From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:24:47 EDT
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> It appears now that your real argument is more aesthetic and philosophical
> than logicical
I have always candidly acknowledged my use of aesthetic values in judging
the merit of theories, both scientific and theological. At the same time,
and not in competition with aesthetic considerations, the value of logical
consistency must be maintained. I do not condone or encourage illogical
theorizing, but neither do I consider logical consistency alone to be
sufficient
>>One could, with the logical consistency that you proclaim so valuable ...
>
> Hehe - are you suggesting an alternative to logical consistency?
Not at all. What I am saying is that merely pointing out that theory T is
logically consistent with observation O is not by itself very strong
support for theory T. Perhaps "necessary but not sufficient" is the best way
to put it.
>>But, of course, your #2 appeals only to a lack of evidence. You could craft
>>a book full of loony hypotheses and declare that none of them were
>>contradicted by #2. Not a big victory there for ID.
>
> This seems to be a continuation of my discussion with George. Somehow,
> people have lost sight of the fact that science is based on evidence. In
> science, *lack of evidence* is generally considered to be a BIG problem.
> Evidence is the essence of Science. How is it that people are so will to
> minimize the utterly overwhelming and complete lack of evidence for
> naturalistic biogenesis?
A reminder from the philosophy of science: Whether or not some particular
observation is "evidence" for or against theory T depends, of course, on the
nature of theory T and its accompanying presuppositions. Two examples:
1) In the context of any metaphysical system that rejects supernatural
(coercive) divine intervention, the observation that the earth went from
being without life to being with life is evidence for non-supernatural
biogenesis. What is missing is a causally specific scientific explanation
for the process.
2) On the other hand, in the context of a theological commitment that
rejects the possibility of non-supernatural biogenesis, the observation that
the earth went from being without life to being with life is evidence for
supernatural form-conferring intervention. What is missing once again is a
causally specific explanation for the process.
> Yes, we know that
> biogenesis happened at least once in the past, but we do not have any
> reason, outside of presuppositions like the RFEP, to believe it is a natural
> phenomenon.
Nor do we have any reason, outside of theological presuppositions that
entail episodic creationism, to believe that it is a supernatural
phenomenon.
> It seems clear that current scientific observations support my conclusion.
Not at all. The most you can say is that the state of empirical observation
relevant to natural biogenesis is inconclusive. It does not support your
"conclusion" (actually your presupposition that the formational economy of
the universe is inadequate to make natural biogenesis possible) any more
than it supports my RFEP thesis.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:26:37 EDT