What presuppositions?

[Mocca]

Creation: 'where's the proof?'

In the above article from AiG, they claim that everyone has presuppositions, and therefore it is justified to presuppose the Bible's validity.

I'd like to ask the Creationists... or rather, anyone, what are the presuppositions of evolutionists?

 

[truth above all else]

Creation: 'where's the proof?'

In the above article from AiG, they claim that everyone has presuppositions, and therefore it is justified to presuppose the Bible's validity.

I'd like to ask the Creationists... or rather, anyone, what are the presuppositions of evolutionists?

dear Lord where does one begin

 

[TheInstant]

dear Lord where does one begin

Wow, I guess that means there's a lot. Perhaps you could begin by providing one of them?

 

[Silent Bob]

The most important presuppositions are methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Then you have certain criteria that scientific theories must satisfy, such as empirical verification, falsifiability, parsimony etc.

 

[Mocca]

dear Lord where does one begin

Try stating one instead of saying "there's a ton."

 

[Mocca]

The most important presuppositions are methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Then you have certain criteria that scientific theories must satisfy, such as empirical verification, falsifiability, parsimony etc.

Methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism are not actually presuppositions, though. They're required to do scientific research but not all scientists presuppose them.

 

[Silent Bob]

They're required to do scientific research but not all scientists presuppose them.

How do you mean?

 

[Mocca]

There are Christian scientists, too. They believe in the presence of a supernatural God.

Edit: grammar

 

[truth above all else]

Wow, I guess that means there's a lot. Perhaps you could begin by providing one of them?

evolutionary thinking was founded on a priori assumptions aimed at giving natural causes (not Divine) to all physical phenomena and progress
Philosophical commitment to naturalism formed the womb out of which came the TOE first proposed by Erasmus Darwin long before there was any scientific proof for it

 

[Silent Bob]

Oh yeah certainly but I am refering to methodological naturalism not ontological. Just because a Christian scientist cannot say that an infection is caused by God it doesn't mean that he cannot believe in miracles.

A link for clarification: Wiki

 

[Mocca]

evolutionary thinking was founded on a priori assumptions aimed at giving natural causes (not Divine) to all physical phenomena and progress
Philosophical commitment to naturalism formed the womb out of which came the TOE first proposed by Erasmus Darwin long before there was any scientific proof for it

Okay, first, I request you use proper grammar so that we can understand you better.

Second, evolutionary thinking was not founded on a priori assumptions of ontological naturalism. Darwin was attempting to find evidence supporting the Bible when he went aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. Research led him to the Theory of Descent with Modification.

 

[Mocca]

I realize that. That's why I believe it isn't a presupposition...

Unless you mean that it's a presupposition that it must be used in science.

 

[TheInstant]

evolutionary thinking was founded on a priori assumptions aimed at giving natural causes (not Divine) to all physical phenomena and progress
Philosophical commitment to naturalism formed the womb out of which came the TOE first proposed by Erasmus Darwin long before there was any scientific proof for it

If you consider finding natural causes to physical phenomena a presupposition, then it is one that all of science employs, not just the theory of evolution.

 

[truth above all else]

Second, evolutionary thinking was not founded on a priori assumptions of ontological naturalism. Darwin was attempting to find evidence supporting the Bible when he went aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. Research led him to the Theory of Descent with Modification.

poppycock , as a naturalist Darwin was committed to naturalism, descent with modification (up from the beasts) was the exact inverse of scripture (fall from paradise)

 

[Silent Bob]

Well it is an assumption that is necessary for science but it is an assumption nonetheless. The alternative is the dark ages and pseudoscience (which is what ID and creationsim is after all) but philosophically one can say that they are valid alternatives.

You cannot prove that there is no FSM or invisible pink unicorns so philosophically even the most stupid arguments can actually stand. Which is exactly why the scientific method is so important. The idea that mental disease is caused by demons or thetans philosophically may be as valid as psychology. BUT psychology wields consistent results when exorcism and scientology do not. Therefore either those thetans or demons are cast away by drugs or they do not exist and this is where Occam comes along slicing and dicing. But parsimony is another assumption. A necessary and valid one, but an assumption.

 

[Mocca]

poppycock , as a naturalist Darwin was committed to naturalism, descent with modification (up from the beasts) was the exact inverse of scripture (fall from paradise)

In the 1800s, the term "naturalist" meant anyone who studied nature.

Indeed, Darwin was originally trying to find evidence for the Bible, but instead found evidence for the "descent with modification," as he called it.

 

[Mocca]

Well it is an assumption that is necessary for science but it is an assumption nonetheless. The alternative is the dark ages and pseudoscience (which is what ID and creationsim is after all) but philosophically one can say that they are valid alternatives.

You cannot prove that there is no FSM or invisible pink unicorns so philosophically even the most stupid arguments can actually stand. Which is exactly why the scientific method is so important. The idea that mental disease is caused by demons or thetans philosophically may be as valid as psychology. BUT psychology wields consistent results when exorcism and scientology do not. Therefore either those thetans or demons are cast away by drugs or they do not exist and this is where Occam comes along slicing and dicing. But parsimony is another assumption. A necessary and valid one, but an assumption.

I agree with all of it except for the part about how you say it is an assumption that it is neccessary for science. Without it, FSM is just as viable as evolution.

 

[Silent Bob]

poppycock , as a naturalist Darwin was committed to naturalism, descent with modification (up from the beasts) was the exact inverse of scripture (fall from paradise)

Taken from wikipedia:

When Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) completed his studies of theology at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1831 he read Paley's Natural Theology. He afterwards believed the work gave rational proof of the Existence of God. This was because living beings showed complexity and were exquisitely fitted to their places in a happy world. Later, after years of study and observation, he changed his opinion. Darwin concluded that species had changed over generations during very long periods. He believed this was mainly through natural selection. He wrote, "It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified".

Darwin started out as an IDist. Then reality hit him.

 

[truth above all else]

If you consider finding natural causes to physical phenomena a presupposition, then it is one that all of science employs, not just the theory of evolution.

absolutely although there is a subtle difference, evolutionary philosophy demands that natural causes must be found because it has no Christian foundation

 

[Mocca]

absolutely although there is a subtle difference, evolutionary philosophy demands that natural causes must be found because it has no Christian foundation

All of science requires natural causes, not just evolution.