Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[GuySmiley]

You'd be surprised, but TAG (Transcendent Argument for God) debates have also been done. Many times. I can give you links if you'd like.
The reason there aren't scores of books about them, is that it is a very weak argument. It is readily refuted with a little work, as we are trying to demonstrate to Hilston on this thread. The debate topic is a bit dishonest though, if you want a TAG debate go ahead and state it up front.

The point is that the topic of the debate was never, "Evidence for Evolution: Is it correct?" That might have been what many people, me included assumed, but it never was. I'm sure TAG debates have been done before also, and I think there aren't scores of book about it because it is really boring to the general population. You can say its a weak argument, but thats just a product of your worldview. I'm enjoying the debate, and I think Hilston is kicking rear end. But that also is a product of my worldview. Although Alethia brought up something interesting in that our worldviews dont really dictate everything we believe as if we are incapable of changing our minds.

 

[aharvey]

The point is that the topic of the debate was never, "Evidence for Evolution: Is it correct?" That might have been what many people, me included assumed, but it never was. I'm sure TAG debates have been done before also, and I think there aren't scores of book about it because it is really boring to the general population. You can say its a weak argument, but thats just a product of your worldview. I'm enjoying the debate, and I think Hilston is kicking rear end.

Ka-boom!

Let me clarify.

In this debate Hilston has spent tens of thousands of words trying to make the case that "only Creationists blah blah blah logic therefore blah blah blah and evolution is not science." (you can replace "blah blah blah" with however you want to phrase it; I'm sure my phrasing would be criticized, providing a pretext to avoid my core point). Hilston's argument starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, from which he (supposedly) generates his conclusions about logic and then (supposedly) applies these conclusions to show that big-E Evolution is not (what he calls) science.

But wait! Let's go back to the beginning there. "Hilston's argument starts with the [/i]presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant.[/i]" Well, you can stop right here. If you presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible then you automatically conclude that anything that contradicts it in any way, say, Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, is incorrect. No further justification needed, it's a slam-dunk no-brainer guarantee. The link between this presupposition and this conclusion is so direct that it makes suspicious efforts to take a longer, more roundabout route.

"But wait," it is your turn to say! "Hilston isn't using his presupposition to prove that Evolution is wrong, he's using it to prove that Evolution's not even science." Alas, this puts him in a distinct quandary. All science, not just big-E Evolution, fails to qualify as science under Hilston's requirements. And yet Hilston has repeatedly stated that he does consider other areas of science, including little-e evolution, to be scientific. I can think of a number of possible resolutions to this contradiction:

a. I am incorrect, and areas of science other than Evolution (and the BBT) do in fact properly acknowledge an inerrant Bible as the source for all logic.
b. Hilston is incorrect about little-e evolution and the others, and there is in fact no such thing as true science.
c. Hilston is not correctly articulating how he determines what is and isn't science.
d. Hilston's concept of science is incorrect.

Myself, I'm leaning towards c and d. But, lacking sure, unwavering, unshakable certainty in the correctness of my worldview, I'd be most interested in learning how, say, ecologists do in fact properly acknowledge the divine origins of the logic they use in their work!

 

[bob b]

Actually part of evolutionary theory may be science but part definitely isn't. The main objections to swallowing the whole thing are: [1] the so-called mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection can not add enough information to the genome to be a significant factor in uphill change, and [2] there is no plausible naturalistic mechanism to produce the first cell.

Similarly for the Big Bang, there are several main objections to swallowing the whole thing, even though it is possible that parts of it may be correct. These objections are: [1] singularities appear only in mathematics, not the real world, [2] there is no credible naturalistic mechanism to create the universe, [3] the concept of multiple universes is not scientific but is instead metaphysics. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm#20051218a

The value of the Bible is not to be a science textbook, but instead to alert us when our reconstructions of the past are way off the mark. In other words it is a valuable guidebook in many areas, including science.

 

[GuySmiley]

Ka-boom!

Ka-Pow!!!

In this debate Hilston has spent tens of thousands of words trying to make the case that "only Creationists blah blah blah logic therefore blah blah blah and evolution is not science."

