Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t see anything in your responses that is relevant to the problem I posed about darwinian materialistic conception of man.

As you learned, you’ve simply misconstrued evolutionary theory, which can only address the way our physical bodies came about. As the Pope says, that is virtually certain, but science can’t and shouldn’t try to make philosophical or theological conclusions.

Huxley was straightforward enough to acknowledge the obvious implications of darwinian theory.

Huxley disagreed with Darwin on some points, but considered himself to be Darwin’s defender. I thought you knew.

In contrast to Huxley, all of your replies only served as an evasion of the issue at hand, an issue that you have refused to address in any manner whatsoever. You have sidetracked everything. How convenient for you.

Creationists often get angry and engage in personal attacks when their arguments fail. You fellows are very predictable.

I don’t doubt that you are doing your best, and that you sincerely believe you have done well.

I believe that you’re aware that this hasn’t gone well for you. This, I think is why you’ve abandoned the argument for a personal attack.

 

[itinerant1]

**…**As the Pope says, that is virtually certain, but science can’t and shouldn’t try to make philosophical or theological conclusions.

You continue with your mischaracterizations of my arguments. I don’t equate or conflate evolution with darwinism or neo-darwinism as you do. There is more than one way to understand the fact of biological evolution. But that is just one more critical distinction that has eluded your understanding. The pope does not equate evolution and darwinism, either. Unlike yourself, the pope does not equate neo-darwinian evolutionary theory with scientific evolutionary theory. You might want to investigate on your own whether darwinism and neo-darwinism are considered by the pope to be among those reductionist and materialist theories of evolution that stand in contradiction to the Faith.

Huxley disagreed with Darwin on some points, but considered himself to be Darwin’s defender. I thought you knew.

That Huxley is a prominent defender of Darwin is why I chose him as my example. I thought someone who understood Darwin correctly should speak on Darwin’s behalf, as opposed to yourself who did not study Darwin’s Notebooks or his Descent of Man yet has no scruples or reticence about pontificating on darwinian theory.I didn’t want quote Huxley and say, “See for yourself what a Darwin supporter says”, for fear you might reject the Huxley argument as an “argument from authority”. However, I now see that you are not much familiar with Huxley. Huxley said the obvious conclusion of Darwin’s theory is that it liberates man from sexual ethics. (It’s my original argument about the evolution of the human moral sense issue, as well as the reduction of the human mind to a difference in degree only from anthropoid apes and other animals.). Huxley, being so close in views to Darwin, saw the necessary implications of what Darwin taught on these matters. The inescapable implications derived by Huxley from an accurate reading of Darwin, was also correctly read out of Dawrin by hypocritical Victorian society, which for reason, described above, derived comfort from darwinism. Its just one of those undeniable facts of history.

Familiarize yourself with both Huxley and Darwin, which will also contribute to a better understanding of neo-darwinism.

Creationists often get angry and engage in personal attacks when their arguments fail. You fellows are very predictable.

I am not aware of the least bit of anger on my part. I was expressing disappointment in your attitude, not anger. Why “disappointment”? I find it interesting that among creationists, the ones with barbarian-like sensibilities, are certain that I am a darwinian who contradicts what the Church teaches. Among evolutionists, those who fail to grasp necessary distictions and real differences accuse me of being a creationist who contradicts what the pope says. I cannot, though, justify to myself my “disappointment” when I realize nihil sub sole novum.

I believe that you’re aware that this hasn’t gone well for you. This, I think is why you’ve abandoned the argument for a personal attack.

Whatever you choose believe is of no consequence to me. I don’t need to win. Strange as it may seem to you, winning is never my goal in any argument. I just need to right. Winning is of little ultimate concern for myself. It’s something others highly value.

However, it cannot go well for anybody when someone of your sensibilities resorts to “straw man” and “ad baculum arguments”, rather than first making an effort to understand what is being said by Darwin, darwinists, neo-darwinists, and myself. I am not a darwinian, neo-darwinian, creationist, or a follower of I.D. Nonetheless, I have been accused of being all of these.As for yourself, you prefer eisegeis over exegesis. I have no doubt that you consider this a personal attack on yourself because you respond to any criticism of your ideas as a personal attack.

