EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction? ~ Battle Royale IX

[Nathon Detroit]

Vote on who you think is winning Battle Royale IX at this stage in the battle.

 

[Stratnerd]

I. What evolution is and what it ain’t

I. A. What Evolution is

I pointed out that Jim has used a definition of Evolution not agreed to and a definition that no scientist uses. He continues to do so.

He countered by suggesting that I added a stipulation not in the original definitions. This is hardly as egregious as totally ignoring an agreed upon definition and using a definition that no scientist uses but, more importantly, there’s no stipulation added – I am only trying to clarify the definition we agreed upon.

Indeed, I did say “[E]volution 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.

What is the broad scale definition? I wrote “In a broad sense, organic evolution, the type of evolution we are interested in here (as opposed to cultural evolution and other “evolutions”), can be thought broadly of as change in populations through generations.” and “collections of individuals that share their genome through reproduction.”

So Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing. If I’m accused of “hair-splitting” that’s fine – I’d rather work with definitions that split hairs than ones that are so vague that they’re meaningless.


I.B. What evolution ain’t


I.B.1. Abiogenesis
Jim avoids the term abiogenesis but the online (m-w.com) definition is

the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

Non-overlapping definitions because they are different phenomena. Discussion about Evolution usually include terms such as phylogeny, inheritance, speciation, and includes reproducing organism. Discussions about abiogenesis usually include entropy, RNA first, protein first, metabolic-first, etc. Everyone understands that evolution and abiogenesis are different.

he cannot justifiably ignore the obvious ontological questions concerning the original organism, even before it reproduced.

I just did.

1.B.2 Evolution is not about cosmogony
1.B.3. Evolution is not about the “view of human dignity and moral standards”

II. But is Evolution scientific?​

II.A. Standard definitions
From m-w.com the definition of the scientific method is

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

emphasis added
If you look at my opening post this is just about what I said about what science and how to do it (I love when that happens).
Now compare this definition to what Evolutionary biology does and one can easily see that Evolution falls within this definition.
Jim’s only recourse is to argue that science is not science! Jim argues that only the Biblical literalists view can account for things such as logic and uniformity of nature. This is an extension of the belief that creationism is absolutely true. Creationism is, of course, unscientific. And there you have it – the dog chasing his tail.
II.B. Jim’s definition
Jim provides his own definition of science (one you probably won’t find in a science textbook):

First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs.

my emphasis
As I mentioned before, almost everyone is a scientist under this definition.
I don’t have internet at my house so I’m not sure what number question I left off on but let me start with 30…
SQ30 What are we testing? A hypothesis? Why test [given your faith in induction?]? If you don’t like falsification, what do you do with conflicting data?
SQ30b If you had data that conflicted with your creationists views, would you dismiss is a priori? Don’t you find that position a little too insulating?
For example, you’re a scientist that examines the population genetics of birds on an island. Using known mutation rates you estimate that the population coalesced (when the population is founded – which fits nicely into a creationist perspective) 100,000 thousand years go.
SQ30c Do you dismiss your findings as aberrant? Do you modify your version of creationism (e.g., that the timeline is way off). What if you repeat the exercise with a different species of bird and you get the same date? And you do it again and again and get the same results – consistent results? Now a geologist estimates the age of the island and you get a similar estimate. Do you dismiss all these independent data? Do you, CAN YOU, modify your views of creation?
So, what’s Jim’s take on Evolution, given his own definition?

Capital "E" evolution, no. Lower-case "e" evolution? Yes.

Because “Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.” [opening post]
So Evolution does science but a crucial scientific principles itself (especially, according to Jim, methodological naturalism) is self-refuting so no science qualifies as science.

IV. But is Creationism scientific?​

No. By the standard definition it isn’t and apparently Jim doesn’t disagree.
By the Merriam Webster dictionary, creationism can’t be science; it disqualifies itself because it doesn’t have recognition and formulation of a problem [see above]
quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratnerd

Here the theistic evolutionist has the upper hand. A creationist offers no explanation and admits that they cannot give one (so creationism itself is beyond falsification – the primary criteria most scientists use to judge if something is scientific.
Have I argued that Creationism is scientific? [/quote]
You said

To answer your question directly, no, but I don't see how it is relevant, or how the inability to know the mechanics of creation precludes creationism from being creation science.

[SQ31] Then what’s “creation science”? Are you going to use the term then argue that it doesn’t exist?
Ironically, Jim claims that the tools of the scientist are borrowed from Creationism, which, by it’s very nature, not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratnerd

A theistic evolutionists explains the horse as a product of evolution and bases this argument on their God-given powers of logic. Nobody is asking and can give a play-by-play, I’m simply asking for a general mechanism.

The creationist explains the horse as the creative work and design of God and bases this argument on the revealed Word of God. The general mechanism is God's creative power and volition. He. Made. It.

“He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it), which, according to Jim, is a logical fallacy.

V. Methodological naturalism
V.A. What it is?
I need to clarify what I mean by MN. While this will be seen as shifting the definition, I only hope to clarify my view on MN. When a scientist asks “why does this phenomenon occur?” the scientist can only incorporate explanations that do not involve the supernatural. The scientist need not make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist – he or she or it can even posit the workings of the supernatural at work. However, the scientist cannot incorporate such workings into a testing framework.
For example: here are a number of explanations that you can rationalize for the primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm
a. nutrient levels available to the producers
b. population dynamics of the producers
c. population dynamics of the herbivores
d. population dynamics of the predators
e. God

These are all biologically justifiable (causal links between the response and predictor variables) hypotheses. There are theoretical reasons why each one should change the entire contents of the microcosm. I include God for the sake of argument. We can now experiment with a-d by adding/subtracting individuals or manipulating nutrient levels. How does one deal with God in this situation? How can you manipulate God to demonstrate the effect on the system? You can’t. So MN is simply the admission that you can’t incorporate the supernatural in a falsification framework.

V.B. What is ain’t

methodological naturalism, by its prejudicial dismissal of anything and everything extra-natural, becomes a form of ontological naturalism.

V.B.1. Ontological naturalism. Ontological naturalism is a universal statement. Methodological naturalism makes no such universal claim – not even on a small scale. You must simply leave out supernatural explanations because there’s nothing you can do with it. Consider God to be background noise if you want.
V.B.2. Self-refuting. Methodological naturalism is only self-refuting if you accept Jim’s argument. I do not.
V.B.3. A hypothesis.

To get around this, Methodological Naturalism as a hypothesis must then assert that logic and science are axioms that do not need to be proven. But of course, this violates Stratnerd's own requirement for the justification for a hypotheses.

MN is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor and response variable. Regardless, science (including Evolution justifies the use of MN because (repeating myself) the supernatural cannot be included (even if we want it to) in a falsification framework of science. Sure, ontologically speaking Jim can argue all about God being everywhere and the source of logic but then God is reduced to background noise. But if we are talking about answering real scientific issues, such as the cause of a particular disease, the nature of inheritance, etc, then the supernatural cannot be incorporated because, as Jim pointed out, we have no idea how to.
VI. Sticking to the Topic.
Jim suggests that our claims for him going off topic are unfounded. And he seems to think that this has something to do with him asking for justification of the tools of science. This isn’t the case. What we are objecting to is the redefinition of Evolution to include the things it doesn’t.
VII. Justification
VII.a What I’m talking about
When I use the term justification, I usually use it in regards to hypotheses. In fact, I’d to think that the use is strict but I’m sure that somebody can find cases outside this. However, I stress that we need to justify our scientific hypotheses that propose causal links between the prediction (independent) and the response (dependent) variables.
We stress justification of hypotheses because, if you don’t, you are only making assertions and you can make as many assertions as you want (look how many are brought up in this debate). For example, you can ask what regulates avian populations in the Georgia Piedmont. Hypotheses: the price of silver in Singapore, the taste of marshmallows, the geological strata in Finland, etc. These are not justifiable because we cannot make serious causal connections. We can however make several rational explanations and that include nest predation, predation on adults etc.
VII.b. What Jim is talking about
Something else.
I have never seen, except this debate, the need to justify the source of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. Here’s the NSF site on what matters.. Regardless, of the field (genetics, evolutionary biology, histology) you’re not asked to justify the source of logic.
Ask a scientist, any scientist, if they consider the question of the source of logic, uniformity of nature, etc in their work. First, you’ll get a blank look. Then a “what?” Then ask them if they accept logic, and uniformity of nature, etc blindly. First, you’ll get a blank look. Then a “what?”. Then they’ll say “the philosophy department is down on Thatch Street across from the Stupid Onion (Student Union).” There are two professional and published scientists on this board, AHarvey and myself, and look at our reaction to these questions.
VIII. My take on TAG

As if it were some secret, Stratnerd apparently had a secondary "Eureka!" moment when his comrade, mighty_duck, revealed to him that Hilston is a proponent of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (TAG).

True! I was totally puzzled where Jim was coming from. The TAG argument makes me envision every scientist around the world wandering around the hallways struggling to come up with the origin of logic, a rational explanation for the uniformity of nature, etc. Luckily for us (scientists), such questions are “background noise” and we actually get to writing grants and making important discoveries for us. Again, only if you accept the TAG argument does it have consequence. Jim will claim that it is True if I buy it or not but I do buy on some “deep” level I just choose to ignore it.

Jim’s argument is centered on the assumption that the only way to rationalize logic, UofN, etc is the acceptance of the Biblical God.

Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct. Therefore, we not need accept Jim’s argument. The argument used throughout every one of his posts. How else can we rationalize the use of logic? It doesn’t matter because you might be wrong anyway.

Anyone could easily discover this by a simple Google search (use quotes around my full name, "James Hilston"), by visiting my personal website (www.jameshilston.com), by visiting my church's website (www.tgfonline.org) or by searching here on TOL for my debates with anti-Theists and evidentialist Christians.

If only I had that kind of time… like Aharvey has pointed out – here’s a debate about evolution sans biology.

HQ22:Is this Stratnerd's own position ["we do not know the source of logic and uniformity"]?
SA_HQ22: Being a scientist with dirty boots and papers to show for it, I feel completely confident in saying that where logic comes from is irrelevant to understanding the natural world. If you want to understand the universe and make ontological arguments then you’ll probably need to consider it. I cannot make sense of the question “what is the source of logic” since logic, to me, is a human construct. As for the uniformity of nature, as someone that studies ecology and understanding evolution – I don’t know what uniformity you’re talking about. If uniformity was universal I wouldn’t expect something called “history” – a phenomenon that is replete with contingency after contingency. As for the reliability of induction – I believe in no such thing – that’s why I do science – I know induction is not reliable when it comes to more interesting questions.
As I pointed out in a post in the peanut gallery, I consider those that ask questions like this to be nearly useless in science – they do have entertainment value. As Feynman put it, “cocktail philosophers are always on the periphery looking in.”

These are legitimate and crucial questions that can only be answered by a transcendental consideration of one's theory of knowledge and of science.

In most of the sciences that do not conflict with Biblical literalism then these questions such as “the source of logic” are irrelevant because they have no real consequence. Would Watson and Crick discover the structure of DNA if they were Biblical literalists or atheists? Probably would make no difference. However, for questions that are touched on by Genesis then Jim is absolutely right. If one has the attitude that the have the absolute truth then you will make statements like “there are no scientific reasons to question the overall accuracy of extant Biblical texts.” If we listen to these cocktail philosophers we turn off the skepticism, put away the microscopes, and stop asking the most interesting questions.
Of course I (and all of science) will be charged with “blind faith in magical axioms.” Well, our magical axioms and our blind faith in them works exceedingly well.

Here's the justification and the support: the rejection of the God of the Bible reduces all reasoning and science to absurdity. Go ahead and test it.

As I pointed out above, this relies on accepting Jim’s argument and there’s no need to. Of course you can’t test it so asking so is just silly.

Being able to justify one's methodology does not guarantee right conclusions.

I’ll say amen to that!
IX. Evidence

But now Stratnerd is asking me to address topics that have already been argued extensively, not only here on TOL, but in scores and scores of books.

Certainly, absolutely, positively! Let me pull out the evidence presented by creationists and let me show in a public debate in a site called “Theology Online” what I big pile of crap it truly is.

Stratnerd holds to a view of reality that excludes, in advance, any and all extra-natural considerations.

I do? My science does but not my reality. Not at all. Are you conflating scientific explanations for universal ontological statements yet again?

Does it get us anywhere to lob factual claims of evidence back and forth[?]

YES!

frankly, the world has seen quite enough of those types of debates.

Frankly, the world had not seen enough of these debates!
[SQ32]You claim that evidence had nothing to do with the establishment of Evolution and made the assertion that it was more about the desire to establish a God-less worldview. Do you have any hard data to back this up?
[SQ32b]Specifically, you made this claim about Darwin and claimed to know the incentive for him putting forth evolution. Got data?

How do we know what we know? What I've attempted to do, and will continue to strive toward, is a clear understanding of Stratnerd's underlying assumptions about reality….This is why I continue to ask him to justify his tools and methods of knowing.

Simple, I use what works. How do I know something works? I look at the philosophies and methods that make the greatest advances in science. Skepticism of induction and methodological naturalism (not ontological naturalism) have been essential to these advances.

Synoposis "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong. " –Feynman.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hilston has until 12:33PM (MDT) on December 21st to make his next post.

 

[Hilston]

Round V ~ Hilston

Round V ~ Hilston

Evolution: Science or Science Fiction

ROUND V OUTLINE
I. Some Preface Remarks

A. Hair-Splitting.
B. Playing Catch-up on Questions.​

II. Bringing the Issues into Sharp Focus

A. What Evolution Is Vs. The Underpinnings And Implications of Evolution
B. When Worldviews Collide [And When They Don't], Redux
C. The Apparent Motivation To Contradict Evolutionary Forebears With Linguistic Revision​

III. What [Stratnerd Claims] Evolution Ain’t
II. But is Evolution scientific?

A. Evolution, or Evolutionary biology?
B. Science is Science; Evolution is Magic
C. Stratnerd's Definition is Better, Drop Jim’s
D. Some Questions from Stratnerd​

III. But is Creationism scientific?
IV. More Questions from Stratnerd.
V. Stratnerd on Methodological naturalism

A. What It Is.
B. Stratnerd on What Methodological Naturalism Ain’t​

VI. Stratnerd on Justification
VII. Stratnerd's Take on TAG
VIII. Jim's Questions.
IX. Summary of Round V
X. The Marathon Begins: Answers to Stratnerd's Remaining Questions

A. Answers to Stratnerd's Remaining Questions
B. Further Clean-Up
C. Woe, woe, woe, it's magic ...
D. Are The Tools & Methods of Science Tentative, Or Not?​

I. Some Preface Remarks
A. Hair-Splitting. I think Stratnerd mistakenly took one of my statements as an accusation of hair-splitting. It was not my intent to imply that. I was actually referring to my own hair-splitting when I used the term in my previous post.
B. Playing Catch-up on Questions. There were a good pile of Stratnerd's questions that I missed in my Round IV post. Those are including at the end of this Round's post.

II. Bringing the Issues into Sharp Focus
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. When Worldviews Collide [And When They Don't], Redux
If I were a biologist working side-by-side with Stratnerd, I'm sure we could get along fine, getting our boots dirty, formulating hypotheses, applying our skepticism to various scenarios, trying to understand changes in avian populations (as long as we limited our calculations to observational data) and how various elements of the landscape might affect them, and perhaps publishing papers. As a Creationist, I wouldn't hesitate to use the term "evolution" to describe the changes we were observing and studying. Our respective worldviews, in practical terms, could very well have little effect on our actual work. Stratnerd would irrationally proceed on the assumption that science works just fine apart from any extra-natural considerations. I would proceed on the assumption that science could not possibly work at all without the power and volition of the Creator sustaining the uniformity of nature and backing the inductive principle. But unless one of us or some set of circumstances were to broach the subject, we could possibly work for years together, not knowing we had such diametrically antithetical views of the foundation of our scientific methods and of God as Creator.

Note that these differences could exist, not only between those of scientific professions, but also between plumbers, beauticians, rodeo cowboys, mushroom farmers and soccer moms -- anywhere that fundamental conceptions of reality are not overtly manifested or declared (which is why I did not include such professions as journalism and Satanic High Priests).

The example above describes two men, Stratnerd and me, each with an anti-thetical worldview to the other, yet, within a particular narrow domain of scientific study, we get along fine. We even share homebrew recipes. However, if Stratnerd were to begin to extrapolate our findings beyond the actual purview of science, making unjustified uniformitarian assumptions and formulating unjustified hypotheses, such as those that would suggest long eons of time, then we would suddenly encounter between us a collision of worldviews (and I would probably start calling him names). Likewise, if I were to begin to discuss with my colleague my view that the changes we observe are all part of God's purpose of adaptation within distinct kinds of animals in a young-earth framework, then we would likewise suddenly encounter a collision of worldview between us (and I would duly expect him to start calling me names).

But I say all this to emphasize what this debate is not about. At the point of collision between us, it is not a battle of evidence, because we would have both looked at and evaluated the same evidence. Rather the collision would be about our fundamental conceptions of reality and our precommitments to certain overarching principles. It would not directly be a disagreement about how to formulate hypotheses or how to test them (although this would become pertinent when I began to attack Stratnerd's purported basis for these principles). It would not directly be a disagreement about what constitutes the scientific method or whether or not nature is uniform (although these would come into play when I critiqued Stratnerd's use of these tools).

Prior to this clash, working side-by-side, Stratnerd and I could have assumed the verity of all the methods and tools of our profession and not have broached the subject of whether or not the scientific method or induction is going to work tomorrow the way it did today. The actual working and application of "dirty-boots science" -- which I concede to include evolution (lower case "e") -- would not have been in question. But upon clashing over our fundamental conceptions of reality, we would suddenly be confronted with a difference in opinion about whether or not Evolution (upper case "E"), which I now equate to Methodological Naturalism, qualifies as "dirty boots science." I say it doesn't, and not because of what the definition explicitly states, but because of what Evolution, as defined, implicitly demands, namely an unscientific assumption about the nature of reality. And this brings us now to our current debate.

Stratnerd and others object to an alleged movement of the goal post. I claim that Stratnerd and others have not clearly recognized where the goal post has been all along.

C. The Apparent Motivation To Contradict Evolutionary Forebears With Linguistic Revision
I realize that Stratnerd wants to completely remove the metaphysical issues from the Evolution discussion, and has gone so far as to claim that Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, moral standards, etc. I claim that the wording of his definition, and the subsequent tweaking of it, betrays the trend of modern Evolutionists in recent years to limit the purview of Evolution, likely due to the recent and ongoing controversy over the teaching of origins in the classroom.

The Intelligent Design movement, which I do not support nor agree with, has apparently been effective in pressing the issues concerning what is scientific about evolution (lower-case "e") and what is unscientific about Evolution (upper-case "E"), namely, claims concerning the unobservable and untestable biochemical origin of life. When one considers the bickering that goes on between I.D. proponents and Evolutionists, each accusing the other of engaging in non-scientific inquiry regarding the unobservable and untestable past, it makes sense that both camps would want to eschew any claims that extend too far into the distant past.

