrate spatial extension. They must be explained naturally. Scientific naturalism or methodological naturalism, as a worldview is regarded as continuous with science. It therefore looks to scientific understanding of the world for justification. The defense of naturalism presupposes a version of scientific realism; unless science provides us with objective truth about reality, it has no authority to dictate to us the form which our philosophical ontology and metaphysics must take. It seems paradoxical but scientific realism is incompatible with naturalism (that is why I asked you gently to answer my questions about how evolution could account for our cognitive ability to acquire truth (in post 61). So, to answer your question, YES. I have given you a fairly descriptive Plantigan analysis which refutes evolution as the mechanism for developing our cognition to acquire warranted truth belief (knowledge). If you follow the logic you will see what I am saying. Other examples of things which basic darwinian evolution and neodarwinism cannot account for is consciousness, sentience, love, justice, beauty,...those abstract entities which I keep referring you to look at. If these things exist, they must have come to be deterministically and consistent with the requisite monism of naturalism or the naturalist must abandon this worldview. But he cannot account for them epistemically. As Jagwon Kim said, "Devotion to naturalism exacts a high epistemological price which theology accounts for logically and reasonably".

Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?

I suppose I will just throw that question to Socrates who said 'The only invalid question is one which is not asked." I will let you wrestle with those types of notions.

You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.

Is my question politically incorrect, or as Merle Haggard said, "Politically Uncorrect"? You have made certain pronouncements about Darwinian evolution without explanation and I simply want to understand why you say what you say. I believe that is a reasonable thing to ask you to do. So, NO, I am not ashamed to myself.

I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. That's as good as it ever gets in science.

I have read your statements to and they are heavy on declaration and thin on explication. Here you say, "I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. You see....I gave you the correct answer....a declaration without epistemic justification....and, .."so it works". Another declaration without epistemic justification.

John Doe Smith Ph.D. has a doctorate in Biology. A Doctor of Philosophy in Biology. I wonder why those universities calls it a doctor of philosophy....Could it be that the way we acquire knowledge and truth has a lot to do with understanding First Principles, logic, reason, rational thought and to understand our presuppositions in an honest way. Dr. Fred Hoyle held a Ph.D in Astrophysics, and the thought of a Standard Model (Big Bang) was abhorrent to him, but he finally evaluated the model and ascented to it because his reason and logic demanded it.

Your last paragraph is nice read, and I am interested in that subject, but it did not answer my question in post 61. It seems a yes or no should be easy enough. But let us leave it here if you wish.

Good luck to you and yours. Yes. There is so much to learn.

Texas Songwriter: "I believe if you go back to my first post to you (post 61) you will find that I asked you how you know what you know."

I re-read your post #61, and my responses in post #64.
I "get" that you think you posted something deep & profound, but there are only two sentences which ended in question marks:

"What is the answer to Darwin's question?"
"Do you KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth today?"

Both questions are nonsensical, the first especially, so I ignored it in favor of a much more important issue: your repeated utter refusal to recognize the distinction between methodological naturalism and something else which goes by various names, including:

philosophical naturalism,
metaphysical naturalism,
ontological naturalism and
scientific naturalism.

Those four terms all mean the same things, and they are distinct from methodological naturalism.
The four terms, boiled down translate to one thing: religious atheism.
By contrast, the first term, methodological naturalism simply means: as scientists we will seek out natural explanations for natural processes.
Methodological naturalism is not a philosophy, not a religious belief, not an all-encompassing world view -- it is simply an a priori working assumption practiced by scientists when they are on the job.

So you can rant and rail all you wish against "philosophical naturalism" or "scientific naturalism" (they're the same things), I don't defend them, don't agree with them, and don't recommend them to anybody.
Do you not yet understand that?
What I do say is that science is simply a workman's tool box, with which he can build or repair as needed, but which he is certainly not ever going to put on some alter and worship!

Texas Songwriter: "I asked you how you procure warranted true belief ().
You chose to ignore my question and go another direction."

If fact, you asked a rhetorical question, with no question mark -- "how do we procure warranted true belief." -- and then proceeded to answer your own "question" with words that look to me like cut-and-paste from someplace else, and don't even end with a proper sentence!

As I have said now several times: as it relates to science (which is the subject here) your question is nonsensical, because science itself never strives for "true belief".
"True belief" is a philosophical or religious term, and so outside the realm of science.
But, as I've also said now more than once: my "true belief" is what they teach in church -- "theistic evolutionism".

So why is that so confusing to you?

Texas Songwriter: "I then asked you if you believe truth exists.
It seems like a reasonable place to begin when speaking of knowledge or beliefs."

Once again: this thread is not about your philosophical "true beliefs", its about science, which eschews such terms.

So let me try again my model analogy.
Imagine yourself standing at a worksite where a very large building is being constructed.
Directly in front of you is a model of the finished building, and in the distance beyond is the building itself, taking shape.

In this analogy, the model is science, the building reality.
To call science "true" or "false" is simply to say whether or not the model accurately portrays the emerging building.
And of course, there's no way it can be 100% accurate -- it is after all, just a model.
For example, there are many complexities in the building which the model will portray as a simple line of paint.
Of course, nobody blames the model for small inaccuracies, it's not expected to be anything more than a visual representation of a vastly more complex reality.

Now suppose the great building itself is concealed in fog -- we can't really see it.
How do we know the model still accurately reflects the building?
The answer is, only by sending out teams to investigate and report back -- those are our scientists, their job is to keep our model as accurate and complete as we can make it.
But it's important to remember those scientists only report on the building itself -- they don't see either the Architect or the construction Workers.