:chuckle:

Hilston's argument starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, from which he (supposedly) generates his conclusions about logic and then (supposedly) applies these conclusions to show that big-E Evolution is not (what he calls) science.

He doesn't start with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. He starts with logic and reason, then shows that we must presuppose a God since logic and reason work (I think we can agree on that.) He then says that only the Christian God fits reality (which I'd like to see some detail on) and then takes the Bible as literal and inerrant. The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition. That's how I see it, maybe Hilston will come correct me though. I won't take your word for it though, since you have to pretend to be a creationist to even think about the subject. (its just a joke, be calm please)

All science, not just big-E Evolution, fails to qualify as science under Hilston's requirements. And yet Hilston has repeatedly stated that he does consider other areas of science, including little-e evolution, to be scientific.

Bit of an overstatement. It might be true of Evolution since it rules out the necessary presupposition (in Hilston's view), but why would all science fail in Hilston's view? It sounds as if you think all science contradicts the Bible.

 

[mighty_duck]

Actually part of evolutionary theory may be science but part definitely isn't. The main objections to swallowing the whole thing are: [1] the so-called mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection can not add enough information to the genome to be a significant factor in uphill change, and [2] there is no plausible naturalistic mechanism to produce the first cell.

#1. Is an interesting point made by many creationists. It is dead wrong, but that would have at least made an interesting point for debate. Hilston hasn't gone anywhere near it, because Stratnerd would eat him alive. No one likes to look bad.

#2 Has nothing to do with Evolution. If you want to claim goddidit (for the first repducing living organism), that's fine. It doesn't effect the Evolutionary theory one bit.
You don't have to swallow abiogenesis to accept Evolution.

 

[mighty_duck]

The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition.

No, It is both the outcome and the presupposition. Which is why you see us complaining so much about the circularity of this argument.

 

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

Thank you for replying thoughtfully.

This may be true, SS. Some scientists are also part time philosophers...

I would maintain that all scientists are also philosophers, and indeed all people, regardless of whether or not they have formalized their philosophy and actively sharpen their philosophical acumen.

But if this physical chemist ever introduced the super natural in a hypothesis, or discards an observation because it conflicts with the Bible, he has ceased using the scientific method.

This is true. But if you think that the theistic scientist (as I will be in a couple dozen moons) would offer a super-natural hypothesis for why a chemical product is optically active when it "ought" not be, or for why a certain acreage of soil has become barren phenomenally quickly, then perhaps the theistic position has been misrepresented to you.

Also, believing in God is a far cry from being a Biblical literalist.

Of course. But it is the logical conclusion.


SS

 

[Highline]

#1. Is an interesting point made by many creationists. It is dead wrong, but that would have at least made an interesting point for debate. Hilston hasn't gone anywhere near it, because Stratnerd would eat him alive. No one likes to look bad.

#2 Has nothing to do with Evolution. If you want to claim goddidit (for the first repducing living organism), that's fine. It doesn't effect the Evolutionary theory one bit.
You don't have to swallow abiogenesis to accept Evolution.

Bob B's point number 2 was that there was no plausible mechanism for the first cell. I agree with Might Duck on point #1. On #2, I agree but will add that simpler forms of life than the cell exist now (viruses are one of them) and have existed in the past. These came first, about 350 million years before the first bacteria (single celled organisms). As usual, many of these questions hinge on time and the age of the earth.

Admittably, the beginnings of simple life is the most troubling unanswered question life science.

 

[mighty_duck]

Bob B's point number 2 was that there was no plausible mechanism for the first cell. I agree with Might Duck on point #1. On #2, I agree but will add that simpler forms of life than the cell exist now (viruses are one of them) and have existed in the past. These came first, about 350 million years before the first bacteria (single celled organisms). As usual, many of these questions hinge on time and the age of the earth.

Admittably, the beginnings of simple life is the most troubling unanswered question life science.

This hinges on the definition of what "life" is. As far as I can tell, a virus is not considered alive. Science usually examines Evolution as starting with the first reproducing cell. The move from an RNA world to that first cell is still considered part of abiogenesis (and even that hypothesis is far from being widely accepted).

