Response to Mere Theistic Evolution

What I am “interested” in is an answer to my actual question:

You have given me no reason whatsoever to believe that an overview of “the entire field of philosophy of science for 70 years” or The Copernican Revolution by Thomas Kuhn will answer that question.

Did Kuhn believe that science is less “meant to be true in any sense at all” than other fields of human knowledge, and explain why in his book? If not, then his book would appear to be irrelevant to my question.

I am left with the impression that scientific anti-realism, at least as articulated by yourself, is indeed “nothing but a vacuous claim”, as I suggested above. You have failed utterly to either present any argument for it or any counter-argument against what you labelled “the miracle argument” against it.

Addendum: this goes back to when you first raised this issue:

This argument would seem to only work (if poorly) if you look at science in isolation from the rest of human knowledge. If we look at the big picture, we are forced to ask why we cannot generalise this claim to all human knowledge:

But you are still treating [human knowledge] as propositions which must be either true or false. You just accept that we lack certainty they are true. [General] Instrumentalism says that [human knowledge] are not propositions at all, and therefore they cannot be true or false. They are tools. Tools aren’t true or false, and they are not propositions. They either work or they don’t work. They are good towards their intended purpose or they aren’t. They aren’t true or false.

As “the entire field of philosophy of science for 70 years” focuses only on science, it is inadequate in scope to address this issue. Until this issue is addressed, it would seem that scientific anti-realism is, as I have stated before, based upon a Special Pleading fallacy, and is thus prima facie fallacious.

3 Likes

Touche! :slight_smile:

Well yes, the Demarcation Problem again, but that’s nothing new. What sort of compatibility are you expecting? What would be required for you to accept these are compatible? (Questions intended rhetorically)

Helpful, thank you!

Are you lumping Genesis and NDE into one thing? TE’s generally believe that God created life in the first place, and some form of guided evolution proceeded from there. … OTOH if you believe that humans are specially Created I see how that might be an issue for you.

I can give you mathematical definition of randomness, but “acceptance” versus “belief” might be a little harder to pin down. :wink:
I wrote:

TEs accept evolution, YEC do not , that is what seems to be the real issue, not randomness.

I meant that TEs accept that evolution is something that happened and continues to happens. YECs also accept that evolution happens at least at the level of allele frequency, so there are degrees or levels of acceptance. For TEs this acceptance is not a hinderance to belief in God.

Some years back a YEC told me he would abandon his beliefs entirely if evolution were proven true, but I don’t think that is representative. IMO this man was wrong; he should never abandon his beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, because that implies his faith was built on scientific evidence ITFP.
My expectation is that YECs who value their faith (find it meaningful in it’s own right) will continue to believe despite any evidence for evolution. That’s pretty close to what we see - YEC continue to hold their faith despite all evidence. The problem as I see it, is that YEC feel the need to defend their faith against science, rather than accepting faith as faith, and letting science do it’s own thing.

So back to the question - yes, I am making a distinction between “acceptance” and “belief” in this context. For TEs evolution is not relevant to their belief (Demarcation). Creation still happened one way or another, and is in accord with God’s will. TE and YEC both believe that God Created, the rest is details.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.