Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s self evident truth.
That either Lewontin is correct or ID is science.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Why is that? Seriously.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.