Replies

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.

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.