So now it appears that Evolutionists want to deny being unscientific by blurring the distinctions alleged by the I.D. movement entirely, and as part of that effort, it seems they have been more careful and vociferous in removing the subject of the origin of life from the table. Hence, Stratnerd's definition:

[Evolution is] an explanation of how biodiversity came about on this planet, extending only to a time where organisms, however simple, are reproducing.[Emphasis added ~ JH]​

But this modern definition differs significantly from those of well-known Evolutionist predecessors. In the following quotes, I want to fully disclose that I did not check them all, as some are from partisan secondary sources (which I've listed). But my guess is there are plenty more where these (originally) came from:

“Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself.” (T. Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” Science, v. 155, January 27, 1967, pp. 409–15). [From the "quote mine" titled That Their Words May Be Used Against Them: Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Creationists, Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, 1997]

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Changing Man," Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155, No. 3761, p409) [ibid.]

"[A]ll aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers ... to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution." (Huxley J.S., "The Humanist Frame," in Essays of a Humanist, [1964], Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1969, reprint, p.78) (source)

"[T]he concept of evolution has been applied not only to the living world but to the nonbiological as well. Thus, we speak of the evolution of the entire universe, the solar system, and the physical earth, apart from the organisms that inhabit it ... the origin of life is best explained as the outcome of precellular chemical evolution, which took place over millions of years." (Dobzhansky T.G., Ayala F.J., Stebbins G.L. & Valentine J.W., Evolution 9, 1977, p.9) [From Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance, W.R. Bird, 1991].​

In his popular #1 bestseller, Cosmos, Carl Sagan describes Evolution from hydrogen atoms to human beings:

"Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases ... After a time the seas achieved the consistency of a warm, dilute soup. Molecules were organized ... And one day a molecule arose that quite by accident was able to make crude copies of itself ... Gradually, imperceptibly, life had begun ... Single-celled plants evolved ... Eyes and ears evolved ... Organisms buzzed, crawled, scuttled ... survived by swiftness and cunning. And then, only a moment ago, some small arboreal animals scampered down from the trees. They became upright and taught themselves the use of tools, domesticated other animals, plants and fire, and devised language. The ash of stellar alchemy was now emerging into consciousness. At an ever- accelerating pace, it in vented writing, cities, art and science, and sent spaceships to the planets and the stars. These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do, given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, and rightly. But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the science of our time." [Emphasis added, Sagan C., Cosmos, 1980, pp. 338]​

Richard Dawkins, in his national bestseller, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, he writes:

"What is the largest single event of sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life? [Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, 1987, p. 139]​

Dawkins goes on to describe the mathematical probability of the life from nonlife, referring to it as the Spontaneous Generation Probability (SGP). He writes:

"It is the SGP that we shall arrive at if we sit down with our chemistry textbooks, or strike sparks through plausible mixtures of atmospheric gases in our laboratory, and calculate the odds of replicating molecules springing spontaneously into existence in a typical planetary atmosphere." [ibid., p. 144]​

But Stratnerd emphatically asserts, contrary to such Evolutionary big-hitters as Sagan, Huxley, Dobzhansky and Dawkins:

... Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing.​

Can there be any doubt that we see linguistic revision taking place before our very eyes?

In his Dec. 1, 2005 National Review article, Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science writes:

... if you define evolution as a change of gene ratios, well, yes, there has been such a change of ratios in the population of bacteria. So, if your definition of evolution is sufficiently modest, then you can call evolution a fact. Others define evolution as "change over time." That's a fact, too.

But we know perfectly well that, to its devotees, evolution means something much more than that. [Emphasis added ~ JH]

We are expected to believe — and I do mean believe — that evolution answers the important question: How did life, in all its abundance, appear on Earth? [Emphasis in original]
~ Tom Bethell, "Don't Fear the Designer"​

III. What [Stratnerd Claims] Evolution Ain’t
Stratnerd offers the Webster definition of abiogenesis. "The supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter." He says that ain't what Evolution is, "Everyone understands that evolution and abiogenesis are different.". Dawkins, Sagan, Dobzhansky and Huxley disagree.

Hilston previously wrote:
[Stratnerd] cannot justifiably ignore the obvious ontological questions concerning the original organism, even before it reproduced.

Stratnerd replies:

I just did.

Please note the operative term: "... justifiably ..."

Stratnerd claims: Evolution is not about cosmogony. See above quotes. The big guns disagree.

Stratnerd claims: Evolution is not about the “view of human dignity and moral standards” Here is what Sagan wrote later in the same passage cited above:

But any account of cosmic evolution makes it clear that all the creatures of the Earth, the latest manufacturers of the galactic hydrogen industry, are beings to be cherished. ... the Darwinian less is clear: There will be no humans elsewhere ... Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. [ibid. pp. 338-339]​

To what does "every one of us is precious" refer, if not "human dignity"? To what does "let him live" address, if not moral standards? Despite Stratnerd's claims to the contrary, Evolution is a worldview, one which Carl Sagan and other proponents proudly championed, as indicated by the aforementioned excerpts and many others.

II. But is Evolution scientific?
A. Evolution, or Evolutionary biology?
Stratnerd offers the Websterdefinition of the scientific method as "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." He then challenges:

Now compare this definition to what Evolutionary biology does and one can easily see that Evolution falls within this definition.

I'm curious that Stratnerd has in these last two rounds suddenly begun to use the term "Evolutionary biology." Is Stratnerd attempting to move the goal posts?

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.​

C. Stratnerd's Definition is Better, Drop Jim’s
Since I agreed with Stratnerd's definition of science very early in this debate, we could have used his exclusively and avoided what follows. But it nonetheless serves to make an important point:

As I mentioned before, almost everyone is a scientist under this definition.

Of course. Recall my very first post, in which I typed: "However, in the broadest sense of the word, I would say that everyone is a scientist, that is, we all use science to varying degrees and with varying success as a means to understand our world. To be human is to be a scientist in the broadest sense, as we cannot escape the tools and methods of science that inform us of the world around us."

D. Some Questions from Stratnerd
SQ30.1: What are we testing? A hypothesis?
HA_SQ30.1: I think I may have missed something.

SQ30.2: Why test [given your faith in induction?]?
HA_SQ30.2: Faith in induction is necessary for testing anything and everything. You can't conduct a test without faith in induction. The question is: Is such a faith in induction justified? For the Creationist, it is. For the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist, it's not. Not only so, but the E/MN must presume upon the Creationist worldview in order to make sensible use of induction.

SQ30.3: If you don’t like falsification, what do you do with conflicting data?
HA_SQ30.3: I'm fine with falsification as a tool; I just don't agree with defining science that way.

SQ30b.1: If you had data that conflicted with your creationists views, would you dismiss is a priori?
HA_SQ30b: I would not dismiss the data. I would try to find the best way to understand the data to be consistent with the Creationist framework, which is the necessary and sufficient foundation for all intelligibility, including the perception and collection of data. If those efforts were inconclusive or even seemed to be contrary, then I would assume incomplete knowledge or erroneous assumptions and suspend judgment until I have a fuller understanding. Epistemologically speaking, the Creationist view is the foundation of knowledge, thus it isn't rationally possible for data, duly interpreted, to conflict with the Creationist worldview.

SQ30b.2: Don’t you find that position a little too insulating?
HA_SQ30b.2: Insulation against error is a good thing, and that is exactly the direction in which the justification of one's tools and methods can move. Insulation against the Creator is a bad thing, and that is what every scientist who employs Methodological Naturalism is doing, whether self-consciously or not.

For example, you’re a scientist that examines the population genetics of birds on an island. Using known mutation rates you estimate that the population coalesced (when the population is founded – which fits nicely into a creationist perspective) 100,000 thousand years go.

SQ30c: Do you dismiss your findings as aberrant? Do you modify your version of creationism (e.g., that the timeline is way off). What if you repeat the exercise with a different species of bird and you get the same date? And you do it again and again and get the same results – consistent results? Now a geologist estimates the age of the island and you get a similar estimate. Do you dismiss all these independent data? Do you, CAN YOU, modify your views of creation?

In order to study a certain species of bird, one should have factual knowledge about birds in general, how species relate to one another, to other animal life, to human beings and to the Creator. However, on the surface level of his question, Stratnerd has posed something isn't about science. Extrapolations into the unobserved past, whether by avian biologists or geologists, about mutations rates, avian populations and the ages of rocks are conjecture at best. On a more relevant level, the Methodological Naturalist who presumes to formulate a hypothesis, let alone the actual procedure of testing it, is pretending to be a Creationist by expecting the stated hypothesis to be comprehensible in the ears of others (induction) and for expecting the tools and procedures that worked last time will work this time as well (uniformity of nature).

III. But is Creationism scientific?
No. By the standard definition it isn’t, because the scientific method can only apply to that which comes under the purview of its tenets.

No. By the standard definition it isn’t and apparently Jim doesn’t disagree.

That is correct. Although I must admit, I have and do use the term "creationism" and "creation science" (lower case "c") to refer to creationistic science, that is, when a Creationist applies the scientific method, which I do view as actual science (such as the hypothetical scenario with which I opened this post). But in "mixed company," i.e. in the midst of a debate between competing worldviews, I try to be more careful.

IV. More Questions from Stratnerd.
Setting up Stratnerd's question, Jim previously wrote: To answer your question directly, no, but I don't see how it is relevant, or how the inability to know the mechanics of creation precludes creationism from being creation science. [Emphasis added ~ JH]

SQ31: Then what’s “creation science”? Are you going to use the term then argue that it doesn’t exist?
HQ_SQ31: Well, first of all, I was merely mirroring the way you posed the question. Stratnerd wrote:

"SQ3: Do you know of any way to know about the mechanics of creation so we might be able to make specific and testable predictions about organism – thus turning creationism into creation science (you’d be a hero to the creationist community)." [Emph. added].​

As I mentioned above, I do sometimes use the term "creation science" to mean "creationistic science," and what is meant by the term is parallel to the way I view evolution (lower case "e"). "Creationistic science" is probably a better term, although, to be clear, all valid science is inherently creationistic.

Ironically, Jim claims that the tools of the scientist are borrowed from Creationism, which, by it’s very nature, not science.

The tools are not science. The application of them is. To be more precise, the tools used by the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist are borrowed from God, the very Foundation of science. The Creationist is justified in his use of the tools; the E/MN is not.

“He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it), which, according to Jim, is a logical fallacy.

There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition.

[To be cont'd ...]

 

[Hilston]

[Round V, part 2]
V. Stratnerd on Methodological naturalism
A. What It Is.
In his attempt to defuse the time bomb of Methodological Naturalism, he offers a clarification. I don't blame him for trying, but unfortunately, as it will be demonstrated, he only succeeds in hastening the ignition of its squib. What an awful metaphor. Sorry about that. I'm getting loopy.

When a scientist asks “why does this phenomenon occur?” the scientist can only incorporate explanations that do not involve the supernatural.

If the scientist employs logical inference, he has incorporated a supernatural premise in his explanation. If the scientist assumes uniformity, he has involved an extra-natural premise in his explanation.

The scientist need not make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist – he or she or it can even posit the workings of the supernatural at work.

HQ23: I must ask: Do you now retract the following statements?:

Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work.

And this?:

Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.

However, the scientist cannot incorporate such workings into a testing framework.

This is not only untrue, it is irrational. Note that Stratnerd previously acknowledged,

"If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."​

Whenever Stratnerd uses mathematics in his procedures, whenever Stratnerd assumes the verity of induction and makes logical inference, he is incorporating the workings of the supernatural (extra-natural) into his testing framework.

For example: here are a number of explanations that you can rationalize for the primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm
a. nutrient levels available to the producers
b. population dynamics of the producers
c. population dynamics of the herbivores
d. population dynamics of the predators
e. God

These are all biologically justifiable (causal links between the response and predictor variables) hypotheses. There are theoretical reasons why each one should change the entire contents of the microcosm. I include God for the sake of argument.

It is a category error to include God as a primary regulator. This will be seen below. God is not a primary regulator in anything in this current Biblical economy (except in regeneration and salvation-- theological points for those interested). Rather, He is secondary and all-pervasive in that role. He is the very atmosphere in which science can take place. As transcendent and omni-sustaining of all natural laws, His existence and attributes are what make the very formulation of the proposition intelligible.

We can now experiment with a-d by adding/subtracting individuals or manipulating nutrient levels. How does one deal with God in this situation?

You don't; you can't. His role as secondary regulator of all things without exception is on a transcendent level.

How can you manipulate God to demonstrate the effect on the system? You can’t.

Exactly. But that doesn't mean you can justifiably ignore the fact that His existence is the foundation of science. The fact that that the formulation of your hypothesis is intelligible, and that your tests yield successful results, is all due to the secondary regulatory governance of the Creator upon His creation.

So MN is simply the admission that you can’t incorporate the supernatural in a falsification framework.

Note that Stratnerd contradicts himself in exactly this point. Earlier he said:

"If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."​

B. Stratnerd on What Methodological Naturalism Ain’t
Hilston previously wrote: [M]ethodological naturalism, by its prejudicial dismissal of anything and everything extra-natural, becomes a form of ontological naturalism.

Ontological naturalism is a universal statement. Methodological naturalism makes no such universal claim – not even on a small scale.

If the E/MN posits the exclusion of all extra-natural considerations, then ON is inescapably implied, and utterly irrational. The statement of the exclusion is itself extra-natural. It is a self-refuting claim.

You must simply leave out supernatural explanations because there’s nothing you can do with it.

I again remind Stratnerd of his previous statement:

"If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."​

Consider God to be background noise if you want.

As I stated above, this "Background Noise" is the very atmosphere in which we live, and move and have our existence; God makes science possible and intelligible.

Self-refuting. Methodological naturalism is only self-refuting if you accept Jim’s argument. I do not.

Will Stratnerd accept his own argument? Again, I bring up the previous statement:

"If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."​

A hypothesis.

To get around this, Methodological Naturalism as a hypothesis must then assert that logic and science are axioms that do not need to be proven. But of course, this violates Stratnerd's own requirement for the justification for a hypotheses.

MN is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor and response variable.

Of course it is a hypothesis! The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.

Regardless, science (including Evolution justifies the use of MN because (repeating myself) the supernatural cannot be included (even if we want it to) in a falsification framework of science.

Please refer to Stratnerd's above concession regarding the supernatural character of mathematics. Falsification itself is extra-natural in character.

Sure, ontologically speaking Jim can argue all about God being everywhere and the source of logic but then God is reduced to background noise.

Interesting. I would say God is magnified as omnipresently essential to the success of science.

But if we are talking about answering real scientific issues, such as the cause of a particular disease, the nature of inheritance, etc, then the supernatural cannot be incorporated because, as Jim pointed out, we have no idea how to.

Please refer to Stratnerd's above concession on this point.

VI. Stratnerd on Justification

1. What Stratnerd is talking about

When I use the term justification, I usually use it in regards to hypotheses. ... However, I stress that we need to justify our scientific hypotheses that propose causal links between the prediction (independent) and the response (dependent) variables.

I agree. Therefore, I would like to ask Stratnerd to justify his Methodological Naturalism hypothesis. He proposes Methodological Naturalism as a (tentative?) explanation that posits a causal relationship between a predictor (the application of logic and scientific methods) and a response variable (true results). How does Stratnerd justify this hypothesis?

2. What Jim is talking about

Something else.

That cracked me up. Seriously. I almost fell off my chair because it just sounded so funny in my head when I read it. Perhaps it's just the effects of loopiness again.

I have never seen, except this debate, the need to justify the source of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. ... Regardless, of the field (genetics, evolutionary biology, histology) you’re not asked to justify the source of logic.

This is because, within a shared worldview, foundational questions about fundamental presuppositions and precommitments are not immediately relevant. However, when the debate is between different and opposing worldviews, for reasons I've explained above and in previous posts, this is exactly where debates about ultimate questions about the nature of reality and knowledge should take place: On a presuppositional level, examining the crux of the differences between worldviews, requiring justification for things that are otherwise taken for granted, and asking the tough questions about how one accounts for the foundations of our knowledge, the intelligibility of human experience and the successes of science and logic.

There are two professional and published scientists on this board, AHarvey and myself, and look at our reaction to these questions.

I understand; I encounter this often, even among "my own." The fact is, I'm compelled by sound reason and the clear testimony of the Bible, both by divine command and by example, to address opposing systems of thought in this way. I am saddened that more Creationists do not take the Biblical approach to these kinds of debate. I am often frustrated and embarrassed for those who find themselves in a proverbial Mexican standoff, clueless about how to make any progress or how to bring resolution to such discussions.​

VII. Stratnerd's Take on TAG

Jim will claim that it is True if I buy it or not but I do buy on some “deep” level I just choose to ignore it.

Ignore what? (Kidding). I'm sorry to lay this on you. (Not really). The very statement, "I just choose to ignore it," the very act or effort you put into ignoring it, affirms it loud and clear, because without the Background Noise (which is starting to grow on me, by the way), you could not make any statement, let alone an intelligible one.

Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.

I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.

VIII. Jim's Questions.

I cannot make sense of the question “what is the source of logic” since logic, to me, is a human construct.

If the laws of logic are but a human construct, then they are no longer laws If everything is just matter in motion, which is the necessary implication of Evolutionistic Methodogical Naturalism, then the so-called "laws of logic" become merely brain states. But if they're merely brain states, then they can't be laws, because what happens in one man's brain does not legislate over what is in another man's brain, nor does it necessarily correspond with what happens in the brain of another. If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"? On what rational basis does one proceed through life on the assumption that such a transitive description should be taken as true in general? If the laws of logic are merely sociological constructs, then anyone can arbitrarily stipulate their own laws by claiming contradictions are factual truths, that question-begging is legitimate argumentation, that it's OK to be irrational, etc. But no one comes to a debate or reads a debate expecting the participants to behave or to think that way. Nor is it expected that they should first sit down and agree upon logical constructs. When we step up to debate, it is already assumed that the laws of logic are universal, invariant and necessary for discursive thought and rational discourse.

As if Stratnerd's evisceration of the laws of logic were not enough, what follows is something straight out of the Twilight Zone™. These statements floored me.

As for the uniformity of nature, as someone that studies ecology and understanding evolution – I don’t know what uniformity you’re talking about.

Then please consider the following links:

• The Principle of Uniformity
• The Nature and Philosophy of Science

As for the reliability of induction – I believe in no such thing – that’s why I do science – I know induction is not reliable when it comes to more interesting questions.

Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that? Without induction, Stratnerd wouldn't be able to understand the words of this sentence. He would have no reason to assume the symbols before his eyes had any meaning whatsoever, let alone representing actual words and thoughts, let alone having any confidence that the meanings of the words represent the thoughts of the person who originally typed them. For help on the meaning of "induction," please consider the following links:

• Inductive Reasoning
• Gene Expression: Deduction vs. Induction
• Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Well, our magical axioms and our blind faith in them works exceedingly well.

This is exactly the point. The reason they work so well, despite the Methodological Naturalists ability to account for them, is that God is the powerful, personal, volitional and purposeful "Background Noise" to every breath, to every movement and to everything that exists in creation. The fact that the laws of logic, the permutations of mathematics, and the tool and methods of science have repeated success in the world is that God sustains the orderly working of the universe by His power and will. That is to say, the Methodological Naturalist breathes God's air, moves God's molecules and applies God's logic whenever he does his science, and thereby unwittingly hijacks the Creationist tools and methods, unconsciously steps into the shoes of the Creationist in order to make sense of science and his experience in the world.

