Just had a sudden thought...

[jbarcher]

Hi

I was thinking about modus tollenus the other day. *pause* Bear with me while I give a short explanation so you aren't lost right away (though I will give some more examples if you are still lost). Modus tollenus (hereon in, MT) is a rule in logic. It can be formally stated in this fashion (where P and Q represent sentences):

1. P -> Q (if P then Q)
2. ¬Q (not Q)
3. ¬P (therefore, not P)

(If P then Q, and not Q, we may validly conclude that "not P". And yes, a lot of qualifying needs to be done...the phrase "Q only if P" is key here. For example, Jack can run a few laps around the field only if he has finished his design concepts for his clients.

But if Jack hasn't finished his design concepts, he can't go for a run. Aww.

How does this relate, well, let me first apply this to an apologetics situation.

1. Person A gives an argument which is accepted. (Say, the argument concludes that self-consciousness is required to be a human person.)
2. Person B points out that the argument also justfies something else, which is unacceptable. (Say, he points out that infants aren't self-conscious, and so, they would be declared non-persons under that standard.)
3. Person A and B reject the original argument due to (2). (Because infants are clearly human, the argument of self-consciousness is rejected.)

So...while you are keeping in mind that I am a newcomer to the debate of views of origins and development of life and cheese and etc, it seems to me that one argument against evo. threatens also the resurrection (not to mention YEC!!), and by MT we reject the argument. (Though it is often rejected on other grounds...)

The argument is like this, in simple terms:

1. Science deals with observable, testable facts.
2. Evolution is not observable.
3. Therefore evolution is wrong.

And now I need to run, so you can make the inferences yourself.

 

[Bushido216]

The premise 2 is false.

 

[ab1385]

Firstly, yes, premise 2 is false. Evolution is observable.

Secondly, the resurrection is completely different. If we wanted to say that resurrections generally happen, then we should be able to prove it, but it is precisely because ressurections are scientifically impossible that it is miraculous that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[jbarcher]

I'll finish the OP when I have more time.

But I am only speaking about the logic here.

 

[gluadys]

I'll finish the OP when I have more time.

But I am only speaking about the logic here.

OK. But remember not to build on a false premise, like premise 2 above. The process of evolution is observable and has been observed.

 

[Vance]

Also, in a recent lecture series I was listening to, the professor was pointing out that testable is not always the repeating of a process in a laboratory. Some things simply can't be tested in that way. Astronomers know a great deal about the universe and its processes, and have been able to come to very firm and sound conclusions without being able to actually test those processes in a laboratory. There are other ways of confirming the validity of a hypothesis other than simply repeating things in a lab. Just as with interstellar processes, we can observe the evidence of things that happened very long ago and make predictions about what we should also find if our hypothesis is true. If that prediction ends up being correct, then you have some confirmation, even without a repeated process.

So, in addition to actually being able to observe evolution in action, we can also confirm its past action as well.