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

Skip to comments.

Viva la Evolution?
CreationOnTheWeb ^ | September 3, 2008 | David Anderson

Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Darwinism is ultimately the creation story of naturalism and atheism...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cmhamanhasspoken; creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-196 next last
To: GourmetDan
The fallacies are either yours, Lewinton's, or both. The "us" Lewinton speaks of is ambiguous, but whoever it is, he submits they are committed to a philosophy of materialism prior to, and independent of any philosophy of materialism required within the pursuit of scientific inquiry.

If this "us" is Lewinton and some of his Marxist collegues then his comments may be accurate, but have been misrepresented by you as being representative of all scientists.

If the "us" he's referring to is all scientists then the fallacy is of appeal to an invalid authority. He can't speak for the personal philosophy of all scientists, especially with regards to their personal philosophy prior to and independant of their scientific pursuits.

101 posted on 09/18/2008 6:10:32 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Here's a simple test to see who's correct.

If you are correct, then the ID movement is real science because what they propose is exactly the opposite of what Lewontin says. If Lewontin is correct, then science's claim that ID is 'religion' confirms Lewontin's position and reveal that you are merely disingenuous.

That's a nicely constucted "heads I win, tails you lose" test. How long did it take you to come up with that?

102 posted on 09/18/2008 8:42:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"The fallacies are either yours, Lewinton's, or both. The "us" Lewinton speaks of is ambiguous, but whoever it is, he submits they are committed to a philosophy of materialism prior to, and independent of any philosophy of materialism required within the pursuit of scientific inquiry."

Nope. You first commit the fallacy of necessity by insisting that biology must operate by divine intervention. I have never seen anyone make that claim except an evolutionist. Then you follow that with the fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief, as though science would be impossible if a supernatural creator were acknowledged. That's a simple non sequitur as well.

"If this "us" is Lewinton and some of his Marxist collegues then his comments may be accurate, but have been misrepresented by you as being representative of all scientists."

The context says he refers to all scientists.

"If the "us" he's referring to is all scientists then the fallacy is of appeal to an invalid authority. He can't speak for the personal philosophy of all scientists, especially with regards to their personal philosophy prior to and independant of their scientific pursuits."

Of course, by definition he cannot be speaking for scientists who believe in supernatural creation so your point, while technically accurate, is misleading and irrelevant. You have a couple of choices to prove him wrong. 1. You can show that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism or 2. you can show that ID is considered science. Either one of those possibilities would invalidate Lewontin's statement.

But to just wave your hands and wail about an admission you don't want to make doesn't help you at all.

103 posted on 09/18/2008 5:00:02 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"That's a nicely constucted "heads I win, tails you lose" test. How long did it take you to come up with that?"

It didn't take any time at all. That's how it is with self-evident truth. It's instantly evident. You can't face that but must avoid answering the question in any way possible.

Now either Lewontin is correct and there is an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism or 'science' is free to explore the evidence and ID may rightfully conclude that what is observed may be the result of a supernatural creator.

That's *if* science is not 'a priori' philsophical naturalism. Sadly it is and you avoiding the issue proves it.

104 posted on 09/18/2008 5:14:02 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

A fallacy of ambiguity, conflating the methodological naturalism of the scientific method with the metaphysical naturalism of atheists.


105 posted on 09/18/2008 5:52:14 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"A fallacy of ambiguity, conflating the methodological naturalism of the scientific method with the metaphysical naturalism of atheists."

The fallacy of false cause assuming that methodological naturalism equates to philosophical naturalism.

106 posted on 09/18/2008 5:54:30 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Of course, by definition he cannot be speaking for scientists who believe in supernatural creation so your point, while technically accurate, is misleading and irrelevant. You have a couple of choices to prove him wrong. 1. You can show that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism or 2. you can show that ID is considered science. Either one of those possibilities would invalidate Lewontin's statement.