IX. Summary of Round V
Recall the hypothetical scenario I described at the beginning of this round's post. It must be emphasized that, although Stratnerd and I are, in the example, using the same scientific methods, setting up the same kinds of hypotheses, conducting the same kinds of experiments and arriving at the same conclusions, everything Stratnerd does is at base irrational. Having no cogent basis for the techniques and methods he employs in his science, he becomes utterly unscientific on the grand scale. Furthermore, were he to attempt to impose his Evolutionistic/Methodological Naturalism upon his studies and attempt to reinterpret his findings in light of those paradigms, he would be breeching the scope of the scientific method, departing from it tenets and would thus compromise the integrity of, and disqualify, his work as science. On the other hand, by recognizing that science could not possibly work at all without the power and volition of the Creator sustaining the uniformity of nature and backing the inductive principle, the Creationist is justified in his use of the tools and methods of science, and by limiting the scope of his hypotheses to the purview of the scientific method, he maintains scientific integrity.

X. The Marathon Begins
A. Answers to Stratnerd's Remaining Questions
SQ32: You claim that evidence had nothing to do with the establishment of Evolution and made the assertion that it was more about the desire to establish a God-less worldview. Do you have any hard data to back this up?
HA_SQ32:I do, but they're not data that would fit into your paradigm. You would dismiss it like a 6,000 year-old Grand Canyon.

SQ32b: Specifically, you made this claim about Darwin and claimed to know the incentive for him putting forth evolution. Got data?
HA_SQ32b: Yes, but again, the data would be dismissed. The Bible says all men know God, but those who reject Him deliberately push Him away. They search for reasons to disregard Him and presume their own autonomy in order to do so.

How do we know what we know? What I've attempted to do, and will continue to strive toward, is a clear understanding of Stratnerd's underlying assumptions about reality….This is why I continue to ask him to justify his tools and methods of knowing.

Simple, I use what works.

Note that the phrase, "I use what works," is question-begging in the extreme. Here is the importance of justifying one's so-called "axioms." In order to that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it. This is what the Methodological Naturalist is left with. It's like using one's own eyes in isolation to test for colorblindness.

How do I know something works? I look at the philosophies and methods that make the greatest advances in science.

HQ24:For example?

Skepticism of induction and methodological naturalism (not ontological naturalism) have been essential to these advances.

HQ25:For clarity, is Stratnerd here saying that he is skeptical of induction and methodological naturalism? Didn't Stratnerd elsewhere say ...

Explanations are tentative… not the tools and methods. I hope I never implied it because I do not feel that way. The tools and methods of science, methodological naturalism, skepticism, logic, falsification (and now the information-theoretic framework) have a long history of success in our understanding of the world.

[To be cont'd AGAIN ...]

 

[Hilston]

Final segment of Round V

Final segment of Round V

B. Further Clean-Up
There were some statements and questions by Stratnerd that I did not answer in my previous post. The remainder of this Round V installment will be devoted to answering Stratnerd's previous questions, with just a couple additional counter-questions of my own.

Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the uniformity of nature, which cannot be tested without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption does not come under the purview of Methodological Naturalism, Evolution fails as science on this point.

Substitute genetics, physiology, physics, cosmology, cytology, histology, etc for Evolution. In a very tortured way you are arguing that all sciences fail as being science.

When we are talking about justifying one's tools and methods, the result is that scientists who can justify their tools and methods (Creationists) have justified knowledge. Whereas scientists who cannot justify their tools (Methodological Naturalists), do not have justified knowledge. As I've said before, both Creationist scientists and Evolutionist scientists do science in that they employ the tools and methods of science. They both have success and can arrive at true knowledge in the work that they do. The difference is that the former has a worldview in which those successes make sense. The latter does not, and must pretend to be Creationists to do science, all the while appealing to a manufactured myth.

Let me put this simply; MN [Methodological Naturalism] is the exclusion of supernatural explanations.

Methodological Naturalism is thus self-refuting, because Methodological Naturalism is itself an extra-natural stipulation, and it employs tools and methods that cannot be justified without appealing to the supernatural (i.e., extra-natural), which Methodological Naturalism explicitly excludes.

Evolution is an explanation for biodiversity that excludes the supernatural.

The very concepts involved in recognizing biodiversity -- the perception of distinctions, the use of logical inference, the applications of the tools and methods of science -- are all extra-natural, abstract principles. The explanation itself is extra-natural in that it invokes the extra-natural abstract principles of perception and inference, which undermines the exclusion of the extra-natural. The same goes for gravity, ecology, genetics, physiology, physic, cosmology, cytology, etc.

Gravity is an explanation that excludes the supernatural. Explanations from ecology, genetics, physiology, physics, cosmology, cytology, etc etc etc are all based on MN [Methodological Naturalism].

Gravitational acceleration is an extra-natural concept. We see instances of it, but the principle itself is extra-natural. The mathematics used to calculate gravitational acceleration are extra-natural. Similar examples could be given about all fields of science. The extra-natural is inextricably embedded in the scientific enterprise. Methodological Naturalism is a contradiction.

To reduce this down to arguments about the source of logic, uniformity, etc is fruitless, get you know where and is like background noise for working scientists.

Were it not for that which "working scientists" (as if they're some kind of elite class of people) consider "background noise," science would be impossible. Stratnerd admitted this when he said, "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction – but induction is speculation and we don’t know if this new idea is worth anything until it proves its mettle." As men of science, it should not suffice to merely relegate the wonder of the tools and methods to "background noise." Indeed, it is irrational to do so.

Induction cannot be falsified without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption is not falsifiable, Evolution fails as science on this point as well.

This leaves me scratching my head – what the heck are you talking about? Do you know?

This is what concerns me. As a working scientist, you must have studied these things. As a man who respects science and rationality, you must have asked the pertinent questions about induction and what justifies its use in the scientific enterprise. For you to claim it is merely "background noise" is alarming.

Another puzzle is the claim that scientists are appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Really? What? How can scientists can be appealing to an “extra-natural” principle when, by their vary nature are “removing God from the equation”? Very odd.

The appeal to uniformity is extra-natural. We don't find uniformity growing in certain climates but not in others. Uniformity is an extra-natural concept. It is abstract in character. Induction is not something you can collect and store in mason jars in your cellar. Scientists appeal to the inductive principle whenever they do science. It is not perceived as a concrete entity, but is rather abstract in character, not found in nature, and therefore, extra-natural.

SQ19:Another puzzle is the claim that we appeal to “magical axioms”? What’s the difference between a magical and a non-magical axiom? Is magical like pulling a nearly endless supply of fish out of a basket? Or turning water into wine? Or stopping the sun?

HQ19: Which label do you claim for yourself? And how would you define it?
SA_19: Sorry, I haven’t thought about it much and I don’t have time to ponder these issues.

HQ_SA19:It is central to this discussion. Elsewhere you describe yourself as a "non-Theist." What did you mean by that description?

SQ19.1: Since when is induction reliable?
HA_SQ19.1: Since the universe was created.
HQ_SQ19.1]: Can you give an instance of when induction has failed? (I can't believe I'm asking this).

SQ19.2: How does God create animals? – you have millions of cases to develop your hypothesis. How do we know this is reliable?

HA_SQ19.2: In all of those millions of cases, there is no way to scientifically reverse-engineer organisms to find out how they were created, especially given that a transcendent Being, God, created them via means that have not been revealed to us, which probably would be incomprehensible to us.

SQ19b. Same goes for things like “rapid ice ages” that creationists have invented. How do we know this is a reliable induction?

HA_SQ19b: I don't know. It may not be. It's a model. It should be examined the way any other model is examined. Whether or not it can be scientifically ascertained as true is a different matter. It could be mere speculation, or a combination of conjecture and scientific data.

Stratnerd writes, in answer to HQ11b:
SA_HQ11b. Induction may be misleading. This is why any scientists seeks to falsify their data – it increases confidence in their induction by doing their best to show it to be false. Or they can show induction to be false by showing that new cases conflict with predictions from induction.

I think Stratnerd is confusing the principle of induction, which is the focus of my question, with particular applications of induction. We must not confuse the principle itself, which is necessary for making human experience intelligible, and certain cases where human application seems to fail. When I sit in a chair without testing it first, I've employed the inductive principle. When the chair collapses, induction hasn't failed me. My information about the structural integrity of the chair is what was lacking. Induction would inform me that the structural integrity of the chair had been compromised since the last time I sat in it. Induction would also inform me that a similar chair with similar structural problems would similarly collapse. The larger question for the non-Theist is: Where does this principle come from? And why is it so useful? The Creationist knows the answer, and is therefore justified in his use of induction. The Methodological Naturalist is left with blind faith.

HQ20: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert the principle of Occam's Razor?
SA_HQ20: Parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation.
HQ20b: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert that parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation?

SQ20: What is a scientific model in your mind?
HA_SQ20: A hypothesis formulated on the basis of observed phenomena and the Creationist framework.

SQ21: where’s does the text suggest a rapid ice age? If it wasn’t there are you still going to insist that it wasn’t invented?
HA_SQ21: The young earth thesis (Creationism) coupled with observed phenomena currently in the world suffices to suggest a rapid ice age.

SQ22: Where in the Bible is super tectonics, rapid ice age, water vapor canopy, super light speed, super speciation mentioned?
HQ_SQ22: Genesis 1:6,7,14, 21-25 10:25,32 1Chronicles 1:19

If the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, as it claims to be, then one should rightly expect that whatever the Bible says about nature, about cosmogony, about anthropology, about biology, etc. would be accurate and true because the testimony came from the One who created it all and sustains it all.

of course if it ain’t we can test the claims and declare them bunk when they fail.

God's inerrant and infallible Word is the very foundation of all your reasoning and science. Therefore, on what rational basis could one "test" the claims of the Bible and declare them bunk? The very formulation of the statement is Creationistic in that no other worldview can make human experience intelligible.

If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is God's inerrant/infallible Word, then it follows that the Creator has exclusive prerogative to determine and declare through His Book what is and is not reality.

yup, “if” and if we do not blindly accept this assertion we will have to discover what reality is

Stratnerd misses the point. Without the God of the Bible, there is no discovering of anything, let alone ascertaining what is reality. The very tools and methods by which discoveries happen make no sense in a universe that is only matter in motion.

When pressed to explain and justify the basic tools of life that we all take for granted, or to give a basic account of where life originated or how things have become the way they are, the Evolutionist must resort to an invented ad-hoc story that reaches back into an imagined, unobserved past, passed on to subsequent generations by way of blind tradition, the basic premises of which are not to be questioned, but ignorantly assumed and embraced, lest the very fabric of so-called science be torn asunder. This is the stuff of myth and legend, not science.

LOL, very grandiose indeed. I thought Evolutionists, any scientist really, posited hypotheses that are to be tested. Where did you get this skewed and erroneous view of biology and of science? You obviously don’t know the scientific community very well and have no idea what scientists do.

Again, Stratnerd misses the point of the Bible's "grandiose claim." Without the God of Creationism, scientists couldn't do "what scientists do." Neither could Evolutionists, biologists, the scientific community, nor the cable guy.

SQ23: Make a testable prediction about how God created logic or a horse or anything you wish – be sure to justify it – that is, provide the logical links along the steps you take.
HQ_SQ23:There is no need to make a prediction about how God created a horse; it is known. He made it by supernatural divine fiat. The details of the method transcend human comprehension. This knowledge is justified by God's existence and attributes. Of course, this is not viewed as compelling or persuasive to the Methodological Naturalist, because Methodological Naturalism, an extra-natural construct, excludes the extra-natural in advance, without warrant, without justification.

SQ1a: How does the presence of regularities prove that God exists?
HA_SQ1a: See HA_SQ1:, above. If you require further detail, I will be happy to oblige.

SQ1a.1: please since this is the entire crux of your positive argument for creationism.
HA_SQa.1: In a universe that is mindless, Godless, purposeless, as E/MN necessarily demands, it is the equivalent of believing a magician actually possesses the powers he pretends to wield. One must believe in a cosmic trick to conceive of diversity springing from singularity, of non-life producing life, of non-conscious matter spawning minds and consciousness, of matter in motion producing universal, invariant laws.

The latter. Randomness does not exist in nature. It is merely a theoretical construct.

SQ23: Then why do keep detecting and creating randomness?
HA_SQ23:Randomness, if it existed, could not be detected. A thousand nines in a row might be the result of randomness; it might not. It's not something that can be known or detected apart from having universal experience and possessing infinite knowledge.

SQ23.1: Is order a theoretical contract? Why or why not.
HA_Q23.1: No. Order is a reflection of the character of God in Creation.

Why is making predictions about creationism relevant? Well, if falsification is a necessary part of science and you can’t come up with a means to falsify your claims then you aren’t doing science and creation scientists cannot exist.

I don't claim that Creationism is science, just as I don't agree that Evolutionism is science. There are creationists who do science, and there are evolutionists who do science. But as overarching perspectives of reality, neither Creationism nor Evolutionism is actual science.

By your standards of science their might be creationist scientists but so is the secretary that does the payroll and the guy that picks up trash.

Of course.

SQ24: I asked this question before but what stops evolution? Why do you say that? Because it conflicts with your Biblical paradigm?
HA_SQ24:Yes, the chronology of the Earth's history as taught in the Bible does not allow for the long eons of time required by Evolutionists to account for the diversity of life. However, a more fundamental matter should be noted by Stratnerd's question: Why is Stratnerd pretending to be a Creationist? By taking notice of regularities and diversity in nature, he is not being consistent with his Methodological Naturalism. He is assuming the existence and operation of extra-natural abstract entities such as induction and the laws of logic in order to make such observations and to frame the actual question.

God created the animals and distinguished them from plants and other non-living matter. As animals, they would have defining characteristics, such as being sentient, defined as "1. Having sense perception; conscious. 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." Being able to move would be another. ... the Creationist recognizes that nothing would or can exist without the supernatural, namely God, holding all things together and sustaining the natural order and the uniformity, which God, by His creative and sustaining power, imposes upon creation.

SQ7: [but related to the questions above] Can you back up this assertion? Do just have to believe it?

HA_SQ7. I don't see a rational alternative, unless one wants to believe in magic. Either a Personal and Powerful Creator made and sustains all that exists, or it's magic. Even if one buys the Occamic tenet of parsimony, unwarranted complexity should incline you toward the Creator ... instead of the magic ...

To this, Stratnerd replies:

Or you’ve just reached the limits of your imagination.

This is a noteworthy unwitting concession on the part of my opponent. He would rather presume intellectual autonomy and use his imagination to come up with anything in order to avoid the Creator-God to as the explanation of sentient life, all the while presuming upon the Creationist conception of reality by using the tools and methods of science.

C. Woe, woe, woe, it's magic ...

Either a Personal and Powerful Creator made and sustains all that exists, or it's magic.

SQ25: what’s the difference between a supernatural creator poofing life and the universe from nothing and magic?

HA_SQ25: The difference is, the magician is a man who pretends to have the ability to make things appear and vanish at will. Magic is normatively understood as deception, sleight of hand, and misdirection, and we-the-audience are willing to suspend our disbelief for the sake of being entertained and getting our money's worth in enjoyment of the act. No rational person would actually believe the magician actually possesses those powers. But, sadly, this is exactly what has happened en masse in the case of Evolutionary magic. The Evolutionists ask the unwitting spectators to suspend disbelief that mindless matter can give rise to conscious life. Then, after the entertainment is over, the Evolutionists do not take off the tuxedo and bow-tie, but instead, with a straight face, demand that the spectators move from suspension of disbelief to actual belief in the magician's power.

In the case of the Creator, He actually possesses the power, the volition, and the attributes that can account for the existence of the laws of logic, the tools and methods of science, moral standards and the uniformity of nature.

D. Are The Tools & Methods of Science Tentative, Or Not?
I'm confused concerning Stratnerd's view of the tools and methods of science. I need to understand why the following statements by Stratnerd seem so contradictory.

Earlier, Stratnerd seemed to be tentative about the certainty of scientific methods. Jim had asked Stratnerd:
HQ2b: Does Stratnerd, in terms of his Evolutionary worldview, hold any methods (scientific,etc.) or principles (logic, inference) as certain?

To that, Stratnerd replied:
SA_HQ2b: Explanations are what we consider tentative. Are any methods certain? Probably not, at least I would consider it useful to be skeptical. [Emphasis added ~ JH]

This tentativeness seemed to be further affirmed in the following:
A little later, Jim wrote:

All people use the tools of logic and the methods of science to varying degrees. Some are more successful than others, for reasons unrelated to whether or not they are Creationists. The point is, all else equal, the Creationist alone can do science with a justified general confidence, whereas the Evolutionist, as you admitted above, must ever be tentative even about the tools and methods he uses to do his science.

To which Stratnerd replied:

yes, and?

But most recently, Stratnerd has stated:

Explanations are tentative… not the tools and methods. I hope I never implied it because I do not feel that way. The tools and methods of science, methodological naturalism, skepticism, logic, falsification (and now the information-theoretic framework) have a long history of success in our understanding of the world.

HQ26: I'm merely looking for clarity and understanding. What did Stratnerd mean by his earlier statements?

In this case reliable knowledge is defined by the self-insulating episteme of creationism. And how do you know this knowledge is reliable without jumping on a circular track of arguments?

It is fascinating to me how often non-Theists will readily criticize what they view as circularity in the views of others, but seem to utterly fail in seeing it in their own view. The reliability of knowledge is grounded linearly, not circularly, in the existence of God. The reliability of knowledge is not used to directly prove the existence of God, therefore the justification of knowledge is not circular. However, note that the Methodological Naturalist circularly presumes to use the tools of science to justify the tools of science ("It works"), and does not even attempt to justify them.

SQ25a: What is the natural law that allows for men to rise from the dead, walk on water, temporarily stops the sun, creates organisms and a universe spontaneously?

HA_SQ25a: Allows? The Creator is able, by His power and volition, to manipulate His creation and to alter the perceived natural order, without violating the laws of nature or of logic.

SQ25b: How does uniformity of nature fit into natural laws and natural regularity?

HA_SQ25b: The uniformity of nature is synonymous with natural laws. In Biblical history, the natural order (i.e. perceived regularities) could change according to God's volition and purpose in the form of miraculous events. As a side note, such miraculous event do not occur presently, for theological reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

True though, if you presuppose the Bible is inerrant then you are immune to contrary evidence. Although that’s a very comforting position to take (your worldview can’t be wrong), I find it very dissatisfying.

Yet Stratnerd is apparently undaunted by his own circularities, using the tools of science to justify the tools of science, which were somehow spawned from some mindless, purposeless magical source.

What tools and methods are you referring to?

The tools of science would be the universal laws of logic and mathematics, as well as the particular applications of our sensory faculties and our reasoning abilities. The methods of science would be the collection and observation of data, the formulation of hypotheses, the testing of hypotheses, then rejection or support of hypotheses, and the publishing of findings for the benefit of the scientific community.

If Stratnerd truly believes that the tools and methods of science are tentative, then he should be continually testing chairs before sitting in them. That's because, by Stratnerd's claim above, the inductive principle is tentative. Stratnerd would never finish balancing his checkbook, because, according to Stratnerd, the arithmetic he used five minutes ago is tentative. He would have no reason to trust the calibration of his instruments, because the uniformity of nature, on Stratnerd's view of reality, is tentative. This is the living contradiction that is presented by Methodological Naturalism.

Whew. Fin.

Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

DING DING DING

That's it for round 5.

Stratnerd has until December 23rd 11:30AM (MDT) to make his 6th round post.