Finally, to be sure there's no confusion, let's stipulate that the great building's Architect is God, and it's Workers the Hands of God, and the model itself is not being used to construct the building, only to tell us what it's like.

So, what is "truth" here?
Truth is the great building itself -- it's God's truth.
Do we "believe" in the truth?
Of course, as much as we can see of it.
Do we believe the model is the truth?
No, the model is just a model, hoping to be an accurate portrait of the great building.

Now, surely to goodness, that will help?

Texas Songwriter: "I am happy to discuss Science and its permutations and presuppositions if you wish, but I did ask about how you know what you know."

I "get" that you think it's an important question, but the answer seems too obvious to waste time on, especially since you are so confused about important differences between methodological versus metaphysical naturalism.
The answer to your question is: I know what I know the same way everyone else does -- through what we see, hear, read, learn, etc.
Like everyone, I know some things "for sure", others "probably" or "maybe".
But why do you suppose that's an important question, I can't imagine.

Texas Songwriter: "Here you interestingly anthropomorphize science, as if it was sentient in character."

Remember, science itself is a discipline and school of thought, so it is possible to speak of "science" in the same way we speak of "the government" or a "church".
Of course, science has no single ruling body, but nevertheless, the basics of science -- which is our subject here -- are taught to, and learned by all.

Texas Songwriter: "I would argue that scientific naturalism has a defect-it is incomplete.
When I say scientific naturalism I mean naturalism.
It has essentially two components.
(1)It is a metaphysical doctrine about what exists in the world and
(2) it is monistic in its view of the world."

And here you demonstrate yet again how utterly confused and disoriented you are.
We are not talking about metaphysical naturalism, scientific naturalism, ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism -- those are all the same thing, they are all, in a word: religious atheism.

Nobody here has defended those ideas -- not ever.
What I defend is something called methodological naturalism (look it up!), which simply means the working assumption of: natural explanations for natural processes, period.

Texas Songwriter: "So, to answer your question, YES.
I have given you a fairly descriptive Plantigan analysis which refutes evolution as the mechanism for developing our cognition to acquire warranted truth belief (knowledge).
If you follow the logic you will see what I am saying."

But there is no "logic" to follow, because your assumptions are utterly false.
You need to go back, rethink it all, and then try again, FRiend.

Thank you for your clarification. If I missed you saying that in our previous conversation it was an oversight of mine.

The answer is: I'd never say it the way you've expressed, but that basic idea -- does evolution theory beautifully explain the natural descent and diversity of life on earth? -- yes, I agree with that, but I don't think there was anything random or even arbitrary about it, because I believe everything in the Universe unfolds according to God's original intention, design, plan and subsequent execution.I think you ascribe to intelligent design. I would proscribe assent rather than descent, but that is a small issue.

I have not come yet to the point of theistic evolution, though it might seem logical to many and I learn with each conversation about what people believe. It makes things interesting.

Mine was not a trick question for you but a question to find out where you stood on the issue of darwinism, physicalism, and naturalism (both methodological and metaphysical). I believe you ascribe to metaphysical naturalism, notwithstanding your previous posts, but believe that the magesterium of science can only deal with methodological naturalism or strict physicalism. No need for you or I to replow that ground.

Your answer to my question, if NO, would have agreed with your statement that it is a theistic universe, but that God ordered the evolution. If YES to my question, I would have simply asked you to epistemically justify your belief, and thus, my question about truth and knowledge. I don't think I meant to trick you at all but to elicit a clarification for own understanding of what your position was.

As for me I spent 35 years making my living in what many might consider science as a general/trauma surgeon. My masters degree was in Biology with a dissertation/thesis of "Identification of a Thanatocenose Assemblage of Pleistocene Vertebrate Fossils from McFaddin Beach, Texas. And I hold BS's in Biology and Chemistry. After all of these years I have come to reject Darwinism, and Young Earth theology. I have been at the steps of this being a Theistic Universe these years but have always read and tried to keep up with the arguments on both sides.

I meant you no disrespect or consternation with my comments. Perhaps we can talk about it again. ,

Texas Songwriter: "I believe you ascribe to metaphysical naturalism, notwithstanding your previous posts,"

No, I have now several times correctly summarized metaphysical naturalism as: religious atheism.
I am not atheist, I believe what they teach in church, which is that God created & directs all such physical processes as, for example, evolution.

That distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is important -- because it means that believers can be scientists without discarding their beliefs.
It's just that in terms of their scientific work, they must seek natural explanations for natural processes.

Texas Songwriter: "After all of these years I have come to reject Darwinism, and Young Earth theology.
I have been at the steps of this being a Theistic Universe these years but have always read and tried to keep up with the arguments on both sides."

Your CV suggests that you should well understand definitions of words like "evolution" and "Darwinism", but your posts strongly suggest you don't.
How can that be?

Basic evolution theory, which is all that Darwin proposed, consists of two simple and factual processes: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Neither of these facts are even debatable, and Darwin's theory simply says that if continued over very long time periods they can result in separated populations growing distinct enough to be classified as new species.

Of course, all speculations beyond basic theory are highly debatable, especially various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis or panspermia of life on Earth.
But none of these can be called "Darwinian" or even, necessarily "evolution".

Basic evolution itself begins once we have some life capable of evolving.
How precisely life got to that point is not yet known.

As far as God's Hand in all this, God is not a matter for scientific inquiry, but rather of religious belief or philosophical assumption.
In classical philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas, God is considered the necessary First Cause.
In modern psychology, I would say, God represents the necessary devotion without which nothing human is truly human... give that some thought, if necessary.

And consider, Aquinas had much to say philosophically about God, none of it contradicted his religion, and all lead back to it...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.