Notes on Hilston's 5th post.
Notes on Hilston's 5th post.
Desperation marked the theme of Jim's latest post. Jim really wants us to expand Evolution in to places it doesn't belong. If stratnerd would have a similar MO, he would expand the Christian worldview to include Santa Claus, then call the entire thing irrational.
It was by far his longest post, but there was really nothing new there. Just restating the assertion that scientists must borrow from the creationist to do science. In many, many more words. I thought he would at least TRY to back this up by now, as his whole case rests on it...
1. Claims he could do science while invoking supernatural causes, which shows how Jim misunderstands what science is, even after all the virtual ink spilled by stratnerd the last few posts.
2. Underpinnings of Evolution - ie aboigenesis. The Evolutionary Theory doesn't care one bit where that first reproducing organism came from. It could have come about by nature like some atheists claim, it could have been created by God, it could have been implanted by aliens. All of these don't affect the theory one bit. We are looking at one scientific Theory, not a worldview (does God exist? different debate).
3. Cosmic "Evolution" vs Biological Evolution. What is Jim smoking (or home brewing)? Cosmic "Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological kind, which is the topic of debate. For the purposes of this debate, I would just concede the Cosmic "Evolution" is bunk, and focus on the real topic here. If we prove the biological Evolution, it has little bearing on abiogenesis, BBT, etc.
4. Worldviews extracted from Evolution. I agree with Jim, that is not science. But it is not claiming to be, so why bring this up? Does Jim really think any Secular Humanist who bases his views on some form of Evolution, is being scientific?? I call strawman.
5. Evolution and Methodological Naturalism are NOT worldviews. Metaphysical Naturalism is, but it need not be held to use the tools of Methodological Naturalism. Science is Meth-Nat. Jim has not brought any counter argument to that. This is where his argument falls apart.
6. Jim confuses "unproven" with supernatural. UoN, while it may not be "proven", is still natural.
7. Uses this line over and over (and over), without understanding it.
stratnerd said:
If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."
Basic reading comprehension please. Stratnerd is implying that he doesn't define natural as only five senses.
8.
The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.
Is Jim disputing this statement? If he is, he just threw away all of science. If he isn't disputing it, then he has agreed to stratnerd's description of science.
9. Jim claims he has never seen a rational answer that is not correct. This is easy, just make a rational deduction when one of your premises is wrong. For example a premise of an inerrant Bible will lead you to some crazy deductions...
10. Stratnerd's request to Jim to back up his claims is met with a "I can, but you would dismiss it". No comment necessary..
11.
In order to [verify] that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it.
This is the most ironic statement yet. Jim is basically saying you can't use your premise when trying to prove your premise, that would be circular. I heartily agree.
12. We need to define what natural is, because there is obviously a misunderstanding. If Jim claims that gravity is super-natural, we have a problem.
13. Jim claims induction can't fail. He later comments this is true only if one is omniscient. Induction produces unreliable results for humans, so why must we have 100% certain knowledge of its verity to use it? Our results our not going to be 100% acurate anyway.