At that point we will take a Christmas break. (I will insert two days into the schedule therefore Hilston's 6th round post will NOT be due on Christmas yet will be due on the 27th)

 

[Stratnerd]

I. Justification Schmustification​

As I pointed out in my last post, justification relates to the hypotheses we invoke to explain natural phenomena (examples are given). What makes something scientific or not relates to the ability of a hypothesis to be falsified. The mantra repeated by Jim is that if we cannot justify a tool of science, as opposed to a scientific hypothesis, it makes that particular question or science unscientific. By conventional standards, this type of argument is invalid. Definitions delineate what is and is not considered that thing or concept and to determine if something is part of that definition we compare the criteria by which is based. We’ve even come to an agreement about what science is but this definition is ignored when asking if something is scientific or not. It like saying a fruit is defined by containing seeds and a pericarp but an apple is not a fruit because an apple is red.

Simple, I use what works.

Note that the phrase, "I use what works," is question-begging in the extreme. Here is the importance of justifying one's so-called "axioms." In order to that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it. This is what the Methodological Naturalist is left with. It's like using one's own eyes in isolation to test for colorblindness.

Not really. The success of methodological naturalism (and falsification) by (1) various scientists and (2) it’s ability to discover new and explain new phenomena justify it’s use and this is nothing like testing your own eyes in isolation. Why does it work? Natural explanations are adequate for explaining natural phenomena. Science doesn’t seek Truth only accurate descriptions of natural phenomena and the accuracy is judge by the ability to incorporate new cases.

II. Creationism is not scientific ​

II.A. Evidence need not apply

Jim’s creation science includes all sciences as long as the practitioner is a creationist. However, I think we both agree that creationism itself and all the subsequent explanations that it attempts to incorporate (e.g., origin of biodiversity) is not scientific because it cannot be falsified – a perfectly insulated worldview.

Insulation against error is a good thing,

Only in a debate or argument. However, in the world of science, insulating explanations of the natural world are an abomination. The way we have confidence in explanations is that they are open to testing and are self-critical. Like Popper said, explanations (those arrived at inductively) need to “prove their mettle”. And on a personal level, I would hate to have absolute faith in something like that – I would always get the creepy feeling like I might be totally deceived. I feel like the arguments that Jim puts forth sets him up perfectly to deceive himself.

thus it isn't rationally possible for data, duly interpreted, to conflict with the Creationist worldview.

A person that never sees himself as being wrong has always come across to as the person most likely to be wrong.

Jim claims that the Principle of Uniformity works. Yet how can this be reconciled with instances that directly clash with his Biblical literalism. Nuclear decay rates, if constant through time suggest an Earth billions of years old. Mutation rates that we observe today put the age of our species over 100,000 years. Observed mutation rates of organisms consistently show ages that are > 10,000 years. We know that mutations accumulate and result in phenotypic changes yet Jim says that there are limits.

[SQ33] At what point does the PofU stop working? Do your presuppositions have superiority over the external world? How would you know if you are deceiving yourself?

SQ21: where’s does the text suggest a rapid ice age? If it wasn’t there are you still going to insist that it wasn’t invented?
HA_SQ21: The young earth thesis (Creationism) coupled with observed phenomena currently in the world suffices to suggest a rapid ice age.

So where’s the mention of rapid ice ages in the text?

SQ22: Where in the Bible is super tectonics, rapid ice age, water vapor canopy, super light speed, super speciation mentioned?
HQ_SQ22: Genesis 1:6,7,14, 21-25 10:25,32 1Chronicles 1:19

Genesis 1:6 = God says let there be creation of land
Genesis 1:7 = God created land
Genesis 1:14 = God says let there be lights in the firmament
Genesis 21-25 = creation of animals
Genesis 10:25 = the earth was divided
Genesis 10:32 = the nations were divided on earth after the flood
1Chronicle 1:19 = Genesis 10:25
I didn’t see any mention of rapid ice ages, water vapor canopy, or super light speed. Super speciation is used to account for the number of extant species and how Noah could logistically take care of millions of species and that’s not mentioned in there. The only ad hoc you account for is super plate tectonics. And that’s if you assume that earth and firmament are equivalent and they’re actually referring to the movement of peoples.
So it was a few thousand years ago that continents moved to their present positions within a lifetime?


II. B. Explaining creation

Originally I said “He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it), which, according to Jim, is a logical fallacy.

There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition.

HQ_SQ23:There is no need to make a prediction about how God created a horse; it is known. He made it by supernatural divine fiat. The details of the method transcend human comprehension

SQ34 the question that is “begged” is “how does divine fiat work to manifest objects out of nothingness?

SQ34b If it defies rationality then how do you stop creation from becoming irrational?

III. Getting the fundamentals right​

III. A. The Supernatural

Jim and I have very different definitions of the supernatural. For Jim, anything outside the senses is supernatural so thoughts are supernatural, logic is supernatural, and mathematics are supernatural.

Jim tries to make the claim that I accepted this definition by saying "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics.". First, as Alethia pointed out, the statement opened with an “if”. A condition by which I would accept it – but I don’t accept that condition. More importantly, and conveniently left out, I also said “Do I really think that adding two plus two is supernatural – not really”. So I reject that the five senses delineate the supernatural. Like logic, the workings of mathematics are abstractions that exist in the mind and are not “extra-natural”. Therefore, all the arguments where Jim suggests the tools (such as logic and mathematics) are “extra-natural” are not valid.

The supernatural, to me, is the workings of a supernatural entity and is obvious when the “laws” of physics and biology are suspended. I call them miracles – the Bible is replete with examples where “natural laws” no longer apply. Examples include, bushes burning without loss of mass and talk, a man splits a sea with a staff, fruit imparts knowledge, men rise from the dead and walk on water, etc.

III.B. Methodological Naturalism

III.B.2 What MN is

The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration.

Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. This is what I was referring to as “local”. Jim takes this and forces us to believe that MN extends to the “global” or universal and essentially equates MN with ontological naturalism.

The example:

Originally Posted by Stratnerd

For example: here are a number of explanations that you can rationalize for the primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm
a. nutrient levels available to the producers
b. population dynamics of the producers
c. population dynamics of the herbivores
d. population dynamics of the predators
e. God

We are not asking where logic comes from or if God exists. We simply want to know why there might be a certain proportion of herbivores to producers. I provide “local” hypotheses. Lest, I be accused of changing definitions, I’m merely attempting to clarify.

Since we do not know how God may regulate communities we cannot test it. So it’s left out. We do not claim that God doesn’t – indeed he might. How would we know?

What was Jim’s reaction to this example?

It is a category error to include God as a primary regulator.

Not sure that a category error is or what a primary regulator is but this sounds like the functional aspect of methodological naturalism.

As a side note, such miraculous event do not occur presently, for theological reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

side note? What you are saying is that methodological naturalism is valid, up to a point, and then is no longer valid? No doubt, Jim will repeat the mantra that MN excludes the supernatural so MN can’t be justifiably used because it doesn’t account for the uniformity of nature, induction, logic, etc. But MN doesn’t care about the origin of these, like I’ve been saying, it’s like background noise. In the present case it only cares about how to explain how biological communities are structured. I imagine that Jim, as a lawyer could get a criminal case dismissed because the prosecutor admitted that he was using methodological naturalism to link the suspect to the case therefore his whole case was built on an irrational worldview. My point is things like logic work regardless of your worldview and can successfully describe the world around us.

Jim adds a historical stipulation to his assertion that God is not the “primary regulator”. I assume that “primary regulator” means that the “laws” of nature are suspended. I’m not sure, though, when this applies because Jim dismisses miracles (rising from the dead, walking on water, turning into salt for looking a particular direction, parting a sea with a staff) as not breaking natural law (simply because these miracles can be sensed). So, Jim utilizes the concept of MN until it conflicts with his self-insulating worldview. This makes sense, we can only rationalize up to the point when rationality (the laws of logic) were created. For the biblical literalist, I suppose this even occurred at the very beginning – in fact, I bet Jim likes the version of Genesis where it is said “In the beginning was logic [logos]” – I know I do.

Of course, if we do not accept Jim’s argument then we can ignore these imaginary bounds on our hypotheses and get to questions about the origins of biodiversity, the origin of life, and the origin of our universe. This isn’t a methodological worldview (there’s no such thing) but we can apply the concept of MN to all natural phenomena.

III.B.2. What MN isn’t

A hypothesis. Maybe this term should have been defined on the onset but in the context of science, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation about causal mechanism. MN is a contingency of our scientific hypotheses.

Of course it is a hypothesis! The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.

Really? And how does this hypothetical cause and effect work to get a “true” explanation? How does logic cause a true explanation? [what is a true explanation anyway?]
A world view. It is exhausting to explain this over and over but MN has nothing to say either way about the existence of the supernatural but only implies that supernatural hypotheses are not testable. There’s no way to include or include a volition of a supernatural being. Sure, if one were to ask for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life then spontaneity is obviously part of it – how could it not be? One can have an alternate hypothesis that God did it –methodological naturalist doesn’t have anything to say either. However, since we have absolutely no idea of how that’s done then we can’t test that hypothesis can we? This is no different from asking what structures biological communities or what is the structure of DNA or how do organisms develop from a zygote.

Insulation against God. There’s no conflict between belief in a supernatural diety and needing natural explanations for natural phenomena.

“universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness”

In your world-view you don’t allow for uniformity except in your worldview which is the only explanation for uniformity because you don’t allow for uniformity in other worldviews because your worldview is the only explanation for uniformity, and so on. Rinse. Repeat.

HQ23: I must ask: Do you now retract the following statements?

The following statements were:

Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work.
Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.

SA_H23. No. I’d have to buy your argument but I don’t.

III.C. Falsification

One of the common elements in the definitions of science used by Jim and myself is “testing”. The scientist uses tests (observations or experiments) in an attempt to show that an explanation is false. Falsification is the primary criteria by which a hypothesis (not a tool or method of science) is judged to be scientific or not.

I asked [SQ30.2] “Why test [given your faith in induction?]” and this is the reply

HA_SQ30.2: Faith in induction is necessary for testing anything and everything. You can't conduct a test without faith in induction. The question is: Is such a faith in induction justified? For the Creationist, it is. For the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist, it's not. Not only so, but the E/MN must presume upon the Creationist worldview in order to make sensible use of induction.

SQ35 There is no answer in this response what or why we should test.

I have every confidence in the methods of science.

HA_SQ30.3: I'm fine with falsification as a tool; I just don't agree with defining science that way.

SQ35b With the exception of two of the critical parts: falsification and methodological naturalism. What is left? Skepticism? What definition were you agreeing with?

III.D. Tools of Science: Tentative or Not

I'm confused concerning Stratnerd's view of the tools and methods of science. I need to understand why the following statements by Stratnerd seem so contradictory.

HQ26: I'm merely looking for clarity and understanding. What did Stratnerd mean by his earlier statements?
SA_HQ26 I’ve never given it much thought but now that I have I do not think that the tools of science (logic, mathematics, falsification, MN) are not tentative. What is tentative is our explanations/hypotheses about natural phenomena.

This is what concerns me. As a working scientist, you must have studied these things. As a man who respects science and rationality, you must have asked the pertinent questions about induction and what justifies its use in the scientific enterprise. For you to claim it is merely "background noise" is alarming.

How do I know something works? I look at the philosophies and methods that make the greatest advances in science.

HQ24:For example?

SA_HQ24. Relativity. Structure of DNA.
What I consider background noise is the “origin” of logic. I don’t consider induction to be background noise.

IV. What Evolution is… yet again​

]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.

Jim still insists in making evolution more than the definition. To support his assertion he gets a bunch of quotes that are examples of how one can mistakenly conflate Evolution and abiogenesis (Dobzhansky), Evolution with ontological naturalism (Dawkins, Sagan), or uses “evolution” in the broadest sense not relevant here (Huxley, 2nd Dobzhansky). They don’t point out shifting definitions but errors (if not taken out of context). What Bethell is mentioned for, I have no idea other than to add effect. Guys like Dawkins don’t have an evolutionary worldview per se but are ontological naturalists of which evolution is a part. Then there are guys like Dobzhansky, Fisher (the biggest “guns”) and Conway-Morris (a big “gun”) whose “Evolutionary worldview” included God as the grand architect and Jesus Christ as his son. One of my best friends works on catfish evolution, is a professed “Evolutionist” and is also a Christian. So the ramification of an Evolution worldview is what? Christianity? Atheism? Or maybe there is no ramification as these divergent (actual) worldviews demonstrate. I’ve been at three major universities now and I know scores of Evolutionary biologists yet I have yet to meet one professed atheist! I’m not saying they don’t exist (Dawkins comes first to mind) I just don’t buy (and neither do professional Evolutionary biologists) your claim that there are ramifications of an Evolutionary worldview.

Jim says

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.

of course Jim will continue to misrepresent evolution. Is this surprising to anyone?

Jim suggests that I have somehow changed my definition of Evolution by adding “Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing.” Look at my definition of Evolution that I’ve been using all along (following paragraph) and see if “... Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing” changed anything.

“So this is the same definition as the broad scale but restricting it to longer time scales thus becoming a historical hypothesis or theory.” Where broadly was defined as “change in populations through generations”. As far as I know you get generations through reproduction and if organisms are not reproducing then how can they be evolving? So how my attempt at clarification got misconstrued as “linguistic revision” is beyond me and probably beyond TOLers.

[SQ36] How did my adding “Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing” qualify as linguistic revision?

V. The scientific nature of Evolution and delving into the past​

​

III. A. Moving goal posts?

Soon after the linguistic revision assertion I was then accused of moving a goal post. Supposedly this occurred because I referred to the study of Evolution as Evolutionary biology. To me, the terms are nearly synonymous – Evolution being defined above (and in each of the previous 5 rounds) and Evolutionary biology is the study of Evolution. How this is moving a goal post is beyond me.

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.

Right and methodological naturalism and falsification is part of every scientific pursuit so… no science is science.

Historical questions

on the surface level of his question, Stratnerd has posed something isn't about science. Extrapolations into the unobserved past, whether by avian biologists or geologists, about mutations rates, avian populations and the ages of rocks are conjecture at best.

Sure, absolutely. But all hypotheses are conjecture. Nobody observes population regulation, what structures biological communities, chemical reactions, and, previously, molecular structure. Historical hypotheses are no different.

But this does not mean that these types of questions are beyond the bounds of science. Scientists hypothesize a mechanism (or, better yet, mechanisms) at work then from those hypotheses build a number of predictions that one would expect with and without the purported mechanism. [Let Jim repeat him mantra that this isn’t even possible – it totally depends on buying his argument – which I don’t].

The best test of a hypothesis, especially a historical hypothesis is congruence among independent lines of data.

So if molecular data agree with geological data we have more confidence. If geological, molecular, paleontological data agree with each other then we have even more confidence. And so on.

This is exactly how E/evolution works. Scientists posit relationships and mechanism of evolution and these are tested by experiments and observations.

If you build a worldview based entirely on argument without the ability of testing it with the external world or even have the ability to question it, you’ll never know how badly you are fooling yourself. Jim and his fellow Biblical literalists ilk have no choice but to dismiss all contrary data and forcing them to come up with ad hoc explanations or to twist reality.

VI.Rationality, Logic, Induction ​

Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.

I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.

Not so serious but real example: I often lose my keys. A rational explanation is that they fell out of my pocket and are sitting on my truck seat. I go to my truck and the keys are not there (case 1) Another rational answer is that the keys are in my shirt pocket (I hate wearing shirts with no pockets) and the keys are not there (wrong again!). The keys are actually still sitting in the door but I never even thought of it but there they are, in plain sight (a perfectly rational and correct explanation but I didn’t think of it).

A more serious example, at one time human kind thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth – an explanation for the rising and setting of the Sun that was based on sound reason and the clear testimony of the Bible. Sound familiar?

If the laws of logic are but a human construct, then they are no longer laws If everything is just matter in motion,

[SQ37] why? Are you saying that natural laws are real things that are out there for us to discover? Or are they descriptions of nature created by humans?

I prefer the latter – that way we can always modify our descriptions when new and contrary data become available. If natural laws exist and we become committed to them then we end up needing to artificially explain away these contrary cases. You will have a very comfortable position of always being right but then you run the risk of completely deceiving yourself.

If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"?

Brains do not experience “A = B, B=C, therefore A=C” so they cannot be experienced differently by different people.

As for the reliability of induction – I believe in no such thing – that’s why I do science – I know induction is not reliable when it comes to more interesting questions.

Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that?

The relevant definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (working without internet access) of induction is “3.a. The act or process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances”. That’s what I’m talking about. What in the world is Jim talking about?

Yes, science would stall if not for induction. However, induction is by no means a road to “truth”. It provides a tentative explanation that needs to be tested (i.e., we do our best to falsify it). If a particular inductively-derived explanation stands up to falsification then we can have greater confidence in that explanation (no need to keep testing chairs so to speak). If an explanation is falsified then it gets dumped as an explanation despite being perfectly rational (e.g., the Sun circling the earth).

Questions and Miscellaneous​

​

Mindreading

Questions​

​

SQ32b: Specifically, you made this claim about Darwin and claimed to know the incentive for him putting forth evolution. Got data?
HA_SQ32b: Yes, but again, the data would be dismissed. The Bible says all men know God, but those who reject Him deliberately push Him away. They search for reasons to disregard Him and presume their own autonomy in order to do so.

Your data is the Bible? You’re right I do dismiss this “data” since it’s a mere assertion. I was hoping you might have a letter of Darwin’s. Another reason to reject this assertion is that many “philosophers” in Darwin’s time saw the study of nature as firsthand revelation of God’s handiwork.
[SQ38] Darwin may have rejected Genesis but you have no idea if he was rejecting God do you?
HQ_SA19:It is central to this discussion. Elsewhere you describe yourself as a "non-Theist." What did you mean by that description?
SA_HQ_SA19: When asking questions about the natural world, I use methodological naturalism which is neutral to claims about the supernatural.

SQ19.1: Since when is induction reliable?
HA_SQ19.1: Since the universe was created.
HQ_SQ19.1]: Can you give an instance of when induction has failed? (I can't believe I'm asking this).

The Sun circles the earth. Or the chair that broke. I don’t claim to have infinite knowledge – if I did I wouldn’t need induction.

I think Stratnerd is confusing the principle of induction, which is the focus of my question, with particular applications of induction. We must not confuse the principle itself, which is necessary for making human experience intelligible, and certain cases where human application seems to fail. When I sit in a chair without testing it first, I've employed the inductive principle. When the chair collapses, induction hasn't failed me. My information about the structural integrity of the chair is what was lacking. Induction would inform me that the structural integrity of the chair had been compromised since the last time I sat in it. Induction would also inform me that a similar chair with similar structural problems would similarly collapse.

So in theory, induction is never wrong because you’re always armed with the right knowledge. I’ll have to say that situation does not exist for us mere mortal so we must test our induction.

HQ20: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert the principle of Occam's Razor?
SA_HQ20: Parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation.
HQ20b: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert that parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation?

SA_HQ20b. Given that you could ask an infinite series of “and rationalize that” it seems pointless to answer.
TAG

SQ7: [but related to the questions above] Can you back up this assertion? Do just have to believe it?

HA_SQ7. I don't see a rational alternative

Again, this means nothing other than the limitations of your imagination and ignoring the fact that rationalization does not imply reality. So you do just need to believe it.

It is fascinating to me how often non-Theists will readily criticize what they view as circularity in the views of others, but seem to utterly fail in seeing it in their own view. The reliability of knowledge is grounded linearly, not circularly, in the existence of God.

But you presuppose God. And simply say that you can’t rationalize God because of his transcendence. So the very basis of your argument is irrational.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Christmas Break

I will now insert two days into the timeline for a short Christmas break.

Hilston's next post will be due by 10:30AM (MDT) on Dec 27th.

