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

To: Elpasser
"“The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design...”"

"Anyone else see the absurdity in this statement?"

Yes, it's based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism where only a material, natural origin is allowed for everything and anything that exists. This is then 'confirmed' post hoc through the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.

It's a nice little bit of circular-thinking that underlies all 'scientific' theory. Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition.

The rationale for assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' is typically supported by the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. That or the fallacy of 'appeal to consequences of a belief'.

In summary, they've already decided beforehand that nothing supports intelligent design and then proclaim so at every opportunity no matter how complex and improbable the reality.

20 posted on 11/25/2008 11:06:41 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan
Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition.

That is correct. ID and Creationism cannot be part of science until you can explain how they work and how those workings can be used to establish a reproducible and predictable result.

24 posted on 11/25/2008 11:10:24 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: GourmetDan
Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition

As a follow-up, can you name any current scientific endeavor or discovery that does NOT operate from an "a priori" assumption that all of nature has standard and rigorous rules that are predictable and discoverable? Just one, which has become a physical, tangible product or discovery.

25 posted on 11/25/2008 11:14:16 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: GourmetDan

They are called the natural sciences for a reason, Dan. The observable is what the natural sciences have to work with. That is the ‘a priori’ you speak of, and that is as it should be.

How would a supernatural scientist be able to demonstrate, using the scientific method (would they even use the scientific method?), that it was the Christian God who created the universe instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? A defender of the FSM theology could quite simply attribute all of the actions to the FSM that you attribute to the Christian God, and the argument would be very short:

“yes it is”
“no it isn’t”


30 posted on 11/25/2008 11:42:43 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

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