Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Johnny]

Hilston should have shown why evolution is unscientific even under the accepted and used definition instead of making up his own definition to suit his purposes.

 

[Hilston]

Just poking in ...

Just poking in ...

Hi Johnny,

Hilston should have shown why evolution is unscientific even under the accepted and used definition instead of making up his own definition to suit his purposes.

My claim is that evolution as defined by Stratnerd is scientific ("... In a broad sense organic evolution, ... can be thought broadly of as change in populations through generations. ... So changes in mean height that are attributable to changes in genotype (and not changes in diet, etc) can be considered evolution.") I distinguished evolution (lower case "e") from Evolution (upper case "E"), using Stratnerd's other definition: "Another definition, and the one that interests most readers here, is evolution as an explanation for the diversity we see today. So this is the same definition as the broad scale but restricting it to longer time scales thus becoming a historical hypothesis or theory." By this definition, Evolution is not scientific, for two reasons:

(1) Because the Evolutionist paradigm invokes presumptuous claims that extend beyond the purview of the scientific method; and
(2) Because the Evolutionist scientist is unable to justify his most fundamental assumptions regarding the tools he uses to do his science.

Here are some excerpts from the debate that should help:

A. What Evolution Is Vs. The Underpinnings And Implications of Evolution
I understand Stratnerd's concern about my statements concerning Evolution. I recognize that my criticisms extend beyond the definitions he and I agreed upon. That is not a mistake; it is quite deliberate and justified. In my defense, I will say that I have not ignored the definition of Evolution that Stratnerd and I agreed upon, nor was it my intent to give it a meaning that scientists would dispute. Rather, I have sought to evaluate Evolution on the basis of what it, by the agreed-upon definition, claims and the necessary underpinnings and implications of those claims. I have no problem with Stratnerd's definition. What I have a problem with is Stratnerd's refusal to acknowledge the necessary foundation and ramifications of the agreed-upon definition.

B. Science is Science; Evolution is Magic
Stratnerd accuses me of arguing that "science is not science." On the contrary, and by the example with which I opened this post, I have every confidence in the methods of science. What I am skeptical about is the paradigm of its practitioners. Science is science as long as it conforms to the scientific method that Stratnerd correctly defined. When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific. When one proffers a proposition that ventures outside or beyond the reach of the scientific method, then it is no longer science. Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalists and Evolution as a paradigm are guilty on each count, respectively.

...

Despite the devastating quotes from the various architects of Evolutionary dogma, I will continue to restrict my critique to Stratnerd's definition of Evolution. What I will not do, however, is bury my head in the sand next to Stratnerd's in order to pretend that his definition of Evolution does not impose grave, irrational demands upon its proponents, or does not impose significant, far-reaching and incoherent ramifications by its claims.

1. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration. It is a self-refuting premise. It is an unjustified stipulation. It is, itself, extra-natural in its very essence. Without any means whatever to justify the E/MN hypothesis (see below) without committing the logical fallacy of question-begging, the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist must adopt a belief in magic.

2. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview involves irrational ramifications, not the least of which is the inability to justify the tool and methods, the necessary implications that life spontaneously generated from non-life, that singularity spawned diversity, that universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness.[/b]​

Hope that helps. Gotta run.

Jim

 

[Jukia]

You know you have reached the end of the line when you don't even bother to read Hilston's "explainations".

 

[sentientsynth]

Summary of All Seven of Stratnerd's Posts

Summary of All Seven of Stratnerd's Posts

Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care.

Congratulations on your victory, Hilston.

SS

 

[Johnny]

You already admitted that your criticisms "extend beyond the definitions" stratnerd and you agreed upon. You surely recognize that you've stepped outside of the acceptable definitions in order to make an argument.

I recognize that my criticisms extend beyond the definitions he and I agreed upon.

By this definition, Evolution is not scientific, for two reasons:
(1) Because the Evolutionist paradigm invokes presumptuous claims that extend beyond the purview of the scientific method; and

A change in allelic frequency is an observation. That does not qualify as a presumptuous claim that extends beyond the purview of the scientific method. This same definition applied to a broader time scale scale is an explanation for diversity. That does not qualify as a presumptuous claim that extends beyond the purview of the scientific method. This is a scientific explanation which fits the criteria of science.

(2) Because the Evolutionist scientist is unable to justify his most fundamental assumptions regarding the tools he uses to do his science.

No definition of science but the one you made up requires justification of fundamental assumptions (i.e. axioms). You will not find a definition of science that says that all axioms must be justified before real science is being done.

Science is science as long as it conforms to the scientific method that Stratnerd correctly defined. When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific.

