Monday, 30 June 2014
Daren Hew said:
" Part of the philosophy of science is that science cannot prove anything. Scientific theories (like evolution) are not provable by their very nature but they can be disproven if their explanations contradict new evidence presented. The scientific community simply accepts them as the best explanation for observed phenomena. You are right, it is based on inductive reasoning and cannot be proven beyond a doubt. But are there better alternative explanations? "
The highlighted part of your quote is certainly correct. That's because an induction is always incomplete. The modus-tollens is applicable via falsification evidence. I agree.
You have cleverly noticed the problem of affirming the consequent. But you need to APPLY the tollens objectively. So then if evidence does not "fit" with divergence, or there is what is called in logical terms, a conspicuous absence of evidence for transitionals, then logically this counts as falsification evidence. Effectively you are not considering the falsification evidence, instead you are focusing on the posteriori explanations of why the evidence does not fit. (extra-hypotheses, such as the, "hard-type" hypothesis). If you are to be STRICTLY scientific, these explanations of why evolution is not there when it should be, should be regarded as EXTRA WEAK arguments, given they depend upon contradictory evidence.
I think it's important not to use the word, "rhetoric", towards me. Everything you learn from me can be googled and you will find it is true.
As for the, "this is the best explanation of data", the problem for that type of reasoning is that it contains premises that are omitted. Whether this be innocently, by scientists, or deliberate, they either know, or don't know that this entire position of methodological naturalism, relies on unproven assumptions.
Darwin said, in response to homology being potentially explainable by a common-designer, that it pleased the designer, Darwin said "but that's not scientific" (paraphrase), but the point is, LOGICALLY, MUST something be a matter of scientific explanation, in terms of methodological naturalism, only? Instead of dealing with that question, instead the scientists simply DECIDED to rule out a potential truth. To use semantics to define ANY talk of design, as, "none-scientific", is an issue of semantics, because if design holds "truth" then you have ostracized truth.
The problem with such an unproven assumption can be shown with the following example:
Let's say a murder took place. Either Jane or Bob is guilty, it can only be one of those two. But now let's say we RULE OUT a potential truth that Bob done it. We can't say for sure he didn't but effectively we just don't want Bob to have done it, because if He did, that just doesn't fit with our beliefs.
Now we find finger-prints for Bob, but now we have to say that those finger-prints only APPEAR to incriminate Bob. Notice that logically, we can NEVER INFER "Bob", as we have guaranteed "not Bob", tautologically, by definition. Since Bob is out of the question, the only option left is to conclude that the evidence incriminates Jane, instead, because there was a murder. (Google: The Law Of The Excluded Middle).
You see Daren, scientists are arguing in circles, tautologically, if they say, "evolution is the only explanation". This exclusive-argument is not logical, because as you say, either new evidence or unknown evidence might exist, that could explain the evidence. This is why evolutionists interpret the evidence as "evolutionary", because that's the only thing "science" allows them to do. So if they find a human foot-print that is not in line with evolution, they have to say the human foot-print is not human. Incredible, but true.
If top-scientists don't even know why an "appearance of design" is a poor argument, and they commit slothful induction by focusing on exceptions such as the laryngeal nerve, rather than the mountain of evidence for obvious construction of anatomy, and the thousands of contingency-plans in each organism, then this PROVES that it was NOT part of their education to learn critical-thinking, they were simply taught evolution. The, "only explanation is evolution" argument is essentially and indirect way of affirming the consequent.
If evolution then X, X therefore, "can only possibly be evolution".
Your whale-example was only a correlation or coincidence. (circumstantial) I would venture to say. No disrespect meant, I admit the evidence does "fit" of course.
(check out, "slothful induction" when it comes to design, heck read any article on CMI that discusses the 500 incredible anatomically designed contingencies in any animal, for every one thousand brilliant design-facts, an evolutionist has ONE complaint. Example, the pharynx/larynx. Forget the fact we can chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, sing, sneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, forget this is all a neat package including aesthetics, and just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. SLOTHFUL INDUCTION fallacy!)