You still have not shown that your alledgely “scientific” judgements are not actually reductionist and materialist. You are quick to avoid this issue by retorting that you are talking strictly “science”.

In your references to what the pope or the Church has said about evolution, you reveal another one of your misleading characterizations. You still need to show whether the pope considers darwinism (and neo-darwinsm) to be reductionist and materialist, and therefore unacceptable for the Catholic. Theories of evolution that are reductionist or materialist (or that necessarily entail reductionism or materialism), do not allow of free-will (properly understood), the existence of the human soul (properly understood), morality (properly understood), or the fact that every physical thing (atoms, plants, animals) has a necessary immaterial component to its being.

If you ever discover the correct answer, regarding the pope’s position on theories of evolution, then you will either accept it or reject it. Ignoring it remains a rejection in practice.

Your future posts, if they are consistent with your habit of sidetracking from the important questions, will reveal your continual disregard of this most fundamental of issues regarding theories of evolution.I will continue to post introductions to other problems with neo-Darwinian theory. Any possible responses that allege that I am non-Catholic, or creationist, or anti-evolution, or a sympathizer with I.D. will be irrelevant to the topic at hand, and it will also reveal one’s ignorance about genuine scientific evolution.In other words, any such responses will be moot. Now I must depart and enjoy some sherbert. Cheerio!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t see anything in your responses that is relevant to the problem I posed about darwinian materialistic conception of man.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, you’ve simply misconstrued evolutionary theory, which can only address the way our physical bodies came about.
As the Pope says, that is virtually certain, but science can’t and shouldn’t try to make philosophical or theological conclusions.

You continue with your mischaracterizations of my arguments.

Nice try. I restored the context.

I don’t equate or conflate evolution with darwinism or neo-darwinism as you do.

Evolution is what happens. The Modern Synthesis (neoDarwinism) is the theory that explains it.

There is more than one way to understand the fact of biological evolution.

There are an unlimited number of ways. But one is consistent with the evidence.

But that is just one more critical distinction that has eluded your understanding. The pope does not equate evolution and darwinism, either.

One is a phenomenon, one is the theory that best explains it. If you learn nothing else from this, learn that.

Unlike yourself, the pope does not equate neo-darwinian evolutionary theory with scientific evolutionary theory.

The Pope is not a scientist. However, he does approve of Darwinian theory; common descent, natural selection, and so on.

You might want to investigate on your own whether darwinism and neo-darwinism are considered by the pope to be among those reductionist and materialist theories of evolution that stand in contradiction to the Faith.

I note that Cardinal Shoenborn has clarified that he did not mean Darwinian theory, but only those who would attempt (like the creationists) to draw philosophical or theological conclusions from it.

Barbarian
Huxley disagreed with Darwin on some points, but considered himself to be Darwin’s defender. I thought you knew.

I thought someone who understood Darwin correctly should speak on Darwin’s behalf, as opposed to yourself who did not study Darwin’s Notebooks or his Descent of Man yet has no scruples or reticence about pontificating on darwinian theory.

No need to get angry. You have made repeated errors about what Darwin actually said in The Descent of Man, (you, for example, didn’t realize that he explained that many of the ideas in the book were speculative, to be later determined). Makes it difficult to take your critique seriously.

Huxley said the obvious conclusion of Darwin’s theory is that it liberates man from sexual ethics.

That one has a convoluted history. It turns out you’ve copied an allegation about Julian Huxley by creationists. But the funny part is, that is false, too, depending on a rewriting of a statement by Thomas Huxley, which had nothing to do with sexual ethics.
edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html

Word to the wise: if you copy things from creationists, be sure you check them thoroughly.

It’s just one of the undeniable facts of history.

Like so many other things you “know”, it “ain’t so.”

Familiarize yourself with both Huxley and Darwin, which will also contribute to a better understanding of neo-darwinism.

Funny you should bring that up about now.

Barbarian observes:
Creationists often get angry and engage in personal attacks when their arguments fail.

I am not aware of the least bit of anger on my part.

I can only infer from your behavior; your denial notwithstanding.

Barbarian observes:
This, I think is why you’ve abandoned the argument for a personal attack.

Whatever you choose believe is of no consequence to me.

Your response says that you care acutely, again, denial notwithstanding.

I don’t need to win.

And yet your behavior…

As for yourself, you prefer eisegeis over exegesis.

