Of Baramins and Baloney 15

Mark,
About your plea for evidence: When I give you evidence, your response is, “You haven’t given me any evidence.” When I present an argument, which includes something I consider to be evidence, followed by the statement, “This IS evidence,” it seems to me a disconnect for you to reply, “Show me the evidence.” I would think a more logical response would be, “This is not evidence because ___________.”
So perhaps we need to come to some common understanding for what evidence is before we can proceed. To me evidence is data logically connected to a proposition or hypothesis. Without that connection, the term has no meaning. I’m guessing that’s the problem. Several iterations back I made the assertion that an hypothesis is only an hypothesis if it predicts a certain outcome based on a model or theory. No model => no hypothesis. I didn’t get any objection; perhaps I was rash in assuming agreement. What is an hypothesis seeking but evidence? If there is no model, there can be no hypothesis; if there is no hypothesis, there is no evidence. There are only data. It is impossible for you to see evidence if you reject the possibility of the model. We will never get anywhere if you will not allow yourself to honestly ask the question, “Is it possible for a Designer to leave material evidence of its existence?” You don’t have to believe it to ask the question, but you do have to be open to being convinced by evidence in order to even see evidence.
It’s like your statement that “creationist/ID proponents” are not scientists. A professor of mathematics is not a scientist? A microbiologist is not a scientist? A highly published astronomer is not a scientist? Upon what are you basing your definition of “scientist” except belief system? Likewise, if you are not going to accept my logic that science and the existence of God must be based on the same reality, then present an argument for why they are not. Don’t just say they are not. You can’t defend your belief system if you have never viewed your belief system from the outside.
Every culture has taboos, and that includes today’s orthodox science. Taboos are simply non-touchable topics. Every mainstream scientist does not have an aversion to religion or the possibility of God, but they have all bought into the taboo that no questions can be asked that will honestly consider evidence about the subject. They just don’t have a clue where the taboo comes from or even that they have one. After all they can’t ask questions about it. Whatever is taboo is not rationally considered; it’s just “WRONG.” I think you should re-read that quote by Mill.
Don Mc

This entry was posted on January 22, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.