Science will always have unanswered questions, see this thread for some more interesting ones. The fact that theists still bring out God-of-the-Gaps arguments is amusing, considering how many times it has blown up in their faces in the past.

 

[aharvey]

He doesn't start with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. He starts with logic and reason, then shows that we must presuppose a God since logic and reason work (I think we can agree on that.) He then says that only the Christian God fits reality (which I'd like to see some detail on) and then takes the Bible as literal and inerrant. The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition. That's how I see it, maybe Hilston will come correct me though. I won't take your word for it though, since you have to pretend to be a creationist to even think about the subject. (its just a joke, be calm please)

Sorry, but he starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. Everything else follows from that. He's quite explicit about it. Go back and see for yourself.

Bit of an overstatement. It might be true of Evolution since it rules out the necessary presupposition (in Hilston's view), but why would all science fail in Hilston's view? It sounds as if you think all science contradicts the Bible.

Now you're confusing "is it correct?" with "is it science?" You'd better take a second look at his argumentation.

 

[Balder]

I posted this observation about presuppositionalism on another thread which is now closed, but I think it's relevant here as well...

It seems to me that the presuppositionalist apologetic is a disgruntled reaction rather than an honest position: someone noticed that debates between Christians and atheists often "presupposed" the criteria for determining "valid knowledge" that are common to the modern scientific worldview, and then said, "Hey, why do that? I can presuppose my own criteria, start from there, and demand that others accept those presuppositions or admit that they've 'lost already.'" After all, Christianity cannot pass the truth tests of "science" since it is not science. The reaction has been to turn the tables, essentially re-asserting the much maligned bumper sticker sentiment, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" -- hopefully in a more sophisticated way.

A problem here is a failure to differentiate non-reducible types of validity claims, either through ignoring or discrediting alternative modes, or "subjugating" one mode to another. Atheistic materialism has tended to emphasize empirical observation, concerning itself primarily with objective truth (correspondence, representation, propositional) and functional fit (systems theory, structural-functionalism, etc), and largely ignoring or devaluing subjective experience. Religious traditions have largely emphasized more interior (subjective) value claims and methods of validation, particularly truthfulness (sincerity, integrity, trustworthiness) and justness (cultural fit, mutual understanding,
rightness or righteousness).

These four different approaches are not really reducible to the terms of whatever method one happens to prefer, though society has been fragmented by the efforts of one camp or another trying to discredit other approaches, or to subjugate them to the "ultimate criteria" of its preferred method. I think this is what is going on here in this "reaction" of presuppositionalism (a form of narrow absolutism) to the equally narrow absolutism of the atheist materialists with which many Christians have been wrestling.

 

[Johnny]

I'm going to repost these--SS or Hilston or anyone who supports this nonsense can reply

1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application? What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?

 

[GuySmiley]

Now you're confusing "is it correct?" with "is it science?" You'd better take a second look at his argumentation.

Well, I've been wrong before, only once. But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God. So that would not be true of all scientific endeavors, but not restricted to Evolution either. Notice I made no statement about Evolution not being correct.

 

[Johnny]

But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God.

Does it? Where? There are many Christian evolutionists. Evolution says nothing as to the existence of God.

 

[Hilston]

Reply to Johnny's re-post ...

Reply to Johnny's re-post ...

Hi Johnny,

You write:

1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?

I don't agree that uniformity works for nuclear physics but not for evolutionary science. I believe uniformity applies equally in all fields of science. That's not the issue here. On what basis does one prroceed on the assumption that nature will continue to be uniform, or that it was uniform in the past? On what basis does one reason at all, expecting reason to comport with reality, let alone expecting one's reasoning faculties to function properly? The Creationist who does evolutionary science or nuclear physics does so with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods, and the resulting knowledge is justified. The Methodological Naturalist who is a nuclear physicist or doing evolutionary science does not do their science with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods. In fact, they must borrow tools from the Creationist worldview in order to do science; they must use Creationistic logic and Creationistic induction in order to even ask the question. The knowledge of the Meth-Naturalist might be true, but it's not justified. It's stolen fire, to use a mythological analogy.

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?