Perhaps you don’t actually know the difference. Your unwillingness to accept the Magisterium on this matter, suggests that you do not.

I have no doubt that you consider this a personal attack on yourself

That does make people think so, yes. Perhaps you could do better by trying to support your assertions with evidence.

because you respond to any criticism of your ideas as a personal attack.

You have no sense of irony, either, do you?

You still have not shown that your alledgely “scientific” judgements are not actually reductionist and materialist.

Science isn’t entirely reductionist,and is entirely methodologically naturalistic. Have you conflated methodological and ontological naturalism again?

You are quick to avoid this issue by retorting that you are talking strictly “science”.

You just made that up. I’ve pointed out some philosophical and theological issues.

In your references to what the pope or the Church has said about evolution, you reveal another one of your misleading characterizations. You still need to show whether the pope considers darwinism (and neo-darwinsm) to be reductionist and materialist, and therefore unacceptable for the Catholic.

You first need to understand what methodological naturalism is.

…your habit of sidetracking from the important questions, will reveal your continual disregard of this most fundamental of issues regarding theories of evolution.

I’m thinking what gripes you the most is that I don’t let you conflate different things. Keeping you on track is hard, but I can point it out when you try to present science as ontological materialism.

I will continue to post introductions to other problems with neo-Darwinian theory.

And I and others will continue to examine them and comment.

Enjoy your sherbet.

 

[anthony022071]

That’s demonstrably wrong. For example, Dobzhansky showed that over a period of years, a species of fly in South American diverged into two reproductively isolated populations. But they continued to reproduce, just not with each other.

I said “genetic barrier”. There was no genetic barrier to reproduction between the fruit flies,they were just geographically isolated.

Not yet. Recently-diverged species should still be partially interfertile.

Not yet – perhaps not ever. On the other hand,complete speciation occurs even without geographic isolation. It’s exactly the fact of complete speciation between two populations (apes and humans) which needs to be taken into account. If two different sub-species of polar bear or fruit fly which are geographically isolated are able to reproduce a hybrid which can also reproduce,that’s no big suprise. They may be geographically isolated,but they still belong to the same larger species of polar bear and fruit fly. Humans have been breeding hybrids from different sub-species of horses for thousands of years.

Not if you accept the evidence. We have, for example, various other human species which might have been interfertile with anatomically modern humans.

If it can be shown that these creatures would not have been able to reproduce with modern humans,we would have to doubt that they were humans,because complete speciation is defined by a genetic barrier to reproduction.

It’s not an all-or-none issue. In general, speciation starts with geographic isolation, and then gradually decreasing interfertility.

But when it comes to the theory of common descent,it *is *an all-or-none issue: when it comes to those modern species that definitely cannot reproduce together,there is no way to show that they have a common ancestry. That is,there is no way to show that their ancestors ever did reproduce together. Geographic speciation doesn’t really matter to the theory,because it is not an ultimate barrier to reproduction,or “descent”. It’s where speciation is complete that the theory fails. Geographic isolation is not the ultimate barrier to the breeding of a new species,but a genetic barrier is,because genetic barriers make the hybrid unable to reproduce.

 

[itinerant1]

Science and truth:

In post 419, Barbarian says, “Nothing in science is provable.” If we take the Barbarian statement to be a scientific statement then it unpacks like this:

“Nothing in science is provable”, which, as a scientific statement, is not provable. Accordingly, there can be no compelling reason for anyone to accept the statement.

On the other hand, if the statement is considered provable, then there is at least one thing in science that is provable, which makes the statement false and inherently contradictory.

In either case above, we see that the statement is nonsensical.

If “Nothing in science is provable”, is intended as a philosophical judgement on science, then the philosophical judgement is based on a false epistemology, perhaps of Kantian influence. “Nothing in science is provable” is now a subset of “Nothing is provable” or “Nothing is knowable. Hence, “Nothing in science is provable” is solipsistic.

Or, one may narrow the inference to saying that scientific knowledge is not genuine knowledge.

To say, “Nothing in science is provable”, even though one may not be aware of its implications, involves a denial of the human reason to attain truth, a prima faciae absurdity. Truth is an adequation of the intellect to the thing (adaequatio rei et intellectus). Furthermore, self-evident principles remain the foundation of human knowledge, which includes scientific knowledge.