If Lewontin is correct, and all scientists have an a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, the no one who believes in supernatural creation is a scientist.

If people who believe in supernatural creation can adopt the necessary methodological naturalism to be good scientists without also adopting philosophical naturalism then Lewontin is wrong.

Pick one.

107 posted on 09/18/2008 6:09:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"If Lewontin is correct, and all scientists have an a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, the no one who believes in supernatural creation is a scientist."

Ah, the fallacy of division. Nice move.

"If people who believe in supernatural creation can adopt the necessary methodological naturalism to be good scientists without also adopting philosophical naturalism then Lewontin is wrong."

And then, the fallacy of false cause. Even better.

108 posted on 09/18/2008 6:14:02 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

It’s self evident truth.


109 posted on 09/18/2008 6:15:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"It’s self evident truth."

That either Lewontin is correct or ID is science.

110 posted on 09/18/2008 6:17:57 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Nope. He can be wrong and ID still not be science. Heck, ID doesn’t even have to be supernatural according to the proponents, so that’s not even a good test to start with.


111 posted on 09/18/2008 6:24:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Nope. He can be wrong and ID still not be science. Heck, ID doesn’t even have to be supernatural according to the proponents, so that’s not even a good test to start with."

Nope. That's what ID is. Letting the evidence guide you to another theory of origins other than philosophical naturalism. That ID is so viciously attacked is proof that Lewontin's statement is absolutely correct. To admit an intelligent-designer would be the proverbial 'Divine Foot' in the door.

112 posted on 09/19/2008 6:07:05 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Lewinton says all scientists are atheists. They aren’t so he’s wrong. Whether ID is or isn’t science doesn’t depend on that, so it can still be wrong.


113 posted on 09/19/2008 6:18:03 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The ID proponents say ID doesn’t necessarily have to involve a supernatural creator. You say it does. How is anybody supposed to figure out if it’s science or not if you can’t even agree on what it is?


114 posted on 09/19/2008 6:24:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Lewinton says all scientists are atheists. They aren’t so he’s wrong. Whether ID is or isn’t science doesn’t depend on that, so it can still be wrong."

You previously defined scientists such that anyone who believes in supernatural creation was not a scientist.

Now you say that scientists can believe in a supernatural creator. This would mean that a scientist who believes in ID can be a scientist and ID is science.

Which is it?

115 posted on 09/19/2008 6:29:18 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
evolutionists are not gonna like Palin :)

Why is that? Seriously.

116 posted on 09/19/2008 6:34:26 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You previously defined scientists such that anyone who believes in supernatural creation was not a scientist.

I didn't do that, you did. When I pointed out that not all scientists are atheists, you said I don't get to include them.

117 posted on 09/19/2008 7:44:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I didn't do that, you did."

You'll have to show me where I did that.

"When I pointed out that not all scientists are atheists, you said I don't get to include them."

No I didn't.

Lewontin is correct, but you are not.

118 posted on 09/19/2008 4:08:20 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
When I pointed out that he can't speak for all scientists you replied

"Of course, by definition he cannot be speaking for scientists who believe in supernatural creation so your point, while technically accurate, is misleading and irrelevant."

Apparently the only evidence I'm allowed to consider in assessing his arguments is evidence that doesn't contradict them. Did you stack that deck to get a foregone conclusion just so you can berate me about the results?

119 posted on 09/19/2008 5:05:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Apparently the only evidence I'm allowed to consider in assessing his arguments is evidence that doesn't contradict them. Did you stack that deck to get a foregone conclusion just so you can berate me about the results?"

Your error is that you consider only people's opinions that support your position as being 'evidence'. That's a line of thinking often encountered among evolutionists.

Evidence, in this case, would be scientific theories not based on the philosophy of naturalism, like ID. Since philosophical naturalism (i.e. 'science') considers any mention of a designer to be religion, Lewontin's statement is true.

120 posted on 09/22/2008 4:33:35 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-196 next last

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.

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

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