It certainly does. But those who presume to ignore their Creator and to exclude all things extra-natural from their research and investigation will ignore any evidence that could possibly prove the Biblical God, and realization of their indictment before Him.

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application?

I need to know more about the foundation of your logic. Can you be more specific?

What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?

"Literal" is a term that is badly misused. The text of Genesis, indeed the whole Bible, is filled with language that is figurative, narrative, poetic, prophetic, symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, etc., just as much, if not most, of literature throughout history. Whether we're reading Shakespeare or Stephen King or the prophet Isaiah, we ought to read the texts with a desire to understand them in the same way the writers intended and a thoughtful reader of their time and culture would have understood them. Given that approach, the days of creation in Genesis must be understood in the sense of a 24-hour solar day (yes, even before the existence of the sun). There is no way to understand the days of Genesis 1 as anything other than normative evening-and-morning days unless one (a) undermines the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible and (b) does violence to the Hebrew language.

Johnny, as a Christian, do you believe the words of Paul, who said that Christ created all things and holds all things together, which he wrote in his epistle to the believers at Colossae?

Col 1:16 For by [Christ Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.​

Thanks for your questions,
Jim

 

[Stratnerd]

Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God.

my God, how can anyone think this since I pointed out in every one of my posts this is not the case.

 

[Johnny]

I know that you are busy with the debate and I recognize that these things are very time demanding, so I want to thank you for your direct response Hilston. You may or may not be compelled to respond to this, but I wanted to respond.

I don't agree that uniformity works for nuclear physics but not for evolutionary science. I believe uniformity applies equally in all fields of science. That's not the issue here.

On the contrary, this is a key issue. I can demonstrate that the same reasoning and application of logic that we have applied to nuclear physics has been properly applied to evolutionary theory. By nature of your claim you must disagree. I am asking for particular examples of the misapplication of these principles. In other words, based on the evidence alone why has modern science reached an entirely different conclusion? What evidence specifically has been misinterpreted?

On what basis does one prroceed on the assumption that nature will continue to be uniform, or that it was uniform in the past? On what basis does one reason at all, expecting reason to comport with reality, let alone expecting one's reasoning faculties to function properly?

There is no basis. It is assumed. It is unproven. It doesn't matter. Perhaps we are both wrong and unjustified in our application of logic. Nonetheless, these axioms are still the foundation of science. Science does not represent or attempt to provide the absolute truth. It is simply our best explanation based on what is available to us. A hypothesis can fully qualify as "scientific" but can be completely wrong. What we do know is that science with its axioms (which may or may not be justified) "works" for us remarkably well. For this reason, most scientists do not concern themselves with philosophical arguments. They just do science because it works. Even you must admit that this process does not stop yielding explanatory power even when it addresses our origins.

These axioms are the underpinnings of science itself. If you argue that these axioms are unfounded then you argue that science is unfounded. The process of science does not assume God. He is not an axiom of science. Thus, you may argue that science is unfounded but you cannot argue that evolutionary theory alone is unfounded without redefining science. You have realized this and have thus taken the liberty to do so. Yet I can catagorically say that your definition is sloppy, unfounded, unsupported, and unused. You made it up.

Redefining a word to something it is clearly not is an unacceptable debate tactic. One can define any term to mean anything and then proceed to argue from that usage. I can define Creationists as "people who hate slugs" and then proceed to argue that the increase in slug corpses around Creationist meetings is a direct result of Creationists. My argument may be founded under my definition, but my definition is completely absurd. Stratnerd has objected to your definition many times on this basis. You have redefined science to something it is not. If you are going to honestly argue that Evolution is unscientific then you must do so within the confines of the acceptable usage of the word. This means that you must assume the same axioms of science and then work from that point to show that these axioms are not properly applied to evolutionary science. Any other approach--including redefining the word--is unacceptable.

The Creationist who does evolutionary science or nuclear physics does so with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods, and the resulting knowledge is justified. The Methodological Naturalist who is a nuclear physicist or doing evolutionary science does not do their science with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods.

Yet by your own admission (your endorsement of uniformity), the proper application of logic should yield the same result whether done by a methodological naturalist or a Creationist. It is your job to show that the methodological naturalist has not properly applied his axioms.

