Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154997433.390636.312210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154994099.264587.234130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>


Maybe you could just ask Hillela. She says she's a master plumber. (That
means she knows which way "it flows".) But I understand you don't hire
Jewish plumbers.

By the way, why should anyone trust you? Are you trolling or what?

they should trust me because i dont abandon reason. if i make a claim,
i am willing to demonstrate it or abandon it if i cannot.


That's what you claim. I would point out that liars and charlatans can
reason.





if they can sit there and tell me with a straight face
that naturalistic methods are the only known methods to work, and yet
still maintain beliefs in non-naturalistic objects, i am talking to
somebody who belongs in a mental institution.


Is that what you believe? Well, that would be a majority of the
population.
And what draconian method of reeducation would you suggest to enforce
your
edict - for their own good, of course.

you can start by having children learn critical thinking early in
schools, instead of the rote memorization that leads them to accept
arguments on authority alone. or is that too draconian to you?


You have modified your original position about mental institutions, then.


<snip more of the same>
they use the same faith that is used by somebody
who comes to the conclusion that souls exist. if faith is valid in
the
latter, why is it not valid in the former?


For the umpteenth time, because they claim to have scientific support
when
they do not. They either redefine words (as you have done repeatedly),
or
wave their hands.

who says they have no scientific support, and why?


I do. As does the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every other
leading scientific organization.

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the
central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many
related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation
science
lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

sounds like they are using naturalistic means to make these claims.


Science is based in methodological naturalism. If someone claims an
assertion is scientific, then they are claiming that the assertion has been
validated by methodological naturalism. Of course.






*you* say they have no scientific support, and you say that because you
are using naturalistic methods to determine what exactly scientific
support is. they are not.


Science is a specific inductive method of matching empirical evidence and
theory, data and the generalizations about the data. From the application
of
the scientific method, this is what we have determined:

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the
central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many
related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation
science
lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

Intelligent Design advocates claim to be using the scientific method, but
either redefine the term, or camouflage the evidence with scientific
jargon.

so? their faith tells them that what they are doing is correct science.


No. They either redefine "science", or camouflage the evidence with
scientific jargon.


why do you accept faith when it leads to belief in gods, but not the
way IDers use it?


Because they are misrepresenting science.


<snip for brevity>

if i can use faith to believe that god influences the world, then i can
also use faith to believe that there is scientific evidence that god
influences the world.


Scientific evidence is objective by definition. Hence, it is not enough
to
claim that you have scientific evidence. There is a process to create,
analyze and validate such evidence.

so you say, but from where do you derive this authority?


From the definition and general usage of the word

science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
scientific method, such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned
with the physical world and its phenomena.


why cant IDers
apply faith as to what they think scientific evidence is if theists are
allowed to apply faith to declare that gods exist?
<snip>


Because words have meanings.


--
Zachriel
"not just a mere similarity, but a family resemblance."
http://www.zachriel.com/nested/




.

Relevant Pages

  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... because they claim to have scientific support ... Science is based in methodological naturalism. ... and if IDers have faith that their assertions are validated by ... Scientific evidence is objective by definition. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... explained by science. ... That is a statement of faith, ... What scientific evidence do you have for a soul that lives on after ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... According to science that body was the person, ... That is a statement of faith, ... What scientific evidence do you have for that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... explanation without evidence of its existence. ... According to science that body was the person, ... What scientific evidence do you have for that? ... those statements are statements of faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)