Sure. I’ll collect some examples and post them here soon.
For clarity, advocating science as though it is the only reliable means of knowledge is not necessarily to be committed to the idea that it is the only reliable means of knowledge.
For example, there isn’t a single scientist who lives as though science is the only reliable means of knowledge, and I doubt there is a single one who doesn’t take stock of his measurement error in his own research.
What a scientist, or science communicator does when it comes to telling the public about science is another matter - and the crux of my point here.
It’s on this second point that I’m confident many people in this forum would qualify, perhaps including yourself @Mercer?
How reliable do you think methods of knowledge apart from the science method are? How much better do you think the scientific method is compared to any other methods of acquiring knowledge?
That I continue to test it, just as I showed Eddie above.
How would anyone have figured out horizontal gene transfer if common descent was not provisional?
I find that hard to believe, Thomas. Our goal as scientists is to overturn dogma, not confirm it. It should be your goal if you are going to be a scientist.
We tell them yes. We explain the huge amount of positive evidence we have for common descent and ask them if they have any scientific evidence to cast doubt on the conclusion. They either cough up the usual YEC science-free PRATTS or slink away.
The difference here is that the YEC is looking for truth (certain truth), while the scientist is a pragmatist looking for the best explanation given the available evidence. The YEC seems unable to understand that distinction.
He says he has theological reasons which raise doubts about whether common descent is true of the world.
He asks “If the scientific evidence for common descent is provisional and could be overturned, why should I trust what it says now over what my theology says?”
Because could be overturned doesn’t mean will be overturned. We stick with the science we know works until and unless something better comes along. Sane intelligent people do anyway.
It’s the only reliable method we know for gathering knowledge about the physical world. If you have a better one, please present it then go collect your Nobel Prize.
You have a nasty habit of chopping off people’s quotes to give a false impression. It’s called quote mining and is generally considered a form of lying.
Here is my entire quote. The important part you cut out is bolded.
Quoting the rest doesn’t actually nullify my point, though.
Even still, you have not just advocated science as though it is the only reliable means of knowledge, you have stated it is the only reliable method about the physical world.
When presented with a tension between two means of knowledge, you presupposed that science is the only reliable one. This takes a step further than my saying that many people simply advocate as though it is the only reliable means.
Many people who fall into this category only think that the physical world exists. I myself don’t think there is a physical/supernatural distinction.
Like I said, if you have a better method for gathering knowledge of the physical world, please present it. One that produces more reliable results, more details, makes better predictions.
Talk is cheap Thomas. That’s why ID-Creationism is held in such low regard, because all IDCers do is talk.