In fact, they must borrow tools from the Creationist worldview in order to do science; they must use Creationistic logic and Creationistic induction in order to even ask the question. The knowledge of the Meth-Naturalist might be true, but it's not justified. It's stolen fire, to use a mythological analogy.

See above.

It certainly does. But those who presume to ignore their Creator and to exclude all things extra-natural from their research and investigation will ignore any evidence that could possibly prove the Biblical God, and realization of their indictment before Him.

Again, by definition science excludes the extra-natural. By arguing that science should include the extra-natural, and subsequently evolution is unscientific, you have redefined science to suit your purposes in order to claim that evolution is unscientific. You might as well redefine science to outright exclude evolution.

Whether we're reading Shakespeare or Stephen King or the prophet Isaiah, we ought to read the texts with a desire to understand them in the same way the writers intended and a thoughtful reader of their time and culture would have understood them.

I disagree with this. I do not feel the same understanding is completely necessary. It is absolutely certain that we do not understand scripture the same way the ancient Hebrews did. We have entirely different world-views and knowledge-sets on which to work. Our views regarding scripture are largely the result of the enlightenment. But the beauty of scripture is that the truth contained within transcends the cultural context with which they are understood. It does not matter how Genesis is understood--literal or metaphorical. The truth that God is the originator of all things transcends the scientific context with which we understand creation.

Johnny, as a Christian, do you believe the words of Paul, who said that Christ created all things and holds all things together, which he wrote in his epistle to the believers at Colossae?

Yes.

 

[aharvey]

Well, I've been wrong before, only once. But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God. So that would not be true of all scientific endeavors, but not restricted to Evolution either. Notice I made no statement about Evolution not being correct.

And yet again I'm forced to repeat that all scientific endeavor (excluding explicitly "creationist science", to give you the benefit of the terminological doubt here) does in fact "rule out the necessary presupposition of God" to exactly the same degree that Evolution does! All of it: chemistry; physics; geology; biology, and all the subfields within each. In principle, you could easily rebut this by demonstrating the differences in how Evolution and what you would consider "real" science handles "the necessary presupposition of God." You don't have to be comprehensive; a single generalizable example will suffice.

I want to make sure that you get the point here. To say that evolution is wrong because its explanations are discordant with those of the Bible is one thing. To say that evolution is not science because it does not presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible is something completely different. "Disagreement with a presupposedly literal and inerrant Bible" is a criterion that I would agree does place Evolution and BBT in the "necessarily wrong" bin, pretty much all other science in the "not necessarily wrong" bin. "Failure to presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible", however, places all (non-"Creation science") science in the "necessarily not science" bin. Again, if this last statement is false it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it.

 

[aharvey]

Jim (Hilston),

Even your fervent supporters seem to be unclear on your chain of reasoning (i.e., what's presupposed, what's inferred, what's deduced, etc.) that ultimately lead you to "Evolution is not science." Would it be possible to present your chain of reasoning in outline form so that we can all see, explicitly, step-by-step, where your argument starts (i.e., does it start with a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy or not?), and where you go from there. I presented what I thought was a reasonable beta version of such an outline, upon which you commented but did not emend, and your comments were such that I couldn't exactly tell which were agreement, disagreement, clarification, or what. In retrospect, I'm not sure my outline at all reflects your thought processes anyways. I'm not asking for tens of thousands of words of explication (in fact, I'm begging you not to go that route!), just a simple outline that organizes the ideas into the logical arrangement that you perceive for them.

Such an outline is unlikely to answer all questions (e.g., at what point do we no longer need to continue to justify our justifications?), but it will certainly help us follow and discuss your arguments.

Thanks!

 

[Balder]

Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (= inane, empty) in their reasoning, and their foolish* heart was darkened.
(*foolish = Greek asunetos - unintelligent, refusal to synthesize and comprehend)


[The Bible's] very existence is not only relevant, but essential. The passages I quoted are both necessary and sufficient conditions for the success of scientific inquiry.

How are the passages you quoted necessary and sufficient for the success of scientific inquiry? Since probably most scientists don't think the above passages have anything to do with "doing science," would you say that science thus far is largely "unsuccessful"? How do you define success?