To prove a scientific statement such as, “Euglenas possess chloroplasts” or “Paramecia are ciliates”, first requires understanding the meaning of the terms. If one can show by observations, etc. that the protozoans in question possess the relevant characteristics, then something in science is confirmed. The truth of the statements concerning these one-celled organisms is provable, both in principle and in practice.

A Popperian analysis of Darwinian Theory shows that Darwinian Theory is not provable. This is a special case of a theory not being provable for the same reason it is not falsifiable

 

[Kaninchen]

Science and truth:

In post 419, Barbarian says, “Nothing in science is provable.” If we take the Barbarian statement to be a scientific statement then it unpacks like this:

“Nothing in science is provable”, which, as a scientific statement, is not provable. Accordingly, there can be no compelling reason for anyone to accept the statement.

On the other hand, if the statement is considered provable, then there is at least one thing in science that is provable, which makes the statement false and inherently contradictory.

In either case above, we see that the statement is nonsensical.

If “Nothing in science is provable”, is intended as a philosophical judgement on science, then the philosophical judgement is based on a false epistemology, perhaps of Kantian influence. “Nothing in science is provable” is now a subset of “Nothing is provable” or “Nothing is knowable. Hence, “Nothing in science is provable” is solipsistic.

Or, one may narrow the inference to saying that scientific knowledge is not genuine knowledge.

To say, “Nothing in science is provable”, even though one may not be aware of its implications, involves a denial of the human reason to attain truth, a prima faciae absurdity. Truth is an adequation of the intellect to the thing (adaequatio rei et intellectus). Furthermore, self-evident principles remain the foundation of human knowledge, which includes scientific knowledge.

To prove a scientific statement such as, “Euglenas possess chloroplasts” or “Paramecia are ciliates”, first requires understanding the meaning of the terms. If one can show by observations, etc. that the protozoans in question possess the relevant characteristics, then something in science is confirmed. The truth of the statements concerning these one-celled organisms is provable, both in principle and in practice.

A Popperian analysis of Darwinian Theory shows that Darwinian Theory is not provable. This is a special case of a theory not being provable for the same reason it is not falsifiable

Good grief.

 

[itinerant1]

Barbarian science, philosophy, and theology.

Barbarian’s confused statements about the nature of science, philosophy, and theology inspired this post. His confusion can be illustrated by looking more closely at many of his responses. In this post we can begin by only looking at just a few of his assertions. For example, Barbarian arbitrarily labels me as,

1. a disbeliever in the existence of the human soul, and
2. a creationist.

For example, in post 410, Barbarian replies saying, “I suppose, it seems that way for anyone who refuses to accept the idea that man has a body and a soul.” In post 421, he says, “Creationists often get angry and engage in personal attacks when their arguments fail. You fellows are very predictable.”

Apparently, Barbarian does not understand the meaning of the terms “soul” and “creationist”. One cannot be a creationist and not believe that man has a soul. The two positions are mutually exclusive. Despite the logical absurdity involved in Barbarian’s assertions, he is not content with saying these things just once, but multiple times. (See also his post 418, etc.)The other extremely odd thing about these labels is that my posts clearly show that I am not a creationist or a disbeliever in the human soul.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Barbarian believes that man has a human soul, in the traditional Christian understanding of “soul”. Barbarian’s claims regarding the evolution of the human moral sense contradict his belief in the human soul. The two positions are mutually exclusive. To say that the human moral sense evolved is to reduce the moral sense to physical process. The physical cannot give rise to the spiritual. In the case of man, the physical can only be a pre-condition or necessary condition for the spiritual. Physical organs are never a sufficient condition for non-physical activities such as freewill, conceptual thinking, etc. In other words, Barbarian accounts for the existence of the human moral sense, a non-physical reality, by means of biological processes. Since human moral behavior is rational behavior, it is an activity of the immaterial soul using the body and cannot be accounted for in same manner that we account for human body by its pre-history in natural biological processes. Either the human moral sense evolved and man does not have a spiritual soul, or, the human moral sense is not a product of evolutionary processes. One cannot have it both ways.

