Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Admit it. You are good at what you do, and you deserve it.
I am good at pointing out the endemic use of fallacies and where 'science' regularly crosses over into metaphysics. Many people don't like that because they don't like to re-examine their beliefs.
If you have any rational arguments, please post them so we can discuss.
Otherwise, you merely confirm my contention that evolution is metaphysical and evos have few arguments that aren't metaphysical or fallacies.
Argument from authority may be a logical fallacy, but science isn't primarily deductive in nature. Science is inductive, empirical and cumulative. You don't successfully attack science with logic. You add to the accumulation by discovering new stuff. You overturn paradigms by incorporating existing knowledge in more comprehensive paradigms.
Show me where the fossil record illustrates a single celled amoeba grew (through whatever natural selection process you can state) to have eyes, bones, etc. then I'll believe in Darwin. Until then, I'll believe it was God designing us.
Overturning a paradigm is one thing. An 'a priori' assumption, however is not a paradigm and is not reached inductively. It is assumed 'a priori' and overturning an 'a priori' assumption is impossible. That is the problem. Any 'new stuff' is still interpreted in the context of the 'a priori' assumtion, which never changes.
Therefore, while the paradigm may change, the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism does not. Ultimately, a naturalistic model (any model as long as it remains naturalistic) is assured.
Understand?
So give me an example of a problem in science where the assumption of naturalism is not productive.
Bunk, and doubly so due to the great number of people working in science and engineering disciplines who both espouse faith in the Lord and an understanding of what evolutionary theory describes.
That's the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that there is no "must" when it comes to supernaturally-created biology. It has no constraints. There is no reason to expect biology to operate a certain way given only that it is supernaturally created. That might sound like a strength but in science a catch-all explaination is useless.
Self-replication and imperfect replication are perfectly consistent with a supernaturally-created biology. No requirement for no or perfect reproduction there.
Anything is consistent with a supernaturally-created biology. So no suprise that our particular biology is consistent with it. Support for an explaination occurs when an observation is compatible with it yet needn't have been.
Evolution's purported 'events' occurring thousands, millions or billions of years ago likewise cannot be tested.
Evolution puts forward specific mechanisms which have constraints. It is not compatible with any observations. For example under evolution no modern mammal fossils should be found in cambrian rock formations. That makes it testable.
I do bones, not amoeba. Check with somebody else.
Evolution and the Big Bang.
Evolution didn't predict that life would be based on a complex, specified code independent of the message carrier. That's creation's realm. Evolution long 'predicted' that life was simple, until it was found to be complex. Then evolution was merely re-interpreted to allow complex life.
And whether there is a 'must' in a supernaturally-created biology would depend on what supernatural creation you accept. The only one that meets your requirement for no 'must' is one that must consistenly operate through supernatural effects. That is your error.
Evidence is interpreted to be consistent w/ evolution. Geological formations are dated by the youngest fossils w/ older fossil inclusion being the assumed result of 'fossil reworking'.
It's the only way that evolution can be saved.
Ah, more of the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy.
Is that the only one you use?
"Evolution long 'predicted' that life was simple, until it was found to be complex."
No it didn't. Where do you get this garbage?
What about them?
Evolution never required that life be simple or complex. Supernatural creation also does not require it to be either.
And whether there is a 'must' in a supernaturally-created biology would depend on what supernatural creation you accept. The only one that meets your requirement for no 'must' is one that must consistenly operate through supernatural effects. That is your error.
This only reflects that methodlogical naturalism is the only thing that can generate "musts". When a supernatural creation contains parts that are entirely naturalistic then those parts, and only those parts, are testable. For example biblical creationists try to explain flood geology using naturalism and don't even entertain the idea of supernatural intervention. They don't say the water appeared from nowhere for example, or that Noahs boat and the animals on it were supernaturally protected. No, they try to explain where the water came from and went, and how all the animals survived on the boat using entirely natural explainations. Which is very odd seeing as under their construction of science there is absolutely no reason to do so. They could just say the water appeared supernaturally, or the animals on the Ark were temporarily made immortal and required no food.
Evidence is interpreted to be consistent w/ evolution. Geological formations are dated by the youngest fossils w/ older fossil inclusion being the assumed result of 'fossil reworking'.
I am not aware of even one mammal (or reptile or bird) fossil that was found in cambrian formation and had to be explained away by reworking. If there were even one I am sure a fuss would have been kicked up about it. Also there has to be evidence of reworking before that can be proposed. The cambrian appears void of these animals. That needn't have been the case.
No, you have it backwards. You can never have a younger fossil in a cambrian formation because the formation is defined by the 'youngest' fossils with 'older' fossils being the product of alleged 'reworking'.
By definition, you cannot have a 'younger' fossil in an 'older' formation.
It is merely a defined truth.
And supernatural creations do create 'musts' depending on which supernatural creation you choose. If your supernatural creation requires the earth to be held on the back of a turtle, you 'must' find that to be true.
Simply appealing to supernatural creation in general as being incapable of generating a 'must' is not accurate either, as not generating a 'must' would mean that it 'must' violate natural laws by its existence.
No way to avoid it.
What?
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.