Wednesday 18 October 2023

Why Science Fails Logical Rules Under Naturalism With Non-Provable Theories

 Ever seen a whodunnit movie where the culprit is someone you thought dead or it's a ridiculous red-herring? Let's assume it was the butler but because he was assumed dead all of the facts were interpreted in light of his absence.

This is a logical error where an argument contains premises based on the assumptions that something is false.

If you then PROCEED with examining the facts, what the facts really mean is banished from your investigation.

So if the butler left his fingerprints on one of the murder weapons, that will be dismissed as inconsequential because he was assumed dead at the time. "Perhaps he used that weapon when he was alive" might be the reasoning you would use. 

The problem with unprovable science is that it only accepts arguments or a hypothesis that is methodologically natural. But that is their ideology; to explain the whole world in purely natural terms. That is their motivation. And of course if you speak of design or creation we are told, "that's pseudo-science", or, "that's not science".

However is it true? "IF" design/creation is true, then it follows logically that the scientific mainstream have classed it as banished from science even though it is true. You may object; "but it isn't true!" But that objection IMPLIES you have applied science to it. But how could you have done that properly if mainstream science has not properly applied study to it? Therefore you make a philosophical statement based on personal feeling! (You can't have your cake as an ornament and also eat it)

The classic argument put forward by naturalists is this one; "but look at how many scientifically natural explanations superseded superstitious or supernatural ones".

But that is actually an expected tautology(1) when it comes to the natural operation of things. Operational science refers to the operation of the natural universe. We expect there to be no supernatural assumptions for this science because all operational science turns out to be provable.

I am not referring to operational science which is provable, I am talking about non-provable past events of the creation or beginnings of a thing rather than it's operation.

So by analogy we would not expect to find the creator of a vehicle inside of the car's engine for we would expect the engine's operation to not require the creator but we would expect there to be a creator/designer, at the time the car was created.

In the same way all provable science is provable and not dependent upon supernatural explanations because God created the universe to run on it's own. We expect certain forces to be there such as lift or downforce or linear momentum. The reason we can prove they are there is that we can always induce the same results. We can always show exotic air exists because a rat placed under a sealed dome will always become unconscious. You can perform the experiment once or one billion times and the result will be the same because we have provably deduced exotic air exists. It's the same with lift or downforce, we don't need to check if a plane's wings will produce lift every time we are at the airport, we already know they will. We don't need to see a formula one grandprix car corner fast in order to find out if the centripetal force and downforce will negate linear momentum (or centrifugal force).

But when it comes to the creation of the universe or life's creation, nobody can scientifically test. Nobody can scientifically test if a bat macro-evolved as we have never found any ancestors for a bat which were on an evolutionary path to bat-hood. 

Therefore this logical problem of of the assumption of naturalism, greatly weakens unprovable science such as macro evolution and abiogenesis. (micro evolution is provable so the problem doesn't apply to it. Population genetics are factual, they simply don't extend to Darwin's stories). 

(1)Expected tautology; "the universe is operationally natural therefore you will find natural causes to it's operational elements" or intrepreted; "Duh!")

No comments:

Post a Comment