 

[Hilston]

Round 6 ~ Part I

Round 6 ~ Part I

Outline:

I. Evolution Is Still A Worldview
II. Independent Lines of Data and Survival of the Fittest.
III. The Evolutionist as an Epistemological Loafer
IV. Methodological Naturalism, Justification and Question-Begging
V. Stratnerd on "Question-Begging"
VI. Stratnerd on the Supernatural
VII. Methodological Naturalism Is Epistemologically Bankrupt
VIII. Questions, Answers
IX. Stratnerd on Rationality, Logic, Induction​

I. Evolution Is Still A Worldview
Stratnerd continues to protest the claim that Evolution is more than a biological definition, but is rather worldview. Consider for a moment what would be required for me to accept only the definition of Evolution that Stratnerd and I are using. For me to accept Evolution as true, I would have to contradict and deny my fundamental beliefs about reality. That is because Evolution is more than a mere definition about biological change; it is a philosophical vision. As I demonstrated in several quotes of Evolutionists, Stratnerd's vociferous denials are tantamount to linguistic revision. Note that my use of the LR phrase in my previous post did not pertain to Stratnerd's definition of Evolution (as he alleges), but rather to his refusal to see Evolution as an all-encompassing worldview, as his forebears so plainly and unambiguously affirmed. He calls it "conflation" to include the perspectives of Dobzhansky, Dawkins, Sagan and Huxley in a description of the Evolutionist paradigm. He calls the quotes "errors." I call it history; and connecting the proverbial dots.

Of course, Stratnerd will point to Dobzhansky as a theistic Evolutionist. However, Dobzhansky's statements oppose, contradict and undermine the explicit teachings of the Bible. He writes:

“Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself.” (ibid.)​

Stratnerd then refers to theistic Evolutionists that he knows, as if the existence of people holding mutually exclusive ideas suffices to prove that Evolution somehow isn't a worldview. Any professing theist who holds to Evolution has compromised the teachings of the Bible and undermines its Truth. Any Evolutionist who is not anti-Theistic has simply not adequately reflected on the implications of Evolutionism, nor have they taken the theory to its logical conclusions to fully consider how it ramifies in their worldview.

SQ36: How did my adding “Evolution starts when organisms start reproducing” qualify as linguistic revision?

HA_SQ35:[/b] It didn't. Your emphatic exclusion of abiogenesis, ontological naturalism, etc., from Evolutionist's worldview is what qualifies it as linguistic revision.

II. Independent Lines of Data and Survival of the Fittest.
Stratnerd writes:

The best test of a hypothesis, especially a historical hypothesis is congruence among independent lines of data.

Consider the following statement by T.H. Morgan:

"For it may be little more than a truism to state that the individuals that are best adapted to survive have a better chance of surviving than those not so well adapted to survive" (as quoted in Bethell, 1976).​

Stratnerd mentioned independent lines of data. Consider the claim that the best-selling beers are micro-brewed beers. Suppose, every time a best-selling beer was mentioned, someone immediately concluded: "It's a micro-brewed beer; if it's one of the best-selling, then it's a micro-brew." Would that be considered scientific? Of course not, because, as Stratnerd points out, there must be congruence along independent lines of data. There must be justification for concluding that there is a relationship between one class of things (best-selling beers) and another class of things (micro-brewed beers). What would be the way to make the best-seller/micro-brew relationship scientific? By independently establishing the characteristics of the two classes being compared.

First we can independently establish the class of micro-brewed beers. Next we can independently establish the class of best-selling beers. Then we can correlate the two and decide whether or not all the best-selling beers are in fact micro-brewed beers.

Let's apply this logic to the Evolutionary hypothesis, referred to as "survival of the fittest." An Evolutionist talks about the accumulation of mutations that result in phenotypic changes, arguing that organisms possessing the most advantageous features will survive. Those having advantageous phenotypic changes are regarded as the "fittest." So every time the Evolutionist talks about a surviving organism, he asserts that the surviving organism was the fittest. However, there is a problem with that reasoning, namely, the two classes of organisms -- the survivors and the fittest -- have not been independently established and verified. What are the independent criteria for fitness? How can the fittest organisms be identified apart from those who survived? The Evolutionist worldview assumes that the survivor is the fittest by default, unscientifically. The fact is, it is not a testable hypothesis, because the organisms that did not survive are not around to be tested. Not only that, but the fittest organisms may not have survived for reasons that had nothing to do with their fitness for survival. To make such a claim as "the fittest organisms survive" is the same as saying "micro-brewed beers are the best-selling beers" without first establishing each class independently of the other. With no way of establishing first the class of "fittest" organisms, the Evolutionary premise of the "survival of the fittest" becomes a tautology: "The Survival of the Survivors."

Stratnerd writes:

This is exactly how E/evolution works. Scientists posit relationships and mechanism of evolution and these are tested by experiments and observations.

Yet, immediately above we see that a foundational plank of Evolution is inherently flawed and fails to meet Stratnerd's criteria of testability and observation.

III. The Evolutionist as an Epistemological Loafer
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
The Pneumatist believes in the existence of air and claims that all breathing depends on the air's existence and that without air, all breathing would be rendered impossible. The Apneumatist does not believe in the existence of air and claims that there is no evidence for the existence of air, and all the while he continues to breathe air. The Pneumatist points out to the Apneumatist the fact that, if air did not exist, he could not be breathing. But the Apneumatist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that my breathing would be impossible without air, because I AM in fact breathing!"

This is the a similar scenario as we see in this debate. The Creationist believes in the existence of God and claims that the success of the tools of science depends on the extra-natural guidance and governance of God and that without Him, all science would be rendered impossible. The Methodological Naturalist refuses to acknowledge the extra-natural and claims that there is no need to consider the extra-natural in the scientific enterprise. The Creationist points out to the Methodological Naturalist the fact that, if God did not govern the natural by the extra-natural, he could not do science. But the Methodological Naturalist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that the success of the tools science would be impossible without God's governance, because my science is successful!"

What we see in both of these scenarios is the failure to acknowledge the very foundation of what is being taken for granted. Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God. Epistemology, the understanding of how we know what we know, has no rational foundation apart from God. Yet, the Methodological naturalist presumes to reason, to make inference, and to have knowledge. I do not deny their ability to do so, just as I would not deny the Apneumatist's ability to breathe God's air, but they cannot justify or rationally account for why they are successful at their science and how they breathe God's air. In the absence of cogent justification for breathing and reasoning, the anti-Creationist continues to breathe and to reason, but they do so without warrant, the whole time presuming upon the Creationist worldview and perception of reality in order to breathe and to make sense of everyday life. That is to say, the Methodological Naturalist/Evolutionist/anti-Creationist has not done, indeed could not do, his own work in order to justify what he knows and his theory of knowledge. By continuing to make claims to knowledge, he thus becomes an epistemological "loafer," tacitly borrowing Creationistic reasoning, and hijacking the tools of science without justification.

IV. Methodological Naturalism, Justification and Question-Begging
Stratnerd insists on justification for one's hypotheses, yet when asked to apply his own requirement to the hypothesis of science itself, he refuses. He limits the requirement to "... the hypotheses we invoke to explain natural phenomena." In other words, he wants to be arbitrary and to create for himself "a perfectly insulated worldview." He claims, arbitrarily, that "[w]hat makes something scientific or not relates to the ability of a hypothesis to be falsified." But this he cannot prove, nor is any attempt made to justify this hypothesis.

When charged with question-begging in his assumption of Methodological Naturalism, Stratnerd answers with further question-begging, appealing to successes of science, as if that answers the charge. It does not. The successes of science do not make sense in a naturalistic, random, chance universe. They only make sense on the Creationist worldview, in which nature is created and sustained by a personal, purposeful, all-knowing Creator.

Stratnerd says the "ability [of Methodological Naturalism] to discover new and explain new phenomena justify its use and this is nothing like testing your own eyes in isolation." It most certainly is. How does one determine that one's eyes see the world correctly? How does one determine that the logic one uses to understand the world cogitates correctly? By the use of logic? How does one ascertain whether or not Methodological Naturalism yields results that correspond to reality? By the use of Methodological Naturalism? He wants to appeal to other scientists and the successes of science, but how does Stratnerd himself assess the work and successes of other scientists? By sensory and reasoning faculties and a methodology that have not been proven and for which he has no means of calibration.

Why does [Methodological Naturalism] work? Natural explanations are adequate for explaining natural phenomena.

Note that Stratnerd's statement is philosophical in nature, and as such, it is not materialistic or "natural." It is a self-refuting claim.

Science doesn’t seek Truth only accurate descriptions of natural phenomena and the accuracy is judge by the ability to incorporate new cases.

Whenever someone makes such a statement, the question must be asked: Is that true? Is it true that science does not seek Truth? Would not accurate descriptions of natural phenomena be considered "true" descriptions? These types of word games are common, at least in my experience. I had an Anthropology instructor make the same claim: "We're not interested in Truth; we're interested in the facts," as if to throw the Creationist off the trail by putting an upper-case "T" on the word "Truth" and artificially distinguishing it from "accurate descriptions." Nevermind that facts are meaningless apart from a context with which to interpret and to apply them. Nevermind that there is a true and a false way to interpret and to apply facts.

Jim’s creation science includes all sciences as long as the practitioner is a creationist.

Anti-Creationist thinking destroys science by rendering it arbitrary and by reducing it to philosophical absurdity. Only the Creationist can rationally do science. That is not to say that the anti-Creationist can't do science, but he cannot do so rationally.

However, I think we both agree that creationism itself and all the subsequent explanations that it attempts to incorporate (e.g., origin of biodiversity) is not scientific because it cannot be falsified – a perfectly insulated worldview.

Please consider: I have a worldview that says God is the Creator of the universe, that He created this universe in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, that the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible message to mankind. Is my view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! Any hypothesis that requires acceptance of an old earth is rejected as contrary to God's Word, and therefore contrary to science. Stratnerd has a worldview that says the universe is random matter in motion, yet nature behaves in a uniform way that can be correctly understood by strictly naturalistic methods. Is his view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! He refuses to even entertain the question of how he justifies his assumptions about nature and his method of science: A perfectly insulated worldview.

The way we have confidence in explanations is that they are open to testing and are self-critical.

Note that the anti-Creationist is not open to testing or being self-critical about their hypothesis of knowledge. Again, the Evolutionist betrays his special pleading and arbitrariness by stipulating requirements that he will not apply to his own hypothesis of knowledge.

Like Popper said, explanations (those arrived at inductively) need to “prove their mettle”. And on a personal level, I would hate to have absolute faith in something like that – I would always get the creepy feeling like I might be totally deceived.

Does Stratnerd ever get the creepy feeling like he might be totally deceived about Methodological Naturalism?

Hilston wrote: ... thus it isn't rationally possible for data, duly interpreted, to conflict with the Creationist worldview.

Stratnerd replies:

A person that never sees himself as being wrong has always come across to as the person most likely to be wrong.

I did NOT say that the Creationist "never see himself as being wrong." What I am saying is, when the Creationist finds out that he is wrong, he has a reliable foundation (God's existence and the laws that reflect His character) upon which to assess his error and to proceed toward correcting it or finding a better explanation. The Methodological Naturalist does not.

Yet how can [the Principle of Uniformity] be reconciled with instances that directly clash with his Biblical literalism.

Without getting into what Stratnerd means by "Biblical literalism" (e.g. I do NOT believe Jesus' statement "I am the Door" meant that He was made of wood and hinges), there are no instances where the principle of uniformity clashes with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, the uniformity of nature and the regularity of nature are prerequisite to miracles. If there were no regularity, then nothing could be ascertained as miraculous. If there were no uniformity, there would be no knowledge or learning whatsoever by which to ascertain anything.

Nuclear decay rates, if constant through time suggest an Earth billions of years old.

What does that then suggest? From a Biblical perspective, the nuclear decay rates obviously were not constant through time. Furthermore, the Methodological Naturalist has no justifiable grounds on which to even talk about "rates," because the very notion suggests the uniformity of nature, which is contrary to the Evolutionist's view of random chance processes in a universe comprising matter in motion.

We know that mutations accumulate and result in phenotypic changes yet Jim says that there are limits.

The Bible says there are limits. I don't make any claims on my own authority.

SQ33:At what point does the PofU stop working?
HA_SQ33: Excellent question! Let's suppose it stopped working right now. How would you determine that it stopped working? By noticing non-uniformity in nature? But wait, how would you notice non-uniformity if the principle of uniformity has stopped working? Once again, the Methodological Naturalist is caught question-begging in the extreme, and Godless science is reduced to arbitrariness and utter skepticism; knowledge becomes absurd. For the Creationist, true and justified knowledge is based on the order and uniformity God has imposed on His creation.

SQ33.b: Do your presuppositions have superiority over the external world?
HA_SQ33.b: No. Only God has superiority over the external world.

SQ33.c: How would you know if you are deceiving yourself?
HA_SQ33.c: It is not rationally possible for God not to exist.

HA_SQ21: The young earth thesis (Creationism) coupled with observed phenomena currently in the world suffices to suggest a rapid ice age.

So where’s the mention of rapid ice ages in the text?

It is inferred. Believing in Evolution requires contradicting the Bible, which the rational Creationist will not do.

I didn’t see any mention of rapid ice ages ...

It is inferred. For me to accept Evolution, I would have to contradict the teaching of the Bible regarding a young earth. The evidence that the ice age occurred, combined with the observation that we are not currently in an ice age, draws out the conclusion that the ice age was rapid.

... water vapor canopy, ...

The waters above the firmament describe the WVC. Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

... or super light speed. ...

It is inferred. See example of ice age, above.

Super speciation is used to account for the number of extant species and how Noah could logistically take care of millions of species and that’s not mentioned in there.

This is a common but unfounded claim. Consider the following: Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.

So it was a few thousand years ago that continents moved to their present positions within a lifetime?

Of course.

V. Stratnerd on "Question-Begging"
It appears to me that Stratnerd isn't clear on what is meant by "begging the question" or "question-begging." He seems to think that it means, "evokes a question" or "raises a question." It doesn't. Question-begging is a logical fallacy, also known as petitio principii. It is "the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."

Originally I said “He. Made. It.” Doesn’t explain anything and leaves the question begging (How did He do it) ...

See what I mean? Stratnerd is using his own definition of "question begging" to describe what I said, but then applies my (normative) definition to my statement in order to critique it. Stratnerd then quotes me: "There is no question-begging in the statement that God made the horse by His creative power and volition. God's creative power and volition are transcendent, thus we are limited to seeing the effects of His power and volition. ...

Hilston previously wrote: HA_SQ23: There is no need to make a prediction about how God created a horse; it is known. He made it by supernatural divine fiat. The details of the method transcend human comprehension.

SQ34: the question that is “begged” is “how does divine fiat work to manifest objects out of nothingness?
HA_SQ34: Stratnerd does it again. "Question-begging" is not the same as "prompting the question" or "raising the question," as Stratnerd seems to think. In answer to his question, the workings of divine fiat, beyond the descriptions that God creates by His power and volition, are not revealed.

SQ34b: If it defies rationality then how do you stop creation from becoming irrational?
HA_SQ34b: It does not defy rationality; rather, it grounds rationality; it provides an epistemological footing on which to base all of our knowledge and reasoning; it guarantees that creation will not suddenly become irrational. However, note that the anti-Creationist/Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist view is left, not only without any guarantee, but with absolutely no warrant whatsoever to proceed on the assumption that knowledge acquired two seconds ago will have any correspondence to reality two seconds from now. The Evolutionist, in order to make sense of reality and to avoid irrationality and radical skepticism, must presume upon the Creationist worldview.

VI. Stratnerd on the Supernatural
Stratnerd wants to quibble over a disagreement regarding the defintion of "supernatural," as if that gets him off the hook of having to account for abstract conceptual entities such as the laws of logic and mathematics. Regardless of whether he calls them "supernatural" or "extra-natural" (which I prefer) or simply "ideas" or "concepts," Stratnerd has to deal with them.

So I reject that the five senses delineate the supernatural. Like logic, the workings of mathematics are abstractions that exist in the mind and are not “extra-natural”.

Let's see. They "exist in the mind," but are not "extra-natural?" If the laws of logic are natural, as Stratnerd asserts, we should be able to open up someone's "mind" (wherever that is) and scrape out the laws of logic and put them in a beaker. I find it discouraging that after six rounds of discussion, we are still having to clarify basic concepts of reality.

Therefore, all the arguments where Jim suggests the tools (such as logic and mathematics) are “extra-natural” are not valid.

You've got to be kidding me. Have you ever tripped over a quotient? Perhaps you've found some modus ponens in your pants pocket that went through the wash? Did you ever spill a jar of syllogisms? Or perhaps you've sprinkled some 2s on your spaghetti? I hate it when I get pi stuck between my teeth.

The supernatural, to me, is the workings of a supernatural entity and is obvious when the “laws” of physics and biology are suspended. I call them miracles ...

OK, fine. What do you call the law of non-contradiction? Is it physical? Tangible? Natural? "Natural"? Earlier you called mathematics an "abstraction," which is the opposite of "concrete." What is an abstraction, if not "extra-natural"?

– the Bible is replete with examples where “natural laws” no longer apply. Examples include, bushes burning without loss of mass and talk, ...

This is the work of the Creator. He is able to manifest fire, while sustaining the molecular integrity of the bush. No laws are broken. Regularity is interrupted, but no laws are broken.

... a man splits a sea with a staff, ...

Moses spoke for God, Who, through His power and volition, caused a great wind to blow the waters apart and to accelerate the drying of the seabed. No natural laws were broken.

... fruit imparts knowledge, ...

It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; the tree and its fruit were symbolic. The fruit did not actually impart knowledge or cause their spiritual death.

... men rise from the dead ...

Lazarus and Jesus were not zombies. Their blood was restored, their organs repaired, their bodies were fully functional after being resurrected. No natural laws were broken.

... and walk on water, etc.

The Greek says that Jesus and Peter actually walked upon the surface of the water, meaning that God somehow caused the water to support their weight. This does not require the breaking of natural law, but rather the manipulation of molecular structure. Etc.

VII. Methodological Naturalism Is Epistemologically Bankrupt

Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.

And so continues the irrational belief that scientific tools and methods have anything whatever to do with reality on the basis of blind, purposeless, random chance and matter in motion. This is the epistemological loafer dressed up in Creationist clothes, presuming to use God's tools and to breathe God's air.

In his list of possible explanations for the "primary regulator of community structure in a microcosm," Stratnerd listed "God." I pointed out to Stratnerd that he was making a category error, pointing out that God does not act as a primary regulator. Stratnerd responded:

Not sure that a category error is or what a primary regulator is but this sounds like the functional aspect of methodological naturalism.

Interestingly, Stratnerd seemed to understand exactly the kind of distinction I was trying to make, which was betrayed by his qualification between "local" and "global."

We are not asking where logic comes from or if God exists. We simply want to know why there might be a certain proportion of herbivores to producers.

More epistemological loafing. The Evolutionist wants to ask questions (which would be impossible in a random chance universe) and to use reason to discover and to know things, but he ignores the foundation of learning and knowledge.

Since we do not know how God may regulate communities we cannot test it. So it’s left out.

But it's not. It can't be. If you leave God out of the equation, you have no such thing as reason or knowledge, let alone the concept of "regulate."

We do not claim that God doesn’t – indeed he might. How would we know?

It's the wrong question. You do know. Every time you have a coherent thought and type a coherent sentence, God's existence is screamed at you.