We can also demonstrate Barbarian’s conflicted position in a tangential manner by a consideration of the natural moral law. The natural moral law, when properly understood, is known to exist in man because he has a spiritual soul with the rational power of freewill. Now, any belief that the human moral sense is a product of evolution contradicts the fact of the natural moral law. Yet the existence of the natural moral law is a philosophical and theological certainty. Therefore, to keep the argument short, I will appeal to the authority of St. Paul on the existence of the natural moral law. The Apostle’s statement affirming the existence of the natural moral law is found in my post 326.

Continued in next post.

 

[itinerant1]

This is a continuation of my previous post 427:

In post 423 Barbarian says, “As the Pope says, that is virtually certain [evolution], but science can’t and shouldn’t try to make philosophical or theological conclusions.” Curiously, this has been my position all along as can be seen from several of my posts. However, Barbarian decides to take my position and argues against me. The situation speaks for itself.

I consistently maintain that Darwinism assumes a position of philosophical materialism. Subsequent scientific assertions by Darwinists, such as man’s mind differ in degree only from anthropoid apes and higher animals; and that the human moral sense is a product of evolution, are positions consistent only with philosophical materialism.

Other evolutionists may believe in the human soul and the existence of God while not realizing how elements of their scientific theory contradict their religious or philosophical beliefs.

On this point, I took a closer look at what Gaylord Simpson had to say about the differences of man. Contrary to what I previously said, his view of man now seems to be an apparent contradiction, not a real one. Man, in Simpson’s view, differs in degree and in kind. However, the difference in kind, for Simpson does not appear to be a radical difference in kind, but a real, yet superficial difference in kind. The only position that is consistent with belief that man has a spiritual soul is one that says man’s difference from anthropoid apes and higher animals is a radical difference in kind. Accordingly, Barbarian’s interpretation (post 418) of Simpson says man differs from other animals in degree by means of his body, and differs also in kind, fails to distinguish whether this is a difference in kind that is superficial or radical. So far, I see nothing in Simpson’s theory to indicate that he believes the difference in kind is one that is radical. If Simpson’s position is in fact that man’s difference is a superficial difference in kind, which I believe is his position, then that position remains in conflict with the fact that man possesses a spiritual soul.

Clarifying the relationship of the natural sciences to philosophy and theology: It is one kind of problem when a scientist incorporates philosophy into science without distinguishing the two. It is another kind of problem, and probably a more frequent one, when the natural sciences do not acknowledge their proper relationship to the higher sciences of metaphysics and theology. The higher sciences act as an external and negative guide to the lower. (The key words here are “external” and “negative”.) For instance, if a conclusion made by the Christian philosopher conflicts with theological truth, then he is obligated to reconsider his position. Likewise, if a scientific conclusion conflicts with philosophy or theology, then it first needs to be determined whether the conflict is real or apparent. If the conflict is real, then it needs to be determined who is in error, the scientist, the philosopher, or the theologian. If the philosophical or theological position is certain, then the scientist is obligated to reconsider his position. Otherwise, he opts to remain in error. (Of course, we cannot say the atheist scientist should agree to this, since he has a different world-view.)

Now there is another consideration, one that is related to the obvious Darwinian assumption of philosophical or metaphysical materialism. Every scientific statement, even the most trivial statement, assumes a metaphysics of one sort or another. And largely in agreement T.H. Huxley.

To be continued…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That’s demonstrably wrong. For example, Dobzhansky showed that over a period of years, a species of fly in South American diverged into two reproductively isolated populations. But they continued to reproduce, just not with each other.

I said “genetic barrier”. There was no genetic barrier to reproduction between the fruit flies,they were just geographically isolated.

Wrong. Geographical isolation resulted in genetic changes that caused specieation.

Barbarian observes:
Not yet. Recently-diverged species should still be partially interfertile.

Not yet – perhaps not ever.

The evidence shows otherwise. Partial genetic isolation is just a step in the process.

On the other hand,complete speciation occurs even without geographic isolation.

That is called “sympatric speciation” and it does happen, albeit with lower frequency than allopatric speciation.

It’s exactly the fact of complete speciation between two populations (apes and humans) which needs to be taken into account.

The evidence shows that it was a chromosome fusion. Such things happen more quickly.

If two different sub-species of polar bear or fruit fly which are geographically isolated are able to reproduce a hybrid which can also reproduce,that’s no big suprise.

