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

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: freedumb2003
"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."

This is a good example of how philosophical naturalism has destroyed critical-thinking skills in 'science'. It is assumed even though no one can explain how it 'works'. It is accepted even though these non-existent 'workings' are not reproducible or predictable.

Typically, what follows is an appeal to observations that are consistent with both creation and evolution along with the fallacy of affirming the consequent resolved exclusively in favor of evolution.

31 posted on 11/25/2008 11:43:14 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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