They don't even know their own behaviour Daren, because these "experts" have no wisdom. You don't get to learn it at school. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".
Monday, 16 June 2014
There is a lot of common confusion pertaining to God's nature.
Usually there are some terms that can be inferred from the bible, that have credence when we attempt to define God in our limited capacity. But, there are a lot of modern definitions that are either misnomers, or strawman terminology. I refer to the "omni"-terms. such as, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, et al. Some of them are valid descriptions, some of them are NOT.
For example, the bible does not EVER state that God is, all-loving or all-benevolent. Usually non-believers will attempt to collect these terms in order to infer a logical paradox.
It should be noted that Christians have not attempted to collect such terminology themselves, but largely they are imposed upon us. They are modern definitions that largely can be termed as semantic-sophistry.
As believers, we infer things about God only from scripture and His creation.
If there is a particular omni-term that is going to be the most relevant and takes precedent above all the others, it is going to be the term, Omni-Universe. God is omni-universe. (All-united in purpose, nature, attributes, with diversity.)
This means, that God is, as best as I can describe it, according to His Word, is; All-united, being diverse.
This means that, the "Lord is one" (unity), yet, "I and my Father are one"(diverse). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (diversity), yet they are all one. (Unity) = Uni-verse.
So this means that God's attributes are harmonious, complimentary, symbiotic or united.
So then to take certain modern-definitions of God that don't really match tends to not have much value, largely this type of argument can be regarded as vacuous sophistry.
To give an analogy. Imagine we only understand certain things about colour, limited data, which is analogous to our limited capacity to understand God. Would we not logically state, that if the spectrum-of-light incorporates red and blue, when they come together, this will rule out one or the other.
--> Blue or not blue. Red or not red.
You can surely then only have one or the other, if you assume there can be no unity, you would likely dismiss that both elements could be united, and make a third colour, purple. We see that in God's creation, many colours come together, even though they are different colours, they can merge.
"For God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." (paraphrasing 1 John 1, IIRC)
The Word directly states God is light, so the nature of light in our universe is an important example, it shows how God is united yet diverse.
The problem with taking some omni-terms and pitting them against each other, is that you tend to judge the WHOLE from SOME. "Some ERGO all." (Fallacious)
Think about it in terms of this analogy, if we took two elements that make up a motor vehicle, and pit them against each other, then we do so fallaciously because we have to remove all of the unity. So for example, if we say that water is part of a car's system, and so is electric, we could then fallaciously state:
"Car's can't exist because water and electric do not mix."
This only works if you remove the unity of the whole.
Other examples of uni-verse things in the creation, is of course the universe itself, but within it, we find God's nature is displayed all around us. One example is the universe, one example is light, another is all of the animals and plants. When we look at all of the homologous structures of bones in vertebrates, they show the same basic design-plan but the shape and diversity is massive.(Universe). Another example is analogous features, such as wings. Evolutionists would call them homo-plastic, but we can see that we can have different wings, diverse in anatomy this time, but unified in function.
An example in the Word, is the fruit of the spirit, that all compliment each other despite being diverse;
Galatians 5:22;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
You might then say, "how can God kill, and be "good"- But justice doesn't rule out goodness. An executioner of justice doesn't have an evil motive, therefore there is no genuine contradiction.
I think all of this shows that the omni-terms are a source of confusion for people. The term, "ALL" misleads people, If you instead say, "God is loving, good, powerful," you likely wouldn't mislead yourself, but when people use the term, "all" or "omni", they commit the fallacy of composition, by saying that the units indicate something about the whole.
A plane has rubber wheels, wheels are none-flying. Wheels are "all-round".
A plane has windows, windows are none-flying, Windows are "all-transparent"
ERGO, a plane can't be both all transparent and all rubber and all-round and it can't fly. (non sequitur) A plane actually consists of all the elements, just as part of a whole unit.(universe)
The omni-terms should raise danger-signs with any thinker, they seem to have taken on an agenda of their own!