Hilston, the definition of science does not require justifications of its axioms. Stratnerd is entirely correct in accusing you of arguing science is not science. No science--be it quantum physics, organic chemistry, or evolutionary biology--requires the justification of its axioms. This has never been a requirement. The organic chemist no more justifies his axioms than the evolutionary biologist. You're trying to selectively exclude evolutionary science from the "science" catagory while retaining things like chemistry and physics. It can't happen. The only rebuttal you offer is that you disagree with the "paradigm of the practitioners". But the paradigm of the physical chemist is the same paradigm of the evolutionary biologist. Your argument falls flat on its face.

Despite the devastating quotes from the various architects of Evolutionary dogma, I will continue to restrict my critique to Stratnerd's definition of Evolution.

Don't be the creationist who argues with quotes.

1. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration. It is a self-refuting premise. It is an unjustified stipulation. It is, itself, extra-natural in its very essence. Without any means whatever to justify the E/MN hypothesis (see below) without committing the logical fallacy of question-begging, the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist must adopt a belief in magic.

The physicists worldview requires the same thing. So does the chemists. So does the ecologists. So does the cell biologists. So does the biochemists. So does the genetecists. So does the astronomers. So does the astrophysicists. So does the evolutionary biologists.

2. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview involves irrational ramifications, not the least of which is the inability to justify the tool and methods, the necessary implications that life spontaneously generated from non-life, that singularity spawned diversity, that universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness.

The physicists worldview requires the same thing. So does the chemists. So does the ecologists. So does the cell biologists. So does the biochemists. So does the genetecists. So does the astronomers. So does the astrophysicists. So does the evolutionary biologists.

Hilston, it is science itself that mandates this worldview--not the evolutionists. Evolutionists are just another practitioner of science. By definition science does not require justification of its axioms (they are axioms, afterall). By definition science does not consider the supernatural. ALL SCIENCE REQUIRES THIS WORLDVIEW, NOT JUST EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE. Your continual denial of this is bordering on dishonesty. Just claim that science is unscientific and be done with it. That's what you're arguing.

 

[mighty_duck]

Summary of All Seven of Stratnerd's Posts

Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care.

Strangely enough, you have hit the nail on the head, SS.
This is an excellent summary of the debate. Jim's whole argument is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. Even if he is right, Evolution is still science.

Hilston may have won, but only the debate he would have liked to have, not this one. In this debate, where the only question was is Evolution science, he has failed miserably.

I'll reserve final judgment until his last post is up though.

 

[sentientsynth]

Strangely enough, you have hit the nail on the head, SS.
This is an excellent summary of the debate. Jim's whole argument is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. Even if he is right, Evolution is still science.

Hilston may have won, but only the debate he would have liked to have, not this one. In this debate, where the only question was is Evolution science, he has failed miserably.

I'll reserve final judgment until his last post is up though.

I think that we were all thrown for a loop. A debate on evolution...sans biology...never thought of that!

But I think Hilston has a point, if I understand his argument correctly. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Jim's thesis is relevant. As an aspiring scientist, I think it is completely relevant.

Is Evolution more than science? Is it a philosophy? Ask Nietzsche, or Margaret Sanger, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Carl Sagan, and on and on....

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted.

SS

 

[Johnny]

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted.

He's thrown out all of science. As an aspiring scientist, you of all people should be calling shenanigans.

 

[mighty_duck]

Is Evolution more than science? Is it a philosophy? Ask Nietzsche, or Margaret Sanger, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Carl Sagan, and on and on....

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted.

SS

Hilston made a distinction between evolution which he accepts, and Evolution which he does not.
I think we should have had another category, called Evolution, which includes both evolution and biological Evolution, and add a worldview on top of that. Accepting a worldview is probably not scientific, and is more of a philosophical issue. So Evolution is not science. But has stratnerd ever claimed it is? Hilston has been tearing down a strawman.
Has he managed to establish the claim that Evolution must entail Evolution? not even close, he just asserts it without any backing. Evolution is science. This has not been challanged in the slightest.

 

[sentientsynth]

He's thrown out all of science. As an aspiring scientist, you of all people should be calling shenanigans.

I'm not calling shenanigans because:
1. I understand that epistemology takes primacy over science.
2. The debaters have the right to take the argument anywhere they want pertaining to the words "evolution" and "science" and even "fiction."
3. I have no vested interest in the outcome of this debate. If I were dissatisfied with any part of it, I'd ask for a single clarification. If I still weren't satisfied, I'd politely dismiss myself.

Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all. He hasn't thrown out "all" of science. That science "works" in spite of one's ontological beliefs was one of his major points.

Maybe you just haven't evolved to the point where you can get it.


SS

 

[SUTG]

Hilston has performed the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the tree branch upon which he was perched. If we buy into the Hume stuff, all uses of induction are unjustified - including Hilstons ample use of the Inductive principle.

