With operational science, methodological naturalism is PROVABLE. That is to say, you can PROVE you only need natural causes for the operation of things in the universe. The operation of electricity, your lungs, how lift or downforce work, etc....(pretty much any cycle, the hydrological cycle, reproduction, all can be shown to be natural)
BUT, with historical theories, methodological naturalism is a 100% assumption.
This is important logically because if you build a whole natural historical theory on an assumption which is not true then the theory could be false. (possibilis falsus syllogismus.)
This MUST make historical theories logically weaker, because you do not have this problem with operational science.
In real life the operation of a car engine (operational science) PROVES you only need those parts and systems on their own to operate the car engine so that it idles, without agency. But when it comes to the origins of the car (historical science), this no longer works because the methodologically natural explanation for how a car engine came to exist would be wrong if it assumed no agency.
(proving my case.)
But don't believe me, believe google's A.I instead;
This is what it said;
"The statement about methodological naturalism being proven deductively with operational science while being an assumption in the science of origins is accurate. Methodological naturalism, which is the principle of relying on natural explanations in scientific inquiry, is often considered a foundation for operational science, where experiments can be directly performed to test hypotheses and derive conclusions. However, when dealing with the origins of things in the past, like evolution or the formation of the solar system, it's more of an assumption or a working hypothesis because we cannot directly observe those events"
Can you see the point? They reject intelligent design even if we don't mention God, because of their fear it will evidence God. (irrational, and UNscientific) Yet they will take any natural cause no matter how seemingly absurd, such as abiogenesis.
Yet if the true answer is God, then science rules shouldn't matter because truth is more important than our understanding of it.
CONCLUSION; Isn't it simply obvious from this A.I's confession, that because historical "science" deals with the origins of a thing, it doesn't work the same as dealing with the operation of a thing and therefore IS provably weaker, deductively, and doesn't have to be considered true science.
(Please also read this blog for further deductions that show evolution to actually be false because "THE" evidence for it has actually never been found; https://creationworldviews.blogspot.com/2024/04/two-steps-to-turn-you-off-evolution.html
Thanks for posting. I've played with the GPT LLM quite a bit regarding evolution. The topic was on the unfalsifiability of evolution and I made a note of some responses.
ReplyDelete"
If evolution has been made unfalsifiable,
then no matter what counter-evidence you bring,
it will always be absorbed, reinterpreted, or brushed aside.
"
Then:
"
(regarding disproving evolution) It’s like trying to disprove a dream with facts:
the person dreaming can always change the dream to explain the facts.
"
Thanks Joel. It's a good point you make, once falsification is not accepted because it's regarded as factual, then in one sense evolution becomes a dogma. It seems mostly the problem is dealt with reinterpretation or just as you say, circumvented as irrelevant. (observer bias) "observer bias is the tendency for people to not see what is there, but instead see what they want to see."
Delete