So, Jim utilizes the concept of MN until it conflicts with his self-insulating worldview.

This is false. The concept of Methodological Naturalism is inherently Godless and irrational. When the Creationist employs logic, balances his checkbook, learns to speak a new language, etc., he recognizes that God is behind all regularity, uniformity, logic, knowledge and the tools of science. He does not, like the Evolutionist, pretend the extra-natural is irrelevant or doesn't exist. Rather, he knows that his knowledge and science are grounded in the existence of the extra-natural.

And how does this hypothetical cause and effect work to get a “true” explanation? How does logic cause a true explanation? [what is a true explanation anyway?]

The use of logic can generate true explanations. For example, my keys are missing. I find my keys between the cushions of the couch. What is the explanation? They fell out of my pocket while I was sitting on the couch. Thus, logic can generate a true explanation. This is how MN is a hypothesis. The Evolutionist posits a causal relationship between MN and true explanations. Of course, it's not a justified hypothesis, and thus fails as science. In fact, it reduces science to radical skepticism and philosophical absurdity.

(Cont'd Part II)

 

[Hilston]

Round 6 ~ Part II

Round 6 ~ Part II

(Cont'd from Part I)

There’s no conflict between belief in a supernatural diety and needing natural explanations for natural phenomena.

This is false. The very concept of "explanation" is extra-natural, and presupposes the existence and attributes of God. To exclude the extra-natural from consideration of the natural is inherently irrational.

VII. Stratnerd's contradictions:

In Round 5, Stratnerd wrote:

The scientist need not make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist – he or she or it can even posit the workings of the supernatural at work. (Emph. added)

That statement contradicts the following:

Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work. (Emph. added)

And later, Stratnerd wrote:

Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.

In Round 6, Stratnerd writes:

Methodological naturalism is the concept that science can only include natural explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.

In light of this glaring contradiction, I asked: HQ23: I must ask: Do you now retract the following statements?

To which Stratnerd replies: SA_H23. No. I’d have to buy your argument but I don’t.

What argument? That two contradictory statements cannot be true? Recall Stratnerd's statement:

However, in the world of science, insulating explanations of the natural world are an abomination.

It is noteworthy that Stratnerd has insulated his worldview from explanations of the extra-natural world. Again, this is special pleading.

VIII. Questions, Answers

SQ35: There is no answer in this response what or why we should test.
HA_SQ35: We should test to see if we get the same results in order to verify that our knowledge is correct. On the Methodological Naturalist's perspective of reality, there is no basis upon which to assume that same results have any correspondence to reality, or that dissimilar results in fact falsify anything in reality.

SQ35b: With the exception of two of the critical parts: falsification and methodological naturalism. What is left? Skepticism? What definition were you agreeing with?
HA_SQ35b: "... [Stratnerd's] definition of science is: the pursuit of reliable knowledge (acknowledging that these are tentative explanations) via making justifiable hypotheses and testing such hypothesis is observation or experiment."

HQ26 (previously): I'm merely looking for clarity and understanding. What did Stratnerd mean by his earlier statements?
SA_HQ26 I’ve never given it much thought but now that I have I do notthink that the tools of science (logic, mathematics, falsification, MN) are not tentative. What is tentative is our explanations/hypotheses about natural phenomena.

I need to ask again for clarity on this. The double negative and the implied contrast ("What IS tentative ...") have thrown me off. It's too important to guess at what you intended to say.

VI. Stratnerd on Rationality, Logic, Induction
Stratnerd previously wrote: Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.

Hilston replied: I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.

Stratnerd writes:

Not so serious but real example: I often lose my keys. A rational explanation is that they fell out of my pocket and are sitting on my truck seat.

It is not a rational explanation if they're not there. Rationality did not fail you. You have a lack of justified information.

Stratnerd writes:

I go to my truck and the keys are not there (case 1) Another rational answer is that the keys are in my shirt pocket (I hate wearing shirts with no pockets) and the keys are not there (wrong again!).

Again, rationality has not failed you. You were working with insufficient data.

Stratnerd writes:

The keys are actually still sitting in the door but I never even thought of it but there they are, in plain sight (a perfectly rational and correct explanation but I didn’t think of it).

Not "a" rational and correct explanation, but "the" rational explanation. Suppose someone had followed you around and recorded your every movement. Suppose you said to that person, "I've misplaced my keys. A rational explanation might be that I left them in my shirt pocket." He would reply, "No, it's not a rational explanation, because you did not put your keys in your shirt pocket." Etc.

Stratnerd writes:

A more serious example, at one time human kind thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth – an explanation for the rising and setting of the Sun that was based on sound reason and the clear testimony of the Bible. Sound familiar?

It was neither based on sound reason nor the testimony of the Bible. That is a myth concocted by anti-theists and their ilk in an effort to repudiate the Bible.

Hilston previously wrote: If the laws of logic are but a human construct, then they are no longer laws If everything is just matter in motion, ...

SQ37: why? Are you saying that natural laws are real things that are out there for us to discover? Or are they descriptions of nature created by humans?[/quote]Yes, they are real things, yes we have discovered them. They are not created by humans.

Stratnerd writes:

I prefer the latter – that way we can always modify our descriptions when new and contrary data become available.

I'm baffled by this statement. If the Laws of logic can be modified, then why aren't there myriads approaches to scholarship? If the Laws of logic can be tailor-fitted to "new and contrary data" (as if such qualifiers as "new" and "contrary" could make any sense apart from existing universal, invariant Laws), then why does not every textbook, every published paper, every scholarly publication have a preface explaining the kind of logic that will be employed in that work? The idea that the Laws of logic can be modified is naive and contrary to every sphere of human experience.

Stratnerd writes:

If natural laws exist and we become committed to them then we end up needing to artificially explain away these contrary cases. You will have a very comfortable position of always being right but then you run the risk of completely deceiving yourself.

Absolutely naive. I can't believe what I'm reading.

Hilston previously wrote: If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"?

Stratnerd writes:

Brains do not experience “A = B, B=C, therefore A=C” so they cannot be experienced differently by different people.

Exactly, the abstract description is not experienced by the brain. It's happening as you read these words. Individual cases of the abstract principle are experienced all the time, even this very moment. If the laws of logic are merely human constructs or conventions, then what justifies the assumption that a law of logic that is demonstrated in one area of human experience be taken as true in other similar areas not yet experienced? On what grounds does someone posit "If A is B, and B is C, then A is C"?

Stratnerd wrote:

As for the reliability of induction – I believe in no such thing – that’s why I do science – I know induction is not reliable when it comes to more interesting questions.

Hilston responded: Didn't Stratnerd say: "Science would stall if it wasn’t for induction"? What in the world was Stratnerd talking about when he said that?

Stratnerd writes:

The relevant definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (working without internet access) of induction is “3.a. The act or process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances”. That’s what I’m talking about. What in the world is Jim talking about?

Dr. Stratford!!! You're using induction to write the sentence "What in the world is Jim talking about?" You just claimed that you "believe in no such thing [as the reliability of induction]." Were you concerned that the verb in that previous sentence was not going to be a verb this time around? Of course not, because you trust induction. Is this really the same person I started debating 20 days ago?

Stratnerd writes:

Yes, science would stall if not for induction. However, induction is by no means a road to “truth”. It provides a tentative explanation that needs to be tested (i.e., we do our best to falsify it). If a particular inductively-derived explanation stands up to falsification then we can have greater confidence in that explanation (no need to keep testing chairs so to speak). If an explanation is falsified then it gets dumped as an explanation despite being perfectly rational (e.g., the Sun circling the earth).

The fact that think induction is suspect merely because an inductively derived hypothesis has been falsified shows that you have not given due consideration to the very tools you presume to use, not only in your science, but in every thinking moment of your life. I am frankly flabbergasted that I've gotten six rounds into this debate and I'm only now discovering the utter naivete with which I'm dealing on these most basic and foundational matters of science. Un. Believable.

Stratnerd writes:

I was hoping you might have a letter of Darwin’s. Another reason to reject this assertion is that many “philosophers” in Darwin’s time saw the study of nature as firsthand revelation of God’s handiwork.

Sure there were. But it cannot be denied that the culture of Darwin's time was ripe for Darwinism before the book was published. Consider the thinkers of that time and their influence declared by history. Such men as Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Goethe, Krause, Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Diderot, LaMettrie, d'Holbach, Buchner, and Schleiermacher, Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Chambers, Spencer, and Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (a so-called "freethinker"). So eager were men to dismiss the notion of the Creator that the culture was primed to leap at the chance to believe something ostensibly scientific in order to no longer need God. Darwin was strongly influenced by "freethinkers" as he rode the crest of a wave of anti-Creationist thinking. Various events of his life indubitably played a role in his repudiation of the God of the Bible. The fact that the Origin of Species completely sold out the day it was released is strongly indicative of the cultural milieu of nineteenth-century England.

SQ38: Darwin may have rejected Genesis but you have no idea if he was rejecting God do you?
HA_SQ38: On my own authority and knowledge, no, I could not know that. Based on the testimony of the Bible, yes, Darwin was rejecting God.

HQ_SA19: It is central to this discussion. Elsewhere you describe yourself as a "non-Theist." What did you mean by that description?
SA_HQ_SA19: When asking questions about the natural world, I use methodological naturalism which is neutral to claims about the supernatural.

There is no such thing as "neutral." The core thesis of Methodological Naturalism is the blatant eschewing of the extra-natural. It is not neutral, but hostile, to the very foundation of scientific intelligibility.

SQ19.1:[b/] Since when is induction reliable?
HA_SQ19.1: Since the universe was created.
HQ_SQ19.1: Can you give an instance of when induction has failed? (I can't believe I'm asking this).
SQ_HQ_SQ19.1:The Sun circles the earth. Or the chair that broke. I don’t claim to have infinite knowledge – if I did I wouldn’t need induction.

Induction didn't fail you. Induction is what told you that the geocentric model is false, that the chair really broke and that it wasn't the floor that rose to meet your tuchus. Induction is solid. It is your application of it that is flawed when you sit in a chair that breaks. It is the result of insufficient data, not of failed induction.

So in theory, induction is never wrong because you’re always armed with the right knowledge.

No. The verity of induction is independent of my or anyone's application of it. It is universal, invariant, independent. When our judgments fail, it is not induction that is to blame, but our own false assumptions or faulty data.

HQ20: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert the principle of Occam's Razor?
SA_HQ20: Parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation.
HQ20b: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert that parameters added to an explanation are a waste if they do not add to the explanation?
SA_HQ20b.Given that you could ask an infinite series of “and rationalize that” it seems pointless to answer.

You've missed the point. It isn't "turtles all the way down." You're supposed to have already asked yourself these kinds of questions, Stratnerd.

SQ7: [but related to the questions above] Can you back up this assertion? Do just have to believe it?
HA_SQ7. I don't see a rational alternative

Stratnerd writes:

Again, this means nothing other than the limitations of your imagination and ignoring the fact that rationalization does not imply reality. So you do just need to believe it.

No, if you're going to be rational, you have no choice. It isn't a matter of "just need to believe it." Rather, it's a matter of "What else are you left with, if you don't want to be irrational and believe in magic?"

Hilston previously wrote: It is fascinating to me how often non-Theists will readily criticize what they view as circularity in the views of others, but seem to utterly fail in seeing it in their own view. The reliability of knowledge is grounded linearly, not circularly, in the existence of God.

Stratnerd writes:

But you presuppose God. And simply say that you can’t rationalize God because of his transcendence. So the very basis of your argument is irrational.

No, the basis of my argument is transcendent. That doesn't make God irrational; it makes God infinite. This should come as no surprise to you, Stratnerd. You should have anticipated this response from me, if I am to be consistent with my espoused beliefs.

Six down, one to go.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

DING DING DING

That's it for round #6. Round #7 (the closing statements) will now begin.

Stratnerd has until 8:59AM (MDT) on Dec 29th to make his FINAL post in Battle Royale IX

 

[Stratnerd]

ll be brief in my closing statements. Partly to be merciful to the reader but primarily so I can go play catch, toss a football, watch TV, go see Narnia, visit nature centers and a planetarium with my son, who is only in town for the week.

Stratnerd, he ain’t no philosopher but he knows when he steps into something smelly

“But on day one of our venture into the real world of practical applications, we were taught to ignore this principle”​

Good, P.I. and J.W. Hardin. 2003. Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them). John Wiley and Sons.

I am frankly flabbergasted that I've gotten six rounds into this debate and I'm only now discovering the utter naivete with which I'm dealing on these most basic and foundational matters of science. Un. Believable.

Within a few words of my opening post I said:

Perhaps just as important as knowledge of evolution is a knowledge in philosophy[sic]. This is admittedly pathetic– worse that I am a Doctor philosophiae. I’ll do my best, hang in there.

I do admit that I am not familiar with the lexicon of philosophy but Jim is completely wrong that I do not understand the foundations of science or how science works. This charge comes from someone that admits that they are “not a scientist by training or by profession, as the term is narrowly defined” and he’s leveling his crass assessment against someone that is a professional scientist – and a good one [one that can walk the walk (get published, get grants, win awards) and not just talk the talk (internet debates). The only thing Jim has shown is that he can talk the talk. Maybe he considers himself a scientist in his broad definition where people just think about and look at data. I previously used the term “working scientists”. Unlike what Jim alleges, I was not implying that working scientists are an elite group, rather I was using the term for people that are able to recognize subtleties of definitions, when definitions are apposite, and when they are inappropriate. Examples of our different takes on these definitions are found throughout the six previous rounds. These differences include “test”, “induction”, “hypothesis”. For those readers that are interested in how science works and how it does not I would refer to the works of Hull, Ruse, Popper. The context I used these terms is consistent with these philosophers and with the way that scientists around the world use them.


Evolution, of definitions and worldviews.

For me to accept Evolution as true, I would have to contradict and deny my fundamental beliefs about reality.

So? Why should dictionaries or anyone care about your personal worldview? Or should definitions provide criteria for us to determine if something is or is not something? The question proposed to us was the issue of Evolution and if it was a subset of science. I have consistently used standard definitions of Evolution and of science. Anyone can see this. Jim’s tactic has been to use nonstandard criteria for defining science (whether one can or cannot “justify” their use of logic) and then compared this to a nonstandard definition of Evolution (one that includes ontological baggage). As I pointed out in my first point, if one can change definitions willy-nilly then one can accomplish any goal one wishes.

That is because Evolution is more than a mere definition about biological change; it is a philosophical vision.

So Jim could care less about definitions and insists on making more out of Evolution than what is called for. Not surprising.

As I demonstrated in several quotes of Evolutionists, Stratnerd's vociferous denials are tantamount to linguistic revision.

Since “linguist revision” is not in any of my dictionaries, I assume that Jim means that I change definitions or I take words out of context, or I have an incomplete definition. If one examines how I define Evolution and science, one can find those definitions in textbooks, in the peer-reviewed literature, and in dictionaries. Jim, on the other hand, has a unique definition of science that is apparently defined by the ability to explain the origin of logic. This is the first case where Jim does his own linguist revisions. The other case is just as obvious. He defines Evolution with extra baggage; that baggage being the ontological implications of Evolutionary theory primarily ontological naturalism. He defines evolution as a worldview, no, he insists on it. Yet you will not find such a definition of Evolution in any text or dictionary.

So who is guilty of linguist “revisioning”?

What Jim accuses me of is having an incomplete definition. Well, yea, compared to his “all-encompassing” definition of Evolution (that nobody uses) I do. To back up his atypical definition, he employs quotes where the speakers have played “fast and loose” with definitions. Backing of errors with more errors is no way to win an argument.

He calls the quotes "errors." I call it history; and connecting the proverbial dots.

Stratnerd then refers to theistic Evolutionists that he knows, as if the existence of people holding mutually exclusive ideas suffices to prove that Evolution somehow isn't a worldview. Any professing theist who holds to Evolution has compromised the teachings of the Bible and undermines its Truth.

Dots indeed. Interpreting Jim’s comments, I assume that he is saying that belief in Evolution (dot A) necessitates (draws a line to) an antheist worldview (dot B). This is necessary in Jim’s worldview because his truth claims on the origin of biodiversity (Genesis = reality) overlap with that explained by Evolution. He will deny it until he turns blue but other worldviews make no such demands; one can be a Christian and an Evolutionist. You can believe in God, Jesus, miracles and not take Genesis literally. It is not a dichotomy (God or Evolution) as Jim would like you to believe. And you don’t believe it, do you? If they undermine the Truth of the Bible then bummer for the Bible.

Any Evolutionist who is not anti-Theistic has simply not adequately reflected on the implications of Evolutionism, nor have they taken the theory to its logical conclusions to fully consider how it ramifies in their worldview.

It would be silly of me to say that belief in Evolution does not have implications but where does Jim get off saying that you go from Evolution to “God is a joke and Jesus was a fake”? There is an evolutionary worldview (now watch this get taken out of context like methodological naturalism et al.) but only as far as that is claims that organisms have evolved. Darwin, Evolution’s most famous spokesperson, the biggest gun, says:

There is grandeur in this view of life,with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet as gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

Jim will claim that Darwin was out to remove God but if we look at Darwin’s personal history (his deep friendship with Rev. Sedgewick and his training to be a country parson), the notion of God at the time, and the last sentence of his great work Origins, we can make a much better argument that he was actually out to find a law, indeed, a God-given law, to explain the origin of biodiversity.


Survival of the fittest – arguing for the sake of arguing

After reading this section, I now see why Jim did not want to include anything related to evolution and stuck to philosophy. “Survival of the fittest” is not used by scientists anymore because the terms are vague. Darwin did not want to use the phrase and I’ve only seen criticism of it by modern biologists. I should just drop the issue because it isn’t an issue anymore but such flagrant misunderstandings of biology should be pointed out.

Let's apply this logic to the Evolutionary hypothesis, referred to as "survival of the fittest."

Actually “survival of the fittest” is an evolutionary hypothesis:

Defining evolution more narrowly, one can define it by the mechanisms that supposedly generate change. So that gives us change in populations through time (generations) via sexual recombination, mutation, lateral transfer in cahoots with genetic drift and natural (including sexual selection).

Evolution is posited regardless of the mechanism such that Evolution occurs and has occurred even if natural selection does and did not occur. Moreover, the strongest evidence for Evolution (independent lines of data: agreement between geology and phylogeny, repeated patterns of phylogenies, etc) has nothing to do with natural selection at all.

What are the independent criteria for fitness?

How can the fittest organisms be identified apart from those who survived?

Fitness is the relative contribution of a genotype to the following generation. Survival is related to mortality. A genotype may have high fitness but low survivorship. Likewise, a different genotype may have low fitness but may have great survivorship. The two phenomena are independent no “buts” about it.

The Evolutionist worldview assumes that the survivor is the fittest by default, unscientifically.

That’s an interesting assertion but you provide no evidence of such a thing. The reality of the situation is that there is a great deal of theoretical and experimental work with these two aspects. A person with access to an academic search engine (e.g., Medline) will find a number of articles that examine the relationships between fitness (reproduction) and survival (staying alive).

The fact is, it is not a testable hypothesis, because the organisms that did not survive are not around to be tested.

Huh? Sure it is. In fact, the norm is numerous alleles or genotypes per loci. Because survivorship and fitness are dependent on environmental context we can experiment with different genotypes. This type of research occurs with AIDS where the different strains are present in the same individual (resistant and wild-type HIV). I am most familiar with the fruit fly research that looks at the effect of fitness on survivorship. In fact, this research shows the opposite of what Jim asserts – fruit flies with the highest fitness are the least likely to survive! Non-reproducing males live longer but because they have no offspring, the have no fitness.