Polar bears and brown bears are species. It is often the case that recently-evolved species can sometimes still interbreed. The problem is that grolar bears aren’t able to compete in either niche and so they don’t persist in the wild.

Barbarian observes:
Not if you accept the evidence. We have, for example, various other human species which might have been interfertile with anatomically modern humans.

If it can be shown that these creatures would not have been able to reproduce with modern humans,we would have to doubt that they were humans,because complete speciation is defined by a genetic barrier to reproduction.

“Homo” (human) is our genus. Neandertals were fully human, but not of our particular species. Genetic analysis of Neandertal DNA shows that they were sufficiently different as to be a different species. Still human though.

Barbarian observes:
It’s not an all-or-none issue. In general, speciation starts with geographic isolation, and then gradually decreasing interfertility.

But when it comes to the theory of common descent,it is an all-or-none issue:

You’re completely wrong about that. If common descent is a fact, this is exactly what we should see.

when it comes to those modern species that definitely cannot reproduce together,there is no way to show that they have a common ancestry.[/quiote]

No, that’s demonstrably wrong. We have directly observed speciations that refute that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

In post 419, Barbarian says, “Nothing in science is provable.” If we take the Barbarian statement to be a scientific statement then it unpacks like this:

“Nothing in science is provable”, which, as a scientific statement, is not provable.

It’s not a scientific statement. It’s a logical statement. Science is inductive, going from evidence to conclusion. Logical certainty is not possible with such a process. It is always open to more evidence.

Accordingly, there can be no compelling reason for anyone to accept the statement.

Perhaps you don’t understand induction. There are inductive proofs, but they don’t work by evidence.

On the other hand, if the statement is considered provable, then there is at least one thing in science that is provable, which makes the statement false and inherently contradictory.

In either case above, we see that the statement is nonsensical.

Nope. We’re still trying to teach you what science is, and what it isn’t.

If “Nothing in science is provable”, is intended as a philosophical judgement on science, then the philosophical judgement is based on a false epistemology, perhaps of Kantian influence. “Nothing in science is provable” is now a subset of “Nothing is provable” or “Nothing is knowable. Hence, “Nothing in science is provable” is solipsistic.

Nope. When we get exhaustive knowledge of things, we can prove them rather easily. Mathematics, for example, where we get to set the rules.

Or, one may narrow the inference to saying that scientific knowledge is not genuine knowledge.

It is the knowledge of experience. Almost everything we know is like that. Not logically certain, but sufficiently evident to conclude that it is true.

A Popperian analysis of Darwinian Theory shows that Darwinian Theory is not provable. This is a special case of a theory not being provable for the same reason it is not falsifiable

Popper thought that evolution, like all science was falsible in principle, and therefore scientific. His statements have been edited by creationists to make it seem so. Let’s see what Popper said about that:

**Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.**
Karl Popper 1980 Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611

We will, of course, be open to your demonstration that you understand Popperian analysis better than Popper did.

Isn’t it time you expanded your reading a bit to include non-creationist sources?

 

[The_Barbarian]

For example, Barbarian arbitrarily labels me as,

1. a disbeliever in the existence of the human soul, and
2. a creationist.

Hmmm… never said you disbelieved in the human soul. You do act a great deal like a creationist; you use their doctored “quotes”, and you have expressed a large number of their misconceptions about science. I guess I am beginning to think that if you quack like a duck you might be one.

Do you have any statement at all in which I said you don’t believe in human souls?

We can also demonstrate Barbarian’s conflicted position in a tangential manner by a consideration of the natural moral law. The natural moral law, when properly understood, is known to exist in man because he has a spiritual soul with the rational power of freewill. Now, any belief that the human moral sense is a product of evolution contradicts the fact of the natural moral law.

If you deny that God could produce this in man by natural means, I suppose. But why would you deny God that power? You’ve simply made a hidden assumption about what God can or can’t do.

 

[steveandersen]

…
Not yet. Recently-diverged species should still be partially interfertile…

Surely you don’t mean that they are some sort of “transitional” species?