Hilston, Clete, Bahnsen, and the rest of the transcendentalists cannot come up with a justification of their own. They try a God-of-the-Inductive-Gaps, but they can't really do much other than simply repeating themselves. Their justification reduces to repeating from the following pool of statements:

:dead:"Only the Christian God can justify induction"
:dead:"The Christian God justifies induction, by the impossibility of the contrary."
:dead:"Only the creationist has a justification for induction."
:dead:"Atheists must borrow from the Creationist worldview to justify induction"
:dead:"One must pretend to be a creationist to justify induction"

Well...here we are, 32 pages into this thread, and we still haven't seen the justification! Transcendentalists pracically invented the phrase "impossibility of the contrary", but they stopped there. Once they came up with the flashy phrase, I guess they thought their work was done.

If you perform a Goggle query for the phrase "impossibility of the contrary" , you'll find a boatload of other transcendentalists repeating the same phrase, ad nauseum. What you won't find is a proof of the claim.

The TAG is over, folks. It is a great introduction to Hume's Skepticism, but it has nothing to offer beyond that.

 

[sentientsynth]

Accepting a worldview is probably not scientific, and is more of a philosophical issue.

Accepting a world-view is inescapable. I do it, you do it, Stratned does it, even if we vociferously deny it. I've heard such claims as "I hold no belief...". With a little poking and prodding, this breaks down completely.


Demanding the word "biological" be added to this debate demonstrates a false assumption. You assumed. Pie in the face.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

:dead:"Only the Christian God can justify induction"
:dead:"The Christian God justifies induction, by the impossibility of the contrary."
:dead:"Only the creationist has a justification for induction."
:dead:"Atheists must borrow from the Creationist worldview to justify induction"
:dead:"One must pretend to be a creationist to justify induction"
.

You forgot one:

:dead: "Evolution isn't science due to the rational impossibility of the contrary."


SS

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all. He hasn't thrown out "all" of science. That science "works" in spite of one's ontological beliefs was one of his major points.

I've seen Hilston claim science still works. I responded way back with "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." As you claim, valid science can be done with the wrong paradigm. Yet Hilston turns around and claims, "When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific." Are you saying science is valid even with the wrong paradigm? Hilston disagrees..

1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?
2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not? WHY?

You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't.

When Hilston asserts that evolution is unscientific because of the paradigm of the practioners, why does this not apply to the paradigm of the physicists? Why is quantum physics valid science while evolutionary biology is not valid science? Both practitioners have the same paradigm.

Maybe you just haven't evolved to the point where you can get it.

How childish.

 

[sentientsynth]

1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?

YES! (Oh no! There goes Johnny's argument!)Though they operate in disparate fields, they both operate under the same guiding principles. What's at stake, Johnny, is if these very guiding principles are justified.

2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not? WHY?

No! (Wrong again Johnny!) Without proper epistemological foundations, all of thinking [insert whatever science] becomes futile and imploded.

You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't.

You silly boy.

How childish.

How unimaginative. If you're going to insult me Johnny, do it proper now. I know, it's tough. Try thinking outside the box. Like this:

Maybe if you'd get bit by a radioactive spider you'd understand the argument.


SS

 

[Balder]

Hilston, Sentientsynth, and other Christians sympathetic to the presuppositionalist argument:

I've started another thread entitled, An Open Challenge to Presuppositionalists. I'm putting this post here because Knight suggested I PM Hilston to let him know I started that thread. I am putting this note here instead because while I respect Jim as a debate partner, I am aware he has his hands full and I would like to invite other perspectives, approaches, as well. Sentientsynth, I mentioned you because I know you are familiar with Ravi Zacharias' ministry and apologetic style, and I think that such an approach would be beneficial to this inquiry.

 

[Johnny]

YES! (Oh no! There goes Johnny's argument!)Though they operate in disparate fields, they both operate under the same guiding principles. What's at stake, Johnny, is if these very guiding principles are justified.

In case you were just skimming, my argument wasn't built on you saying no. My argument was that you have to say yes. Thus, the science a quantum physicist does is no more scientific by Hilston's standards then the science an evolutionary biologist does. You are doing Hilston a disservice. Thanks for the admission, though.

"Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all."

You just admitted he did.

No! (Wrong again Johnny!) Without proper epistemological foundations, all of thinking [insert whatever science] becomes futile and imploded.

The debate is over whether or not evolutionary science is science, not whether scientific thinking is futile and imploded. You just admitted defeat. Science is not science, according to Hilston.

"You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't." You can't answer no and yes respectively. You didn't. I was right.

 

[sentientsynth]

Johnny,

Read this several times before responding.