Not only that, but the fittest organisms may not have survived for reasons that had nothing to do with their fitness for survival.

Fitness for survival? What the heck is that all about?

Yet, immediately above we see that a foundational plank of Evolution is inherently flawed and fails to meet Stratnerd's criteria of testability and observation.

First, survival of the fittest is not and was never a “foundational plant of Evolution”. Secondly, we can experiment with fitness and survivorship.

Independent lines of evidence and historical hypotheses

Here’s another example where Jim is talking about one thing and I am talking about another. To discuss independent lines of data Jim uses an example of microbeers and sales. This is an odd example that really has nothing to do with scientists talk about (the context was wrong). I always wonder why creationists use nonbiological analogies to talk about their biological theories. Makes the reader commit more steps than just talking about the damn thing in the first place.

When a scientist talks about independent lines of evidence, he or she is talking about phenomena that behave independently of the question but the results can have implications for the question.

I gave a relevant example. Many people working on islands want to study the spatial and temporal aspects of speciation. So an Evolutionary biologist would take DNA from organisms on the different islands and from a hypothetical ancestor on the mainland, grind it up and get sequences. Using observed rates of mutation we can date the times of divergence. For example, D the mainland split at time T0 from A,B,C. C split from A,B at time T1 and A and B split at time T2. A scientist can do this with a particular gene and repeat the experiment with another gene. If results are consistent then we have greater confidence in our inferences. If we use different organisms and the pattern comes up the same, this again, improves our confidence in our inferences. If we look at geology and this pattern matches our organisms then this increases our confidence in our inferences even more. That is, unless one is a creationista. In this case our inferences will always have to bounded by our presupposition that the earth is only 6000 years old and organisms were poofed here. Since all contrary views are conveniently dismissed, I call it a perfectly insulated worldview. Jim levels the same accusation at science, however, a 6000 year old earth and poofed animals are ruled in as well as other alternatives. So science could come up with a 6000 year old earth and poofed animals. Nevertheless, science cannot explain the supernatural (in the sense that most people understand the supernatural – not Jim’s extranatural). If the world was 6000 years old and organisms were poofed on it then you would think that science would also come up with this conclusion and that they would need to explain away or just say that the implications for this result were beyond their bounds. But this isn’t the case. Instead science, is saying that the universe, the world and the organisms found on our planet are much older and that the organisms on our planet, including ourselves, have evolved. These conclusions were arrived at via the same methods that we use for other areas of science.

Jim will respond in two very predictable ways. One, he respond by asserting (evidence need not apply) that without the Biblical God we wouldn’t have the tools of science to begin with. Two, he will assert that going that far back in time is simply hand-waving. But, with his counter my example with microbrews nicely demonstrated he fails to understand the nature of how we investigate historical questions.



More on methodological naturalism

Originally I had said:

I’ll define MN as the assumption that we can only test natural explanations – it does not make any claim, either way as to the existence of supernatural beings or effects. MN is limited to the question at hand and is an assumption that must be made to carry out science – much like the assumption of random sampling for an ANOVA or t-test.

Jim says “There is no such thing as "neutral." The core thesis of Methodological Naturalism is the blatant eschewing of the extra-natural. It is not neutral, but hostile, to the very foundation of scientific intelligibility.”

But Jim asserts (sans evidence) mathematics, logic, and other conceptual tidbits that are processed in our brains are extra-natural and asserts (sans evidence) that the only thing that can account for the origin of the extra-natural is the Biblical God (=Genesis). Evidence need not apply. More below.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
The Pneumatist believes in the existence of air and claims that all breathing depends on the air's existence and that without air, all breathing would be rendered impossible. The Apneumatist does not believe in the existence of air and claims that there is no evidence for the existence of air, and all the while he continues to breathe air. The Pneumatist points out to the Apneumatist the fact that, if air did not exist, he could not be breathing. But the Apneumatist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that my breathing would be impossible without air, because I AM in fact breathing!" This is the a similar scenario as we see in this debate.

Hardly! Either party could test their assertion with evidence. What Jim does make assertions and admits that none of his assertions (God as the source of logic, uniformity of nature, how God goes about creating) can be backed up with evidence. Evidence need not apply.

The Methodological Naturalist refuses to acknowledge the extra-natural

What is this? The third time I need to repeat this? MN makes no claims about the supernatural – it only recognizes that one can only include naturalistic hypotheses because the supernatural does not work in a way that it could be incorporated.

What we see in both of these scenarios is the failure to acknowledge the very foundation of what is being taken for granted. Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God.

An assertion that, after six chances to do so, has yet to be backed up with some sort of evidence or syllogisms presented so a coherent examination of the arguments could be made.

Stratnerd insists on justification for one's hypotheses, yet when asked to apply his own requirement to the hypothesis of science itself, he refuses.

Refuses? Or have I pointed out that your hypothesis are no hypothesis at all? At least not in any sense that science works. You don’t like the falsification criteria but most philosophers of science, most scientists, and myself could care less. Jim can make up your definitions of science willy-nilly but nobody will or should take it seriously. We need falsification to make sure or inductive reasoning is correct because, in the real world, we don’t have all the necessary information where the correct inductive conclusion will be made. History shows this over and over.

He limits the requirement to "... the hypotheses we invoke to explain natural phenomena." In other words, he wants to be arbitrary and to create for himself "a perfectly insulated worldview." He claims, arbitrarily, that "[w]hat makes something scientific or not relates to the ability of a hypothesis to be falsified." But this he cannot prove, nor is any attempt made to justify this hypothesis.

arbitrary? This is how science works. And Jims calls me naive. We use methodological naturalism because we cannot test/falsify supernatural (in the sense that most people use) explanations. MN does not apply to ultimate questions (where logic comes from – if it comes from anywhere). And Jim calls me naïve. Jim admits we cannot do experiments on how a horse was created. So we are reduced to MN to answer such a question. He just doesn’t get it.

The successes of science do not make sense in a naturalistic, random, chance universe.

And a naturalistic universe is necessarily “random and chance”? Let me guess, Jim will assert that without the Biblical God, there would not be uniformity of nature. Theistic evolutionists say the same thing but also believe in evolution. The naturalistic will simply point out that we don’t know and that the uniformity of nature is a property of the universe itself and the source need not be explained.

They only make sense on the Creationist worldview, in which nature is created and sustained by a personal, purposeful, all-knowing Creator.

An assertion where no evidence is given. Jim gives us the opportunity to remove God from this equation but knowing that this is not logistically possible I wonder what his point was if not just being a smart *** (he warned us that he would be – it’s part of his nature so I take no offense).

but how does Stratnerd himself assess the work and successes of other scientists? By sensory and reasoning faculties and a methodology that have not been proven and for which he has no means of calibration.

How does one prove a methodology? How does one prove a reasoning faculty? We know that things such as mathematics and logic work because they work for all of us. The why seems hardly relevant (and we leave it to philosophers to quibble about it). How do we calibrate mathematics, logic, etc? These questions make no sense.

Scientists, myself included can, however, assess the work and successes of other scientists by seeing how well (a simple yes/no) their conclusions stand up to the attempts of falsification by other scientists. This is the crux of how science works so just the fact that Jim asks this question makes me suspect of his knowledge of how science works. The attempts at falsification will often involve repeating experiments but most of the time it will involve independent types of experiments.

Please consider: I have a worldview that says God is the Creator of the universe, that He created this universe in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, that the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible message to mankind.

yes. You can never be shown to be wrong because you’ll simply dismiss (“reinterpret”) any contrary evidence. As you admit – how can there be?

Stratnerd has a worldview that says the universe is random matter in motion,

Somebody please tell me what Jim is talking about and why he thinks he can read my mind. I do not posit that the universe is “random matter in motion”. Have I ever asserted this? It is obvious that the universe does not work this way so the dispute is why the universe works [somewhat] orderly. Jim claims that only God can do this. I do not counter this claim. I do not know where the [somewhat] uniform nature of the universe comes from or if it just a property of the universe emerged from the elements within that universe.

Is his view insulated against views that are contrary? Absolutely! He refuses to even entertain the question of how he justifies his assumptions about nature and his method of science: A perfectly insulated worldview.

Really? All of my ideas and conclusions based on my irrational methods are open to falsification.

Does Stratnerd ever get the creepy feeling like he might be totally deceived about Methodological Naturalism?

When it comes to the evolution/creation debate? Nope. MN does not exclude God so I don’t use MN in questions about Him. But given the prior success and demonstrated failures of certain ideas I feel quite confident that science is a good way to understand the natural elements in the universe.

I did NOT say that the Creationist "never see himself as being wrong." What I am saying is, when the Creationist finds out that he is wrong, he has a reliable foundation (God's existence and the laws that reflect His character) upon which to assess his error and to proceed toward correcting it or finding a better explanation. The Methodological Naturalist does not.

The methodological naturalist can always invoke God as the source of logic and uniformity of nature. You still do not understand the nature of MN.

there are no instances where the principle of uniformity clashes with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, the uniformity of nature and the regularity of nature are prerequisite to miracles. If there were no regularity, then nothing could be ascertained as miraculous. If there were no uniformity, there would be no knowledge or learning whatsoever by which to ascertain anything.

Are you saying that uniformity of nature makes miracles obvious so the uniformity of nature is a “most of the time” phenomenon?

The Bible says there are limits. I don't make any claims on my own authority.

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state there are limits. You state them explicitly because you are forced to. I would be uncomfortable in those shoes. Apparently you are not.

HA_SQ33: Excellent question! Let's suppose it stopped working right now. How would you determine that it stopped working? By noticing non-uniformity in nature? But wait, how would you notice non-uniformity if the principle of uniformity has stopped working? Once again, the Methodological Naturalist is caught question-begging in the extreme, and Godless science is reduced to arbitrariness and utter skepticism; knowledge becomes absurd. For the Creationist, true and justified knowledge is based on the order and uniformity God has imposed on His creation.

There was no answer in there.

Originally Posted by Stratnerd
So it was a few thousand years ago that continents moved to their present positions within a lifetime?

Of course.

No wonder Jim doesn’t like falsification. If we were to actually go out and test this ad hoc does Jim think that it would stand up to reality? He will be forced to say “it doesn’t matter”. It does not matter how much evidence piles up against creationism because evidence is irrelevant – Jim admits it and has steered totally clear of it. I don’t blame him.

SQ34: the question that is “begged” is “how does divine fiat work to manifest objects out of nothingness?
HA_SQ34: Stratnerd does it again. "Question-begging" is not the same as "prompting the question" or "raising the question," as Stratnerd seems to think. In answer to his question, the workings of divine fiat, beyond the descriptions that God creates by His power and volition, are not revealed.

I understand what question begging is but it seemed like Jim answered how God’s will created by replying that it is divine fiat. Which is simply rewording the original answer. But Jim is saying that divine fiat is God’s will and doesn’t know how it works.

Stratnerd wants to quibble over a disagreement regarding the defintion of "supernatural,"

Quibble? As if mathematics and the working of omnipresent omnipotent beings were equivalent. Do I have to “deal” with how mathematics and logic work in the brain to use them? I don’t understand how my wrench is built but I use it just fine on my truck. To say that I have to accept Genesis as being true because I can read this sentence and add 2 + 2 is absurd. But that is the upshot of what Jim wants all of us to do.

More epistemological loafing. The Evolutionist wants to ask questions (which would be impossible in a random chance universe) and to use reason to discover and to know things, but he ignores the foundation of learning and knowledge.

And loafing get me published, win awards, get grants. Maybe it isn’t as important as you imply. Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care. Jim’s entire argument rests on the fallacy of many questions – I don’t buy his premises which he simply asserts are true. I’m under no obligation to believe him. The fact that he claims there can be no rational alternative is a big clue that we should be suspect.

God's existence is screamed at you.

I just don’t hear the voices in my head that you do.

SQ35b: With the exception of two of the critical parts: falsification and methodological naturalism. What is left? Skepticism? What definition were you agreeing with?
HA_SQ35b: "... [Stratnerd's] definition of science is: the pursuit of reliable knowledge (acknowledging that these are tentative explanations) via making justifiable hypotheses and testing such hypothesis with observation or experiment."

Falsification is the point of testing. So Jim don’t agree with that. Without MN we could make innumerable hypotheses why events occur by including any supernatural beings we would like. So the only thing Jim agrees with is “the pursuit of reliable knowledge”. But without falsification how do we know that something is reliable? Jim would repeat experiments (the same ones?) but not doing this in a falsification framework he is only examining with accuracy and precision in measurements – but his entire hypothesis might be wrong.

Induction

Stratnerd previously wrote: Actual human experience, however, shows that rational answers are not necessarily correct.

Hilston replied: I'm slack-jawed at this statement. Please give me an example of such an experience. I have never, ever had one.

Instead of repeating the entire dialogue I’ll just say that Jim countered my claim with caveats where I lacked “justified information” or I was working with “insufficient data”. Indeed, the most interesting caveat was that “someone had followed you around and recorded your every movement”.

Problem with these caveats is that they do not apply to the real word. In the real world we work with insufficient data. This is another case where there’s a difference between armchair philosophers and people that actually do science. Jim talks about induction in a philosophical world. I talk about induction, as other scientists do, in the real world. I’m not saying that a working scientist is elite, certainly not, we just have a different perspective of the problems in science.

So induction in the real world is unreliable (ask Linus Pauling, who came up with alternatives to the double helix) and we need falsification to test our inductively-derived hypotheses.

Jim claims that God is the rational explanation for the source of logic, mathematics, uniformity of nature. But he also told us that he doesn’t know how divine fiat or God’s will manifests itself. So Jim is working with insufficient knowledge for the question at hand. In that case, he might be wrong and alternative rational explanations may exist. Now, there’s no reason to believe his primary argument. Science can keep on being science, none of us will need to be creationists or steal from the creationists toolbox, and we will not have to become creationists.

To counter this, Jim will need to claim that we do indeed have perfect knowledge of God’s will including how it manifests itself (logical God -> logical universe). This he admits he can’t do and he’ll probably rely on Biblical passages. But if his argument is that Genesis is true and uses Genesis in his premises then he’s using yet another logical fallacy – question begging.

So Jim’s argument rests on two logical fallacies: the fallacy of many questions (a questionable premise) and question begging. There’s no reason to take his argument seriously and most people do not.

Gratitude

I would like to thank Jim for pointing out areas where I need to brush up on. And I will just as I am brushing up on Nissan repair (much more of a necessity). The TAG argument is interesting despite it’s flaws. I would also like to thank TOL for allowing me to express my views – I’ll see on the other threads.


In the words of Charlie Papazian, author of The Complete Joy of Home Brewing:

Relax and have a home brew. ​

There is an argument worth taking to heart.

Now I’m off to show an 8-year old the difference between running a post and a fade route.​

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hilston has until 8:52AM on Dec 31st to make the final post in Battle Royale IX.

 

[Hilston]

Closing Statements ~ Part I

Closing Statements ~ Part I

I. The "Debate" (scare quotes intended)
The American Heritage Dictionary offers the following definitions of "debate":

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

A. Agreement on Definitions.

Stratnerd and I agreed on several key definitions in this debate. We agreed on the scientific method. We agreed on the definition of science. We even agreed on the two senses in which evolution and Evolution could be understood ("Secondly, I agree that we should use evolution and Evolution - that will make my job that much easier." ~ Stratnerd). Shockingly, we even agreed concerning the scientific aspects of Creationism ("Let me surprise some of you and say that certain aspects [of Creationism] are [scientific] ?no doubt." ~ Stratnerd).

B. Why Debate?.

Question: Given all this agreement about how Evolution is defined and what science is, what should the debate have been about?

Stratnerd's implied answer: Nothing. There's no reason to debate because we agree on the definitions.

Hilston's answer: The ramifications of the Evolutionary hypothesis and its foundational justification, as they present a clash between our respective overall views of the world.

As I indicated in my second post, and continually affirmed throughout the debate, this is not merely about definitions, but about a difference in our overall views of the world. Recall, on the heels of an agreed-upon definition of Evolution, my following disclaimer:

Of course, what we each take away from, or infer on the basis of, that definition [of Evolution]will vary widely. Note further that the variance in our views will not be the result of different sets of evidence, or a differing quantity of data. Rather, our disagreement will be the result of our differing overall views of the world and of reality which govern our assessment of the evidence.​

So when Stratnerd utters his mantra against my argument, saying, "Evidence need not apply," he is missing the point of the whole debate. If all we did was talk about definitions and evidences only, we would end up agreeing on everything, except of course where a hypothesis disagreed with the Bible, at which point we'd be back to talking about our differing overall views of the world.

The question proposed to us was the issue of Evolution and if it was a subset of science. I have consistently used standard definitions of Evolution and of science. Anyone can see this.

And anyone can see that I have consistently agreed with Stratnerd's definitions. Given that, we should have ended the debate in the first round as a draw. We both agree; so should we have just packed up our tents and shut down the show? There is obviously a difference of opinion where Evolution is concerned, although not in the definitions of the terms. So, should we have ignored where those differences lie because those differences are not immediately found in the agreed-upon definitions? Or should we have explored the roots and ramifications of Evolution that would expose our differences for the sake of the debate? Isn't it the latter?

Jim? tactic has been to use nonstandard criteria for defining science (whether one can or cannot ?ustify?their use of logic) and then compared this to a nonstandard definition of Evolution (one that includes ontological baggage). ... So Jim could care less about definitions and insists on making more out of Evolution than what is called for. Not surprising.

What Stratnerd has failed to appreciate throughout this debate is that the definitions are useful for enabling us to communicate clearly, not necessarily for setting up the boundaries of the debate. And again, if the debate were to be limited to the definitions only, then there was no need to debate at all, since we agreed on the definitions of the terms.

There is a clearly controversy between the Evolutionist and Creationist. Obviously that controversy does not lie in the definitions of the terms. Should we have just gone home? Or should we have gotten busy finding out where the controversies lie, and exposed those differences and hashed them out? Isn't it the latter?

C. Debate What?

I demonstrated by quoting several prominent Evolutionists that the subject we're debating extends far beyond the definitions of the terms. Despite Stratnerd's efforts to repudiate matters concerning the origins of life, morality and human dignity, his Evolutionist forebears saw fit to include them.

Darwin himself, "Evolution? most famous spokesperson, the biggest gun" according to Stratnerd, recognized the philosophical implications of his theory when he challenged theistic evolutionist Asa Gray in a letter, saying:

One more word on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly killed this man? ... If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed. [Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages, p. 203, Emph. in original]​

D. The Shame of Modernity and the Epistemological Loafer

Modern science (soi-disant) has spawned a generation of epistemological loafers (who publish papers, get grants and win awards) and unabashed pragmatists. Stratnerd offered a quote that says: "But on day one of our venture into the real world of practical applications, we were taught to ignore this principle."

The physical sciences originated as a subset of philosophy. In fact, Newton titled his work, Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis. ("The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"). This is why Stratnerd's degree is called a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy). So, how is it that a book on Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them) not only sees no need to address the foundational matters of our factual knowledge, but apparently sees no interest in or need concerning such matters coming from their target audience.

I partly blame our public education system; I partly blame the general climate of thought (or the lack thereof) in our age; and I partly blame the philosophical laziness and poor, unbiblical argumentation promulgated by modern creationists. These combined factors, among others of course, have resulted in a generation that can hear a challenge such as I've offered in this debate, and their eyes glaze over, their brains short-circuit and they find they have no patience for carefully formulated arguments and tough-mindedness philosophical inquiry.