 

[Orogeny]

The only argument he used (actually it was taken from Kevin Henke) was the truism that in a vertical line the particle at the bottom is older that the one at the top. Everybody agrees including Guy Berthault, but it proves nothing about the age or formation of strata. Pierre Julien’s video explanation is crystal clear. Strata do not consist of a series of lateral layers as Henke’s argument requires, because the current transports the varigated sediments and deposits them when the fall velocity of each is reached. This is a feature of sedimentation which Orogeny and his colleagues should know.

Of course Berthault believes that. Why do you think that geologists don’t? Other than their athiestic motives of course.

By the way, what are the strata made of, Peter? Particles? Hmm?

If the particles in a formation are older as you go deeper, what does that say about the formation?

An examination of my words shows that I responded to his question. The reason for mentioning diatomite was to show that organic matter such as pollen and algae was taken into account in the experiments. Their fall velocity is a function of the seasonal factors, such as fast melting ice and snow. The purpose of the experiments was to determine the mechanism of laminae formation in general.

How did your experiment model seasonal factors? I thought it showed that laminae form rapidly?

The fact that he could make such a statement in the light of the published papers and videoed experiments which show exactly the opposite, is one of the many reasons for not being able to debate with him. Once again I can only conclude he hasn’t understood the data.

You conclude many funny things Peter. You can’t debate with me because you don’t really understand geology and you need to push your YEC theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Because of **hecd 2’s **inability to refrain from ridicule, sarcasm and msleading remarks I had already resolved not to address his posts. However his latest requires a response.

Why is it, Peter, that you resolve to not reply to scientists when discussing your “science”?

But where is the empirical evidence? The fact that some of the items can be used as an argument against rapid strata formation is far from justifying the hostile accusations inferring that the experiments are invalid.

Strawman. Neither I nor Alec have argued that the experiments are invalid. In fact, we have gone out of our way to state that the experiments are perfectly valid. It is your interpretation of the experiments that is laughable.

This, despite the fact they have been published by Academies of Science and reviewed by professional sedimentologists. Such credentials our geologists dismiss because when all else fails they know they can rely on their most effective weapon; the Straw Man.

What professional sedimentologist has publically embraced your conclusions?

Peace

Tim

 

[itinerant1]

It’s not a scientific statement. It’s a logical statement. Science is inductive, going from evidence to conclusion. Logical certainty is not possible with such a process. It is always open to more evidence.

The natural sciences are pre-eminently inductive, however to show that your all-inclusive or universal statment, ie, “Nothing in science is provable”, is valid, you have to show that everything in science is inductive, according to your understanding of “inductive”. “Everything” includes scientic theory such as evolution, laws of physics, etc. to the most trivial scientific statement. Just address things in major categories, ie. theories, trivial staements, etc.

Provided you can tentatively show the validity of your statement, then to show that it is not only valid, but true as well, you must consider further what “induction” is. If one examines innumerable cows representing numerous varieties, then a descriptive definition of what it means to be a cow is arrived at. One need not examine every cow that ever lived or will live to know a cow when he sees one. If a beast does not have the essential descriptive attributes of cow, then it is not a cow.

One can take this analysis a step beyond the desciptive definition of individual things, whether it is a mineral, rock, plant, animal, etc. and consider those few cases where definitions are achieved that are more than descriptive. For example, the definition of man as “rational animal” is an essential definition. The essence or nature of man is incorporated in the definition. From definitions that express the very essence or quiddity of a thing, then there is absolutely no need to consider the alleged or real limitations of the inductive method. Essential attributes do not admit of more or less. A thing is not more or less animal in such a way that some degree could make it not “animal” when “animal” is one of the things essential attributes. Likewise, a thing is not more or less rational as if in degree its rationality could possibly make it non-rational. Rational is an essential attribute. Essential attributes, (as I am using the term; in a specified sense, and not in the descriptive sense as the natural sciences might use it) are an all or none possession.

Either man is rational or he is not. Either man is animal or he is not. Hence, one need not analyze every being to know what a man is. Either a thing meets the definition or it does not. The real problem for evolution, when “man” is properly understood, is determing what kind of thing the fossil records reveal. It is a man, or is it not. Of course, some, but certainly not all, evolutionists work with an unacceptable definition of “man” or of “rational animal”, which is the issue I began with many posts ago.

