ant wrote: which means our theories can not have deductive certainty..,

which means our theories do not give us universal, necessary, and certain knowledge about Reality.

Congratulations, you've defeated another strawman.

Here's Stephen J. Gould on evolution as fact and theory:

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Do you disagree?

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth

Never said they did.

Just laying out explanatory limitations!

And of course, right on schedule, I get this fanatical religious-like, visceral reaction whenever The Golden Calf (AKA "Darwinian Evolution) is not worshiped or granted the omniscient explanatory power certain atheists implicitly bestow upon it.

What I said, broadly speaking, about our method of reasoning is (T)rue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

ant wrote:

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth

Never said they did.

Just laying out explanatory limitations!

And of course, right on schedule, I get this fanatical religious-like, visceral reaction whenever The Golden Calf (AKA "Darwinian Evolution) is not worshiped or granted the omniscient explanatory power certain atheists implicitly bestow upon it.

What I said, broadly speaking, about our method of reasoning is (T)rue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Great, like I said, you defeated the strawman. Where's the "fanatical religious-like, visceral reaction"?

Do you disagree with the Gould quote or not? Or is your position somewhere in the archives.

I wasn't attacking anything or anyone, Dexter.
Relax.

I was simply pointing out limits to our theories.

freaking DUH..

Take a chill-pill. No one tried to assault Darwin.
He's dead.

No crime has been committed.
No need to call the Epistemic Cops on this one.

Relax.
Calm down.

ant wrote:
Relax.
Calm down.

One of us accused someone of a "fanatical religious-like, visceral reaction." The other one quoted Gould.

Maybe we can clear up some misunderstandings. So do you disagree with the Gould quote or not?

which means we run smack into" the problem of induction"..,

which means our theories can not have deductive certainty..,

which means our theories do not give us universal, necessary, and certain knowledge about Reality.

All of the above is correct. All synthetic knowledge is provisional. On the spectrum of certainty, nothing reaches the far end but for analytic propositions, those things which are true by definition.

Knowledge is justified true belief, but that does not require certainty. We know evolution is true, but we say this without certainty.

Thanks for reminding us.

When it comes to eye evolution,complex eyes appear early and suddenly in the record.

Part of the knowledge base of evolution(what is justified and true), is that evolution is sometimes gradual and slow, and other times explosive and fast. 100 million years for the development of the eye is "sudden"? Says who? Who is Sternberg or anyone else to say how much time is "not enough" for a mechanism as complex as evolution? We don't know how much is too much or not enough, at the same time we do know that it happened. One does not premise upon the other, so attempts by Sternberg to falsify one by attempting to refute the other is technically flawed methodology.

It seems proper method is only recognised selectively.

You took the words from my lips.

All of the above is correct. All synthetic knowledge is provisional. On the spectrum of certainty, nothing reaches the far end but for analytic propositions, those things which are true by definition.

Knowledge is justified true belief, but that does not require certainty. We know evolution is true, but we say this without certainty.

Thanks for reminding us

Thanks, teacher

You forgot to grade me on this:


which means science must live with a logical fallacy inherent within its method of reasoning:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

I guess everything is just fine with the theory.
I'm not sure you have 100 million years. These Cambrian creatures appear in bursts. It might help if a couple of evolving eyes were found there. It can be fast when required or slow. Population geneticists work on putting numbers on these things.Is it falsifiable?

Is it falsifiable?

Is the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth falsifiable? Yes. Is evolution falsifiable? Yes.

which means science must live with a logical fallacy inherent within its method of reasoning:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

I didn't include it, but it's the same. Yes, this limitation is universal to the acquisition of knowledge, scientific or otherwise. This is why science is provisional, it cannot rest on "proving a theory true", but instead must rely on modus tollens, proving hypotheses false, and sticking with what remains until a better one comes along.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

We can say evolution is true. We cannot say evolution is certainly true, that would be fallacious.

Flann wrote:It can be fast when required or slow.

It is sometimes fast and sometimes slow. Who says when it should be required? I don't understand your point.

Flann 5 wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:How is this relevant to evolution? If the demiurge is the maker of delusional culture, as the source of evil in the world, then the God of the Old Testament, the imagined Creator of the World in Seven Days, is actually the Demiurge, and creationists worship the Demiurge in place of the real creator of the universe, who is revealed by the study of modern physical science.

Hi Robert, I appreciate that you have read a good deal on Gnosticism. I was wondering though, just who or what is this real creator of the universe revealed by the study of modern physical science?
You might enlighten us deluded worshipers of the Demiurge, on this important issue.

Flann, there is a well known religious error known as 'anthropomorphism', whereby believers describe a physical phenomenon such as the ocean or sky in terms of a human-like agent. Anthropomorphism is a basic mistake, a way of taking a simplified symbol (such as Jupiter or Neptune as Gods for sky and sea) and imagining that these Gods are real intentional personal beings who make decisions about the weather.

The big question of the creation of the universe is the same. Abrahamic religions imagine an intentional personal deity, when all the scientific evidence indicates that the universe came into being as a result of impersonal natural forces.

So your question "who is the real creator revealed by physics?" involves a basic category mistake. Natural creation is the result of material evolution, not the deliberate design of a being. To understand what created the world, study the evidence of science, and don't add imaginary unnecessary beings to what science can see.