The typical creationist, instead of confronting their opponents with the foundational questions of knowledge and of one's worldview and philosophy, chooses instead to offer the standard (philosophically inadequate and biblically inappropriate) theistic proofs with a pseudo-scientific veneer of irreducible complexity thrown in for good measure. So when the Evolutionist who is accustomed to hearing the usual Creationist patter hears instead an argument that is transcendentally formulated, exposes the problems of induction, or focuses on foundational epistemological and metaphysical matters, he doesn't know what to do with it, and resorts to demanding "evidence," and "models," etc. Sadly, the average Creationist doesn't know what to do with it either, so much so that they disregard such arguments as "an" argument (if that) among many, rather than seeing the powerful and exclusive biblical methodology that it is.

II. Stratnerd's Alleged Bummer for the Bible

A final word on theistic evolutionists: I do not deny they exist, nor do I doubt Stratnerd's claims regarding the lack of atheistic evolutionists in his own circle. But among theists, Evolution and old earth cosmology are part of an intramural debate. Stratnerd is not claiming to be theistic, so anything he has to say concerning theistic evolutionists is irrelevant to our conflict. Stratnerd writes:

You can believe in God, Jesus, miracles and not take Genesis literally.

No. You. can't. Because believing in God and Jesus and His miracles requires also believing Jesus' own words about Moses and Genesis, which unambiguously indicate that Jesus was a Creationist who understood Genesis "literally." Those who presume to believe in a god who used long ages of geologic history to bring about the current biodiversity witnessed on planet earth have presumptuously opposed the unequivocal teaching of the Bible and have done violence to the biblical language, sound exegesis and clear logic. Such people create a god in their own image, one that satisfies their specious "scientific" sensibilities, dressing their god and their speculations in the robes of theism, adorned with the scholarly and scientific affectations of Evolutionism, all the while acting like Creationists in order to even formulate their arguments. That is to say, the theistic Evolutionists are as irrational as non-theistic Evolutionists.

III. The Persistent Fitness Tautology

Note the contradiction:

A genotype may have high fitness but low survivorship.

If "high fitness" doesn't contribute to the organism's "survivorship," then it isn't "fit to survive." Stratnerd writes:

Likewise, a different genotype may have low fitness but may have great survivorship.

If an organism has "great survivorship," then its genotype is "fit to survive." Stratnerd claims,

The two phenomena are independent no 'buts' about it.

Stratnerd must be defining "fit" in a way differently than I understand it, and at this late stage in our debate, further exploration of this may have to be relegated to the Grandstands. I wrote: The Evolutionist worldview assumes that the survivor is the fittest by default, unscientifically. Stratnerd replies:

That? an interesting assertion but you provide no evidence of such a thing.

Let's see. Everything that survives was "fit to survive." If a genotype didn't survive, it was not "fit to survive." If a genotype was not "fit to survive," it did not survive. How is fitness defined? As "reproduction"? So perhaps Darwinism can be described as "survival of those who stay alive long enough to reproduce." It's still a tautology.

IV. Creationism and Evolutionism as Insulated Worldviews

The ultimate "insulated worldview" is the invocation of Methodological Naturalism. Stratnerd has built an impenetrable dome around his worldview that protects him from explanations or considerations of the extra-natural world. This is special pleading, with the added bonus of keeping out any possible intrusions of Deity.

That is, unless one is a creationista. In this case our inferences will always have to bounded by our presupposition that the earth is only 6000 years old and organisms were poofed here. Since all contrary views are conveniently dismissed, I call it a perfectly insulated worldview.

This is true. The Creationist view is perfectly insulated against irrational Old Earth argumentation and pseudo-scientific assumptions.

If the world was 6000 years old and organisms were poofed on it then you would think that science would also come up with this conclusion and that they would need to explain away or just say that the implications for this result were beyond their bounds.

This is more naivete. Stratnerd would do well to read more creationist literature on age-of-the-earth issues. The evidences for a young earth are pervasive, but such evidence is summarily dismissed when presented to an insulated Evolutionist community whose bread and butter depends on the belief in an Old-Earth cosmology.

But Jim asserts (sans evidence) mathematics, logic, and other conceptual tidbits that are processed in our brains are extra-natural and asserts (sans evidence) that the only thing that can account for the origin of the extra-natural is the Biblical God (=Genesis). Evidence need not apply. More below.

Note the contradiction in Stratnerd's thinking. He is a Methodological Naturalist, demanding natural evidence for the extra-natural. Nevermind the fact that his request is, itself, extra-natural, as is the very premise of Methodological Naturalism.

V. Induction: Foiled Again!

In his efforts to undermine induction (amazing!), Stratnerd writes:

Problem with these caveats is that they do not apply to the real word. In the real world we work with insufficient data. This is another case where there? a difference between armchair philosophers and people that actually do science. Jim talks about induction in a philosophical world. I talk about induction, as other scientists do, in the real world. I? not saying that a working scientist is elite, certainly not, we just have a different perspective of the problems in science.

Not concerning induction! Scientists do not have a corner on the market for induction! Every waking second, humans apply the inductive principle, whether they're conscious of it or not. Every time a driver hits the lever for his turn signal, he is using the inductive principle. When the time comes that the blinker does not turn on, induction has not failed. Induction is what tells the driver that the bulb is out; not that God has intervened or some spirit gremlin is playing games. Whether you're a biologist or a beautician, everyone uses induction. There is nothing "armchair" about the subject of induction. At. All.

So induction in the real world is unreliable (ask Linus Pauling, who came up with alternatives to the double helix) and we need falsification to test our inductively-derived hypotheses.

I'm baffled. How is it that an inductively derived hypothesis is being conflated with the Inductive Principle?

Showing how little he has understood of my argument, Stratnerd writes:

But if his argument is that Genesis is true and uses Genesis in his premises then he? using yet another logical fallacy ?question begging.

I agree with you, which is why I wouldn't be caught dead making such an argument.

VI. Stratnerd's Self-Indicting Standards of Science

A. Stratnerd's Self-Indicting Methodological Naturalism and Falsifiability

Stratnerd writes:

The common elements of the two definitions of science (not ?y?definitions but the definitions used and understood by scientist around the world) involve falsifiability and methodological naturalism (MN).

What follows is the refutation that Stratnerd dismissed in an earlier post, but suffices to summarize his failure to justify his thesis:

1. Before Methodological Naturalism and Falsifiability can be warranted as criteria for what constitutes science, they cannot be arbitrarily stipulated, but should be "justified," to borrow a term from Stratnerd. The Evolutionist cannot rationally justify these criteria, and that they are accepted blindly and axiomatically by the Evolutionist.
   
2. Even if we assume the verity of MN and Falsifiability as valid standards of what constitutes science, Evolution collapses under the weight of these criteria.

a. Methodological Naturalism (MN): Stratnerd defines MN as "the assumption that we can only test natural explanations." One of the explanations of Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the uniformity of nature, which cannot be tested without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption itself does not come under the purview of MN, Evolution fails as science on this point.

b. Falsifiability: Similarly, Stratnerd says he considers "falsifiability to be an element of a scientific approach." However, one of the explanations of Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the inductive principle (that individual cases infer general principles). As a foundational tenet of the Evolutionist conception of the universe, induction cannot be falsified without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption is not falsifiable, Evolution fails as science on this point as well.​

Thus, on the one hand, we have a view (Creationism) that is antithetical to naturalistic explanation. On the other hand, we have a view that summarily excludes the extra-natural, whose very foundation makes unwarranted appeals to "extra-natural" assumptions, magic axioms, and mythical inventions.

B. Stratnerd's Self-Indicting Information-Theoretic Approach

In his first post, Stratnerd wrote,

Usually presented as an alternative, which I prefer to think of as a complement, to Popperian science is the information-theoretic framework where multiple hypotheses compete to explain a particular observation.

Stratnerd says in an Information-Theoretic approach, the data are fixed and the hypotheses are variable. So,

Given the fixed data of morals, human value and law of logic,

Let x = Hypothesis (Explanatory view of reality)​

The question then is: Which hypothesis better explains the data without adding so-called "unwarranted complexity"?

Hypothesis #1: The Evolutionary view. This view says that things can become their opposites; that moral principles popped out of amoral matter; that molecules in motion spawned human dignity; that acausal chance and chaos produced universal laws of logic.

Hypothesis #2*: The Creationist view. This views says that the Creator made the universe and all that is in it, that moral principles come from His righteous character, that human dignity comes from being created in God's image, and that the laws of logic reflect the nature and attributes of God.

Applying the concept of parsimony/Occam's Razor (which I do not affirm, but merely apply here for the sake of argument), can there be any doubt which view fares worst according to the Information-Theoretic approach? Never mind the fact that the Information-Theoretic approach itself cannot be validated or verified without appealing to "extra-natural" explanations.

*I refer to Creationism as a hypothesis merely for argument's sake. I do not actually view Creationism as hypothetical, but rather objectively true.

VII. Conclusion and Summary: Evolution~Science or Science Fiction?

Answer: Yes.

A. Evolution as Science.

If one strictly consider only the definitions of Evolution and of science and narrowly examines certain aspects of work done by the Evolutionist in light of the scientific method, then Evolution clearly involves science and can be regarded as scientific.

A.i. Creationism as Science.

Of course, the very same thing can be said of Creationism, which Stratnerd himself admitted:

Let me surprise some of you and say that certain aspects [of Creationism] are [scientific] ?no doubt.

B. Evolution as Science Fiction.

1. The Belief in Magic.
Taken to its logical conclusions and examined in lights of its underpinnings and how it ramifies as a worldview, the Theory of Evolution reduces to utter absurdity. Given Stratnerd's Self-Indicting Standards of Science in Section VI, above, combined with inescapable contradictions demanded and that must be believed according to the Evolutionary hypothesis, the conclusion is a belief in magic. When a magician claims to do "magic," we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power". By magic, I refer to the use of sleight of hand, legerdemain, prestidigitation, parlor tricks, misdirection and deception in order to give the appearance of inexplicable power. By magician, I refer to someone using deception to give the appearance of possessing inexplicable power. We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining. Sadly, this is also what we're being asked to do regarding Methodological Naturalism. Nature is the magician. We are asked to suspend our disbelief that life could arise from non-life, that moral standards make any sense in a Godless, mindless universe, that the laws of inference and of mathematics could come into existence by accident. In a universe that is mindless, Godless, purposeless, as Evolution/Methodological Naturalism necessarily demands, it is the equivalent of believing a magician actually possesses the powers he pretends to wield. One must believe in a cosmic trick to conceive of diversity springing from singularity, of non-life producing life, of non-conscious matter spawning minds and consciousness, of matter in motion producing universal, invariant laws.

2. No Science is Science Without Justification.

When one denies or disregards the existence and attributes of the Creator, all knowledge, all logic, all human experience, all science becomes irrational, unintelligible, and reduced to absurdity. This is not to say that scientists do not do science. This is not to say that the planets are capable of changing direction at any moment. Rather, it is to say that the things we all experience -- the uniformity and regularity we see in our constant daily experience, our very thought processes and self-awareness -- make no sense if God does not exist and sustain every aspect of our being. Whether one is a real live professional scientist with dirty boots who "walks the walk" and gets the grants, or an armchair philosopher who only talks the talk, no one is immune from having to account for the basic tools of life, and no one is able to do so apart from God's power and personal volition being expressed in the world. Even the pagans recognized the rational truth of this when Aratus of Cilicia wrote, "In Him we live and move and have our existence" (Acts 17:28). In the absence of a rational justification for the tools and methods of science, not only Evolution, but all anti-/non-theistic science ceases to be science. Only the Creationist can pursue science rationally. All others can only do so by pretending to be a Creationist, hijacking tools and methods that only comport with the Theistic world- and life-view. Apart from the existence and attributes of God, irrational stories, speculation, conjecture and fantasy must be "imagined" (to borrowed a parsing of Stratnerd's term). The phenomenon of existence, laws and order can only be explained, albeit ostensibly, by appeals to fanciful stories that defy rationality and undermine human experience.

science fiction n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. [American Heritage Dictionary (online)]

myth ('mith) n. 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]​

VIII. What's Important

I must admit, despite my claims of being thick-skinned and not easily offended, I did take offense at one thing Stratnerd said, but not initially. It had to sink in, and the more I thought about it, the more offended I became. It occurred in Stratnerd's final post, at the beginning and at the end, where explains the reason for the brevity of his post, saying:

... primarily so I can go play catch, toss a football, watch TV, go see Narnia, visit nature centers and a planetarium with my son, who is only in town for the week.

Stratnerd reiterates this thought in his closing lines, saying:

Now I? off to show an 8-year old the difference between running a post and a fade route.

Anyone who knows me will attest to the importance I place on family and how seriously I take my role as a parent. But I would like to point out, and express my disdain for, something deeper that is suggested by my opponent's comments and affirmed in his overall attitude to this debate. It is this: "What is really important?", as Stratnerd intimates by his comment. Answer?: Family, dirty boots, publishing papers, getting grants and winning awards. Who gives a rip about how we justify the tools of science? What does it matter whence the laws of logic originate? Why should anyone care one whit about how we account for morality and human dignity? Who gives a flying fudgepan about the foundations of the intelligibility of human experience? What does any of this matter compared to what's really important?

But here's the thing: We should all give a rip. It does matter -- to all of us. We all should care. We all should give a flying fudgepan about how we know what we know, and why we should be moral, and where did we come from, and what our origins have to say about morality and our value as human beings. Why should we all give a rip? Because our children will ask us; succeeding generations need to know these things. Our society is busy teaching pragmatism. Whatever works is what matters. Our culture is spawning generations of epistemological loafers. Stratnerd's son needs to know more than how to distinguish between a post pattern and a fade route. He needs to know why he should obey his father, where his father's rules originate, what are the benefits of obeying his father, and why are benefits actually beneficial. He will eventually need to know why it is that he can even process the characteristics that distinguish a post pattern from a fade route. He needs a better answer than "we were taught to ignore this principle."

Stratnerd's attitude throughout this debate has been one of pragmatism: Whatever works. Whatever gets results. Forget the theoretical; forget the philosophical. His non-theistic methodological naturalism tells him not to care about foundational questions of where the laws of logic originate, what justifies the tools of science, or how does one account for the uniformity of nature. "Ignore this principle." Just get your boots dirty, publish papers, get your grants and win your awards.

Stratnerd can say that the universe is random. Yet, his science is based on the opposite premise. The Methodological Naturalist can say that the tools of science are merely conventions. Yet, he does his work as if there is something universal and invariant about how those tools operate. The Evolutionist can claim that human beings are nothing more than advanced and highly evolved animals. Yet, he will still attend a funeral or decry human suffering as if there were such a thing as human dignity. The non-Theist can say that everything is the result of chance processes and mindless matter in motion. Yet, he will go through life expecting nature to be orderly and uniform in his interactions with it. The materialist will declare that there is no such thing as transcendent moral standards of thinking and behavior. Yet he will watch the news and express disgust and disapproval of child molestation and spousal abuse.

Stratnerd's devotion to his son is commendable and a wonderful example to fathers everywhere, and on the Biblical worldview, such an assessment is both rational and warranted. But the problem is, on Stratnerd's worldview, his loving behavior and moral example make no sense. In fact, for Stratnerd to behave as a devoted father, to teach his son by example and by explicit instruction, to expect his good efforts and loving care to have a real and lasting benefit for his son, he must step into the Theist's world, pretend to be a Creationist for a while, and presume to function in a manner that is not at all consistent with his Methodological Naturalism and non-Theistic Evolutionism.

Cont'd in Part II ...

 

[Hilston]

Closing Statements ~ Part II

Closing Statements ~ Part II

(Cont'd from Part I)

Thus Stratnerd, just like everyone who claims to be a Methodological Naturalist, Evolutionist, and/or a non-theist, becomes a living contradiction. For all his claims to being scientific, adhering to proper method and definitions of science, etc., his world is, at base irrational, not scientific at all, but built upon blind assumptions and faith commitments. I recognize that Stratnerd would rather have avoided the philosophical questions and the foundational issues of science and logic. His head-in-the-sand approach to these questions may only be strategic. Or perhaps he truly has not taken the time to work these issues out. Whatever the case, to spend so much effort to avoid taking Evolution to its logical conclusion is to embrace a blatant Ignorance-Of-The-Gaps scenario, which ought to be regarded with contempt by anyone who claims to be a rational and thoughtful person who care about scientific integrity.

IX. Thanks and kudos.

I wish to thank the following blokes and blokettes:

Knight: For inviting me to participate in this debate; for working with me and my unresolved computer annoyances; and for offering and maintaining Theology Online to the world as a venue for debate and discussion.

My wife and children: Laura, for your unwavering devotion and encouragement, your clear-minded suggestions and more-than-capable handling of life's pressures and annoyances while I was tied up with this debate. Caleb, Tabitha and Ethan, for loaning your dad to these nice people for the past 30 days. We can go see Wallace and Grommit now. Is it still showing?

My church: I have the best church in the world (for me, anyway). I wish to thank my co-laborers in the Gospel at Trinity Grace Fellowship for their unflagging support of me and my apologetics endeavors. They were all kind enough to let me off the hook on various responsibilities to free up my time for this debate. They've also encouraged me, given me pointers, let me borrow their books, and cheered me on throughout the debate.

Phil Dennis: Apologetics advisor and quantum physicist par excellence (with whom I've never discussed quantum field theory or relativity; altho' we talk quite a bit about the foundations of science and the irrationalities of anti-theistic reasoning), for giving so generously of your time, for sharing your keen and rapier-like insights, for helping me to keep a clear focus on what this debate, and others like it, is really about.

The Grandstand participants: Thank you all for contributing to the debate from the sidelines. Watching your discussions and engaging some of you in them proved to be more useful to me than you are probably aware. I've enjoyed getting to know some of you, albeit in a limited manner, via our dialogues and private messages. I do regret that I haven't been able to keep up with the many posted arguments and questions, but I hope to do better and catch up with some of that discussion once things slow down a bit. Also, Balder, I did see your challenge and I hope to jump in within the next few days.

Dead people: There are dead people for whom I am thankful, and I would thank them, except for the fact that they're -- well -- dead.

Stratnerd: Last, but certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, not least, Dr. Stratford. I've learned a lot from you. I once presented an apologetics talk criticizing the Intelligent Design movement. It was tentatively subtitled, "How to go toe-to-toe with a scientist." The paper was written from a theoretical and philosophical standpoint, based on years of informal clashes with scientists of various stripes. I wish to earnestly thank you for this opportunity to engage in a hands-on, real live debate in a formal setting with a working scientist. I usually gauge the success of a debate according to whether or not it at any point made me uncomfortable and forced me to work hard and to think about things or in ways to which I'm not accustomed to thinking. Not only did this debate offer those opportunities, but I've developed a love for the history of Darwin and his contemporaries that I expect will endure beyond the close of this debate. You've been especially kind and generous in our discussion, and I am deeply honored that you gave of your thoughts, time and energy to meet and debate with me in this venue.

Fin.

James Hilston
31 Dec 2005

 

[Nathon Detroit]

DING DING DING

Battle Royale IX is OVER!

TOL would like to send out a heart felt thank you to BOTH Stratnerd and Hilston for their efforts in this awesome battle. No matter which side you agree with I am sure all sides appreciate the effort that both combatants demonstrated in this monumental clash.

TOL is excited for the battles that will occur in 2006 and beyond!

Stay tuned!