Yet, in a broader perspective, man achieves the essential definitions of many things. The mathematical sciences, for example, provide essential definitions of geometric figures. When one knows the definition of circle, then he need not examine every circle to know for certain what a circle is or that this particlar figure is a circle. His knowledge is certain. If a geometric figure does not meet the definition of circle, then certainty is achieved when judging it not to be a circle. It may be a triangle, or rectangle, or some other geometric figure, but person a any who understands the definition of “circle” need not be concerned that his judgement could possibly be in error, as if further and interminable investigation could throw the matter into doubt.

From an even broader and epistemological perspective regarding induction, everything in science is not inductive. But, to assert that inductive reasoning implies uncertainty in every scientific matter is tantamount to skepticism, since the attainment of knowledge is viewed as having no term at which one can say he has achieved knowledge or truth. The science of logic must consider such to be a narrow and inaccurate understanding of “induction”. And the philosophia perennis considers your position to be based on, or at least imply, an underlying false epistemological assumption.

 

[itinerant1]

Popper thought that evolution, like all science was falsible in principle, and therefore scientific. His statements have been edited by creationists to make it seem so.

Discussing Popper would take me too far afield from my main issue pertaining to the implications of the belief than man’s difference is a difference in degree (Darwin), or a difference in kind that is superficial (contemporary darwinism).

Popper’s analysis is pertinent only to those who accept his method. You might want to consider K.K. Lee’s application of his method in regard to a correct interpretation of Popper. Look for “Popper’s Falsifiability and Darwin’s Natural Selection,” Philosophy 44, 1969, pages 291-302.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Popper thought that evolution, like all science was falsible in principle, and therefore scientific. His statements have been edited by creationists to make it seem so.

Popper’s own words:
**Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.**
Karl Popper 1980 Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611

Discussing Popper would take me too far afield from my main issue

So you brought him into the discussion, because…? Did you think I wouldn’t know what he actually wrote?

 

[The_Barbarian]

The natural sciences are pre-eminently inductive,

That’s what I told you. You’re about a post and a half behind.

however to show that your all-inclusive or universal statment, ie, “Nothing in science is provable”, is valid, you have to show that everything in science is inductive,

No. There are things that are not provable, that are also not inductive. I’m sure, if you thought about it, you’d think of some.

Either man is rational or he is not.

Or man is sometimes rational and sometimes not. If you want to do philosophy, you need to be more rigorous in your thinking.

Yet, in a broader perspective, man achieves the essential definitions of many things. The mathematical sciences, for example, provide essential definitions of geometric figures.

Normally, mathematics is not considered a science, but rather a discipline of its own. Unlike science, mathematics can have logical certainty, because mathematicians set the rules.

If you assume mathematics is science, then you’d also have to note an exception to the rule that science can’t have logical certainty. But then, you’d have to make a lot of assumptions to cover all the differences between mathematics and science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Recently-diverged species should still be partially interfertile…

Surely you don’t mean that they are some sort of “transitional” species?

 

[itinerant1]

No need to get angry. You have made repeated errors about what Darwin actually said in The Descent of Man, (you, for example, didn’t realize that he explained that many of the ideas in the book were speculative, to be later determined). Makes it difficult to take your critique seriously.

It is difficult to understand how one can honestly think that the main issues I have presented are considered speculative by Darwin. For example, regarding Darwin’s assertion that man’s mind differs in degree only from higher animals is something maintained by Darwin as a certainty. This he says in many places. I have even quoted his own words from the “Descent”, in more than one post with the attending reference. So, everybody, let’s look again at what the evidence actually shows:

“Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

[emphasis added. This quote is from chapter IV, and comprises part of Darwin’s summary statement of the previous two chapters.]

By any English use of “certainly”, Darwin is not asserting this as a tentative or speculative conclusion, but as one that is “certain”.

Darwin’s certainty about his conclusion is directly related to the necessary implications of his view that the moral sense of man is a product of evolution, which is my second main issue.

That one has a convoluted history. It turns out you’ve copied an allegation about Julian Huxley by creationists. But the funny part is, that is false, too, depending on a rewriting of a statement by Thomas Huxley, which had nothing to do with sexual ethics.
edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html

Word to the wise: if you copy things from creationists, be sure you check them thoroughly.

The only thing that is funny here is that my source for this is not creationist. It is from a non-Darwinian evolutionist, combined with my own reading of Huxley.

Oh, the irony of it all!