In case you were just skimming, my argument wasn't built on you saying no. My argument was that you have to say yes. Thus, the science a quantum physicist does is no more scientific by Hilston's standards then the science an evolutionary biologist does. You are doing Hilston a disservice. Thanks for the admission, though.

Hilston isn't arguing evolutionary biology. Keep up. This was never what this debate was about, though some desperately wanted it thus. I expected it, but didn't get it. (So no shenanigans, right?)

Scientia=Knowledge=Epistemology. A=A=A. If the quantum physicist philosophically undermines his own competence to verify truth, then nothing and absolutely nothing that ever comes out of his mouth can be said to be a justifiable representation of reality within that quantum physicist's schemata of understanding reality. He must borrow from another worldview in order to lay claim to any truth, whether it be evidenced a thousand times over or not. (The Japanese solved x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where x, y, and z are the legs of a right triangle up to the tens of thousands, yet never proved the theorem mathematically. The man who did, Pythagoras, is who we credit with the theorem, and justified the use of this theorem universally within mathematics.)

The Evolutionist does just this sort of "worldview borrowing." Hilston has handed all of you sound reasoning on a palatable platter repeatedly, yet all of you stumble over this very treasure as if it were hidden in the darkness of a cave. Then, once you realize your face is in the floor of the Earth, you rise complaining because you never saw this. Open your eyes and look around. The truth is plain to all, as it has been sufficiently manifested to all by what has been created, the order of the material and the immaterial.

Johnny, you said that I had to say such and such and what not. You were talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. Where's your spidey-senses, Peter Parker?

The debate is over whether or not evolutionary science is science,

Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two.

not whether scientific thinking is futile and imploded.

The term "scientific thinking" is what must be fully defined. It is the definition of this term that is the crux of this debate.Science=Knowledge. Scientific thinking = A method of ratiocination that accurately and precisely represents reality, giving knowledge of facts beyond the mere subjective perception of such. Outside of a Creator that fashioned the subjective psyche to represent objective reality accurately and precisely, there is no rational foundation for presupposing the commensurability of the noumenal and the phenomenal. The man who doesn't presuppose such a pre-fashioning of the psyche to the non-psyche throws the monkey wrench in his ratiocination at step one of the process. Why haven't you yet grasped it, fellow Christian?

Science is not science, according to Hilston.

Blithering nonsense. Of course, you're using a rhetorical device to aggravate a dichotomy. I must presuppose this, or else you statement should be viewed as completely non-sensical. Kind of like saying "The color of this ice creams sounds hot on Tuesdays." Science isn't science? Are you presupposing a presupposition on the part of a man you say isn't justified in any presupposition?

Um..sorry...maybe I got carried away... :darwinsm: I presuppose that your similarly human psyche will induce the truth of the objective reality beyond your subjective phenomenological perceptions in space-time which includes the perhaps unverifiable existence of once-removed subjects existing in this same space-time, allowing you to intuit what I just meant. Now that was getting carried away.

Johnny, call it quits. My species has evolved beyond your species so that my species may perceive the existence of such realities. Such justifications are warranted within an Evolutionary worldview. Within a Creationist worldview, they aren't. So go ahead and bum from a Creationist worldview, as Stratnerd has to even carry on the previous "debate", and say that my species has no preceptual advantage beyond your species. Or [do I possess the bravery] go ahead and claim that my species hasn't yet evolved to understand the realities that your species has. Go ahead. Doing so will undermine the very existence of truth, which in itself is the fatal blow to any philosophical house of cards.

I have no expectation of you to actually consider one word of what I just said. That would be an unjustified presupposition. The existence of a transcendent Infinite which possesses the characteristics capable of ontologically grounding the existence of both the material and the immaterial is not, however.

The Evolutionists have lost this debate.

Show's over folks.


SS

 

[Metalking]

Knowledge in review or Science under review....as in the use of mathematics the pie formula is popping up in the result of a final outcome on several different areas, we don't know why, but it works.The more we learn , we strive to fill in the blank,and as we know the lazer and particle beam weapons of Science fiction have become Scientific facts....Leading to the observation that Evolution must be Science fiction..because it has yet to become a Scientific fact.

 

[Jukia]

Knowledge in review or Science under review....as in the use of mathematics the pie formula is popping up in the result of a final outcome on several different areas, we don't know why, but it works.The more we learn , we strive to fill in the blank,and as we know the lazer and particle beam weapons of Science fiction have become Scientific facts....Leading to the observation that Evolution must be Science fiction..because it has yet to become a Scientific fact.

Is that a formula for apple or blueberry "pie".
If someone else had written that I might think it was a typo; however...

Oh, and lazer is pretty cool too.

Seriously, I apologize for the one liners but you really have no concept of science.

Shadily (thanks OEJ) yours
Jukia